Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Protest Warrior |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | NBGPWS |
Mediator(s) | Xyrael |
Comment | Mediation wasn't working particularly well and the article is progressing at a reasonable pace so I'm closing this mediation. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Protest Warrior]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Protest Warrior]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Note to Rogue 9:
In case you missed it, I specifically singled you out for praise, and I have few, if any, problems with the actions and impartiality of you or Lawyer2b. (now that his status as a PW is out in the open ;-)
"Rogue 9, I read every word in the archives, and I commend you for your efforts here. You may be biased (both sides who feel strongly about PW display some bias) but you have, on repeated occasions, urged anon and non-anon pro PW posters, many of whom were called here by posts on PW and FR to vote on the AFD and subsequently made major changes, to show restraint, and work towards a balanced article. I salute you sir! NBGPWS Aug 27"
NBGPWS 19:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Lawyer2b 17:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS came to Wikipedia to disrupt the Protest Warrior article. One of his first edits was to put a Nazi slogan as an "example of PW's signs." He realized he'd get banned quick doing that, so he's trying to undermine the article any way he can. He continually adds material that has been shown to violate WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. He continually violates the no personal attacks rule and WP:AGF. His latest trick is to add "notable" threads from PW's forum - specifically, threads which make PW look bad - he's added 2 - one called "beat up a liberal day" which was by a troll on the forum and has a very small number of replies (5 pages on a forum where a controversial/interesting topic can get 10 in a few hours), most of which were critical of the Original Poster, and a thread asking if "PW is dead?" He has no interest of making an objective analysis of Protest Warrior, and continues to violate WP:NPOV in the process of making the article conform to his idea of what PW is. His name stands for "NeoCons Be Gone Protest Warrior Sucks." He also continually marks his edits as "minor edits" when they add or delete entire sections... simply to try and slide them under the radar. It's really just getting old at this point. He's been warned for blatant vandalism, multiple times for personal attacks, once for assume good faith, and blocked for the 3RR. The page was also completely protected from editing for at least a week due to his flooding of the article with "minor" edits that radically changed the article. Since then, he has refused to engage in constructive dialogue with us, instead resorting to personal attacks. How many passes does he get? -- Neverborn 07:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Xyrael - is there a reason I didn't get nifty questions? :-/ -- Neverborn 17:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The talk page of the article in question seems to be dominated by two individuals, NBGPWS & Ruthfulbarbarity. The back-and-forth between them does not seem to be getting the article anywhere. May I suggest that both back away from this topic for a few days, go work on some other articles, and then come back with a clear head? The current edit-wars, threats, accusations, etc are simply unacceptable and it would be better for Wikipedia if neither of you contributed rather than contributing garbage like that. Vpoko 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I was blocked for 2 days, and no progess was made
NBGPWS 06:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As another admin wrote:
I have looked around at their site, and what little else I know is what I have gleaned from the heated debate on this talk page. In light of the recent efforts of some users, it appears to me, at least, that an effort is being made, in the light of some controversies that have surfaced, to sweep dirt under the rug regarding actions that some people have found questionable surrounding this community. This is being done under the claims, apparently, that NPOV allows no place for criticism (unquestionably false, especially when the topic of an article is a controversial organization) and the guidelines for biographies.The second one is far more concerning to be, particularly in that it appears that the effort appears to be one with the intention of gaming the system and bending rules to cover what they normally would not, in an effort to make the subject of the article look more or less controversial than it is. To do this in either of the directions that apparently interested editors would have is a disservice to the readership of Wikipedia. As (if I recall correctly) I have said above, I would fully support the involvement of a mediation entity such as the Mediation Cabal to help exclude interests from influencing the neutrality of this page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please hurry.
Things are getting worse.
Thanks
NBGPWS 06:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops - sorry if I didn't format that correctly. Any admin is free to make needed changes.
NBGPWS 06:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I, too, would support a mediation. For the 48 hours in which NBGPWS was blocked, the PW Talk page was peaceful. We all discussed things rationally and civilly, and got actual work done towards making the article a better article. As soon as he was back, the trolling template had to be re-added, and one of his first posts in the page violated WP:AGF and he demanded that a user not edit the article because he was a member of PW. At this point, I don't even know if mediation would work at this point, because NBGPWS has shown no indication he will abide by consensus anyway. -- Neverborn 06:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Please weigh in on these issues too. I think a non interested admin might have VERY different interpetations of WP.
NBGPWS 06:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is just one example - the latest - to illustrate what's going on.
(you will have to refer to the talk page and the edits themselves for proof)
I contend that the several pro-PW editors are actively 'gaming the system' using Wikilawyering, violations and misinterpretations of WP, extensively and consistently to exclude valuable and notable information that they consider unfavorable to PW.
EXAMPLE ONE
I added the PW website stats, which document that PW's 'popularity' on the Web is 'continually and steadily declining'. I used those words. The stats prove that. Alexa itself uses the term 'popularity'. A pro-PW editor (L2B?) argued that 'continually and steadily' constituted POV. I conceded. No problem. He was right. (even though the stats proved my point) He then rewrote my wording taking out 'popularity' and using more obtuse wording about 'alexa toolbar clickers' (or similar) although Alexa itself says that their stats indicate the 'popularity' of any given site. I conceded again. No problem. I was willing to compromise. Alexa stats for PW
Tbeatty deleted the stats and Morton Devonshire unsuccessfully argued that Alexa stats were OR. Admin Kuzaar and editor Vpoko (a disinterested party regarding PW) countered him. Others weighed in that Alexa stats were, in no way, OR. Tbeatty (and Morton devonshire who doesn't even participate in discussion anymore) kept on deleting the stats, now claiming that I was 'cherrypicking' the data and extrapolating from it, by using 3 month figures.
The 3 month stats are the only stats that Alexa uses that show % changes. If you look at 3,6,12, or 24 month stats, the % change still uses current 3 month figures. That is not cherrypicking, Using one week or even one year figures would be cherry picking and extrapolating data, as Alexa only uses 3 month averages.
From Alexa:
"Since we feel that consistent traffic is a better indication of a site's value, we've chosen to use the three-month traffic rank to represent the site's overall popularity."
Ruthfulbarbarity argued that since I believe that Protest Warrior, as an organization, is not especially notable, then the stats can't be notable. These important stats have been deleted, once by Tbeatty without one word in the edit summary, over and over. Once after I objected to the deletion, Ruthfulbarbarity misstated the admin's position and claimed that the admin had deemed them OR and/or POV. Now they claim that since the stats change regularly that they can't be included. The article on Free Republic includes them, and it's no problem keeping them up-to-date. Again, I contend that the pro-PW editors (excluding Lawyer2b or Rogue 9) are actively 'gaming the system' using Wikilawyering, misinterpretations and violations of WP, extensively and consistently to exclude valuable and notable information that they consider unfavorable to PW. (to be continued)
NBGPWS 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the only edit I have done to the stats was here, when I removed the accompanying unsupported conclusion that the organization was declining in popularity and/or activity. I have also mentioned I think the stats’ notability is dubious and that most Wikipedia articles about organizations simply do not include such statistics. If the information meant the organization was undergoing a similar decline, which seemed your interpretation, I would agree on its notability. In this case, however, there is not non-original research to support such a conclusion and I would argue the same whether the article were about the ACLU, the United Nations, or ANSWER. When the notability of a primary-sourced fact like this is challenged, as a general rule, I think it is a good idea to find a secondary source that references it. This all being said, the inclusion of these statistics is simply not a major issue to me and you won’t find me editing them out should a consensus be reached to include them. However, other people may feel strongly enough that they are not notable, they detract from the article, and they don't want them included without it being a case of Wikipedia policy being applied unfairly. This is simply how consensus works. Lawyer2b 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
EXAMPLE TWO
I only have a cursory knowledge of, and a passing familiarity with WP but could tell intuitively, just using common sense, that the feeble attempt to get the ENTIRE ARTICLE classified as a biography of Alan and Kfir (by Tbeatty?) was improper WP and nothing more than a specious ploy to stifle criticism. It's hard if not impossible to AGF in light of the mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise.
NBGPWS 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Ruthfulbarbarity continues to obsessively-compulsively focus on and edit MY words on the mediation and discussion pages - content with no encyclopedic value - rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this GRAMMATICAL(added for RB) error been OBVIOUS for DAYS, and brought to his attention. "Very few major news organizations ' have ran ' (sic) stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."' Especially considering that, from what I can tell, I'm the only editor he does this to, I consider this an intentional provocation and an attempt to bait me. [27] [28]
NBGPWS 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Meritless ? LOL !
Maybe you can get L2B to explain it to you. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of you constantly correcting my spelling and grammar, but ingoring the grammatical error of the article using the incorrect and improper version of the Past Participle of the Verb 'run' - specifically ' HAVE RAN ' instead of the correct ' HAVE RUN ' .
Jeezus!
NBGPWS 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You only corrected MY spelling and grammar - and ignored the obvious error in the article noted above - and when you made an ERROR editing my spelling - as in you did when you mistakingly corrected 'né' to née - you refused to correct it back to the PROPER and CORRECT spelling when you were proved wrong. Your actions aren't fooling anybody.
NBGPWS 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You nead to AGF. I dint vandalize aneething. I corected ruthbars bad spilling. Jest like him, Im onlee tryeng to bee helpfull.
NBGPWS 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Doant forgette fooks, it waz ruthabraility nè wrathboone himselve who bragged wihle tonting me :
" I do not need your "permission" to make edits (to your text) that I deem proper and necessary. If you have a problem with them, then simply revert my changes."
NBGPWS 09:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Because anyone who examines how this problem started - with your incorrect and improper of edit of my word nè to nêe - followed by your refusal to edit it back to the proper and correct usage when asked - followed by more predatory edits to my text on non-encyclopedic talk pages after you were asked to stop can see who's at fault ?
The solution is simple. Don't edit my text on talk and discussion pages - and I won't edit yours.
Deal?
NBGPWS 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You are WRONG again, Ruthfulbarbarity. Discussion on talk pages is not Encyclopedic Content submitted for 'peer review'. Please stop. To take liberties with the monumentally memorable line of speech from 'The Planet of the Apes', spoken by the great actor and tireless defender of the 2nd amendment Charlton Heston - and offered only in good humour - again I suggest: "Keep your stinkin' paws off my text, you damned dirty ape !" I hope you are enjoying your Worker's Day, Ruthfulbarbarity! :-)
Basic rules for all talk pages
Sign your comments (see above)
Log in. (Read why here.)
Use coherent formatting.
Copy formatting from others.
Indent with colons (:), not with tabs.
Break up very large paragraphs.
Be civil at all times.
Don't make personal attacks
Don't SHOUT
Do not edit other user's comments.
NBGPWS 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Basic rules for all talk pages
Do not edit other user's comments.
Stop it ! NOW ! No more ! UNDERSTAND ? ! (I already have stopped correcting your spelling and grammar, now that I know its verboten)
NBGPWS 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Notice to Ruthfulbarbority
Regarding your improper and disallowed edits of my talk and discussion comments:
You told ME to 'look it up' and it would prove you right. Once again, after 'looking it up', I am right, and YOU have proven WRONG. Show me EXACTLY where you claim WP says you're allowed to edit my talk and discussion comments.
Basic rules for all talk pages
Do not edit other user's comments.
Until you document, with WP that overides the WP which I posted - proving that you are allowed to edit even one letter or period of my text on talk pages - you are hereby ordered not to edit my talk or discussion comments !
NBGPWS 04:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Your non-answer to my charges of skullduggery amounts to a concession that you were wrong, and that you agree to stop editing my comments. GOOD ! It's about time. I hope you learned your lesson !
NBGPWS 07:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Err.. isn't it spelled 'vandaliZing' not 'vandaliSing' ? Let me check ! Yup ! I'm right, and you're wrong ! AGAIN ! LOL ! Go ahead and edit it - WP prevents me from doing so. I think it's OK for you to edit your OWN misspellings! LMAO NBGPWS 08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult for me to mediate without a clear knowledge of what people want, so I asked the questions. However, it looks like I am going to have to try and glean what I can from what I have read. Firstly, I'm still not totally sure that this issue is appropriate for mediation because both of the two most heavily involved users have been repeatedly uncivil on numerous occasions. Looking at what you are all saying, it seems to me that a fresh start on discussions with a more civil attitude would solve all of the problems the article is having. I would like to propose that all parties agree to forget all they have discussed so far and withhold any grudges, and restart a discussion on the article's talk page for each seperate content issue with better attitudes. This is because I don't think there is really a dispute over content that can't be solved normally at all - it's merely a case of incivility ruining things. Does this seem like a reasonable idea? — Xyrael / 07:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What Ruthfulbarbarity contends in his two responses below is patently untrue, but I will not sink to his level and answer with matching personal attacks. I am getting along quite well with L2B and R9, even though we are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to our affections for Protest Warrior. I have also accomplished a great deal of constructive work on the article, and much of the current version is my doing. My only goal is to prevent from happening again, what has happened to this article repeatedly since day one:
"The current edit is sheer propaganda for the Protest Warrior group. Troll edits of the article by Protest Warrior members are abusing Wikipedia for extremist propaganda" Oct 10, 2004"
I will gladly withdraw from the article if Ruthfulbarbarity does, as long as another editor who opposes Islamophobic hate groups monitors this article and participates on a regular basis to prevent the Protest Warriors and their supporters from turning this article into a press release / recruiting ad for their organization, as has been their past history.
NBGPWS 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption.
NBGPWS 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption.
NBGPWS 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Good lord, you guys can't even get through a few minutes without accusations and silly warning templates flying around. If the ArbCom saw this, they'd probably ban you both from the article and that would be the end of it. I hope we don't need to take that step, but I don't see what else we can do at this point. Vpoko 17:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Untrue. Tbeatty even argued against the inclusion of a mostly complimentary article on 'Operation Liberty Rising'-fallaciously attempting to impugn the source. Tbeatty and Morton Devonshire repeatedly deleted Alexa stats, then tried to have them excluded as OR. Protest Warriors and/or supporters also improperly tried to have the whole article classified as a biography of Alan and Kfir in an effort to discourage criticism. That's all happened in the last few weeks. NBGPWS 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You have no idea about a great many things.
Like....
There's actually a template for warning users not to edit other user's comments. (just found it) The WP which you repeatedly broke. The WP which you were POSITIVE didn't exist.
I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks,
NBGPWS 03:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
After reading more about WP, and in light of the continuing personal attacks from Ruthfulbarbarity, and Neverborn, I am thinking that perhaps the whole Protest Warrior article SHOULD be turned over to ArbCom. While posting to Ruth's talk page, I read some old comments to him from admin Kuzaar (posted here)
Editing articles in which you have a personal interest is discouraged by guidelines, according to community consensus, not just me.
it appears that you have a personal interest or opinion on the subject (which is similarly cautioned against in some of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines), and second, that because of the first reason, it is very easy to slip into adding opinion and commentary to the article, which is a fairly serious risk.
There are 4 or 5 active Protest Warriors, several Protest Warrior defenders, and one person vehemently opposed to Protest Warrior (me) actively working on the article. Except in rare circumstances, we are the only people working on the article. ALL of us have strong personal interests / opinions. Perhaps the best solution would be to turn the whole article over to one or more politically neutral disinterested editors and let THEM edit it.
I believe this all the more in light of the continuing attacks upon me by Ruthfulbarbarity, Neverborn and others even though my contributions to the article itself in the last week or so have only been constructive and beneficial. (I do tend to spar a bit on the talk page - but better there than in the article)
Should Protest Warriors, their defenders, and those strongly opposed to Protest Warrior EVEN BE EDITING THIS ARTICLE?
(I couldn't find this info in WP. A link would be appreciated)
NBGPWS 06:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice VP ! NBGPWS 18:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, it is clear that discussions are not going anywhere. Therefore I propose that both editors step away from the article entirely and do not make any edits. If one breaks this, the other one can get back involved. Does this seem fair? As Vpoko has pointed out, you are just going round in circles, so please don't post anything more to this page if you agree with my suggestion and simply sign below. Thank you. — Xyrael / 08:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussions aren't going anywhere, but the article in progressing just fine, (due much in part to my tireless, fair and bipartisan efforts! + L2B & R9) I'll just ignore the insults and attempts to bait me by certain individuals. I would only agree to your suggestion if another liberal became actively involved in the editing and monitoring of the article on a daily basis. The article shouldn't be edited SOLELY by Protest Warriors and their supporters. If another liberal wants to take over my important 'watchdog' role, I'll agree in a heartbeat. I will however, withdraw my request for Mediation, if you advise that. After reading more about WP, it could be that it would have been more beneficial if I had asked for an RFC anyway. NBGPWS 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Protest Warrior |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | NBGPWS |
Mediator(s) | Xyrael |
Comment | Mediation wasn't working particularly well and the article is progressing at a reasonable pace so I'm closing this mediation. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases| Protest Warrior]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance| Protest Warrior]]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Note to Rogue 9:
In case you missed it, I specifically singled you out for praise, and I have few, if any, problems with the actions and impartiality of you or Lawyer2b. (now that his status as a PW is out in the open ;-)
"Rogue 9, I read every word in the archives, and I commend you for your efforts here. You may be biased (both sides who feel strongly about PW display some bias) but you have, on repeated occasions, urged anon and non-anon pro PW posters, many of whom were called here by posts on PW and FR to vote on the AFD and subsequently made major changes, to show restraint, and work towards a balanced article. I salute you sir! NBGPWS Aug 27"
NBGPWS 19:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Lawyer2b 17:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
NBGPWS came to Wikipedia to disrupt the Protest Warrior article. One of his first edits was to put a Nazi slogan as an "example of PW's signs." He realized he'd get banned quick doing that, so he's trying to undermine the article any way he can. He continually adds material that has been shown to violate WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. He continually violates the no personal attacks rule and WP:AGF. His latest trick is to add "notable" threads from PW's forum - specifically, threads which make PW look bad - he's added 2 - one called "beat up a liberal day" which was by a troll on the forum and has a very small number of replies (5 pages on a forum where a controversial/interesting topic can get 10 in a few hours), most of which were critical of the Original Poster, and a thread asking if "PW is dead?" He has no interest of making an objective analysis of Protest Warrior, and continues to violate WP:NPOV in the process of making the article conform to his idea of what PW is. His name stands for "NeoCons Be Gone Protest Warrior Sucks." He also continually marks his edits as "minor edits" when they add or delete entire sections... simply to try and slide them under the radar. It's really just getting old at this point. He's been warned for blatant vandalism, multiple times for personal attacks, once for assume good faith, and blocked for the 3RR. The page was also completely protected from editing for at least a week due to his flooding of the article with "minor" edits that radically changed the article. Since then, he has refused to engage in constructive dialogue with us, instead resorting to personal attacks. How many passes does he get? -- Neverborn 07:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Xyrael - is there a reason I didn't get nifty questions? :-/ -- Neverborn 17:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The talk page of the article in question seems to be dominated by two individuals, NBGPWS & Ruthfulbarbarity. The back-and-forth between them does not seem to be getting the article anywhere. May I suggest that both back away from this topic for a few days, go work on some other articles, and then come back with a clear head? The current edit-wars, threats, accusations, etc are simply unacceptable and it would be better for Wikipedia if neither of you contributed rather than contributing garbage like that. Vpoko 22:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I was blocked for 2 days, and no progess was made
NBGPWS 06:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As another admin wrote:
I have looked around at their site, and what little else I know is what I have gleaned from the heated debate on this talk page. In light of the recent efforts of some users, it appears to me, at least, that an effort is being made, in the light of some controversies that have surfaced, to sweep dirt under the rug regarding actions that some people have found questionable surrounding this community. This is being done under the claims, apparently, that NPOV allows no place for criticism (unquestionably false, especially when the topic of an article is a controversial organization) and the guidelines for biographies.The second one is far more concerning to be, particularly in that it appears that the effort appears to be one with the intention of gaming the system and bending rules to cover what they normally would not, in an effort to make the subject of the article look more or less controversial than it is. To do this in either of the directions that apparently interested editors would have is a disservice to the readership of Wikipedia. As (if I recall correctly) I have said above, I would fully support the involvement of a mediation entity such as the Mediation Cabal to help exclude interests from influencing the neutrality of this page. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Please hurry.
Things are getting worse.
Thanks
NBGPWS 06:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops - sorry if I didn't format that correctly. Any admin is free to make needed changes.
NBGPWS 06:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I, too, would support a mediation. For the 48 hours in which NBGPWS was blocked, the PW Talk page was peaceful. We all discussed things rationally and civilly, and got actual work done towards making the article a better article. As soon as he was back, the trolling template had to be re-added, and one of his first posts in the page violated WP:AGF and he demanded that a user not edit the article because he was a member of PW. At this point, I don't even know if mediation would work at this point, because NBGPWS has shown no indication he will abide by consensus anyway. -- Neverborn 06:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Please weigh in on these issues too. I think a non interested admin might have VERY different interpetations of WP.
NBGPWS 06:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is just one example - the latest - to illustrate what's going on.
(you will have to refer to the talk page and the edits themselves for proof)
I contend that the several pro-PW editors are actively 'gaming the system' using Wikilawyering, violations and misinterpretations of WP, extensively and consistently to exclude valuable and notable information that they consider unfavorable to PW.
EXAMPLE ONE
I added the PW website stats, which document that PW's 'popularity' on the Web is 'continually and steadily declining'. I used those words. The stats prove that. Alexa itself uses the term 'popularity'. A pro-PW editor (L2B?) argued that 'continually and steadily' constituted POV. I conceded. No problem. He was right. (even though the stats proved my point) He then rewrote my wording taking out 'popularity' and using more obtuse wording about 'alexa toolbar clickers' (or similar) although Alexa itself says that their stats indicate the 'popularity' of any given site. I conceded again. No problem. I was willing to compromise. Alexa stats for PW
Tbeatty deleted the stats and Morton Devonshire unsuccessfully argued that Alexa stats were OR. Admin Kuzaar and editor Vpoko (a disinterested party regarding PW) countered him. Others weighed in that Alexa stats were, in no way, OR. Tbeatty (and Morton devonshire who doesn't even participate in discussion anymore) kept on deleting the stats, now claiming that I was 'cherrypicking' the data and extrapolating from it, by using 3 month figures.
The 3 month stats are the only stats that Alexa uses that show % changes. If you look at 3,6,12, or 24 month stats, the % change still uses current 3 month figures. That is not cherrypicking, Using one week or even one year figures would be cherry picking and extrapolating data, as Alexa only uses 3 month averages.
From Alexa:
"Since we feel that consistent traffic is a better indication of a site's value, we've chosen to use the three-month traffic rank to represent the site's overall popularity."
Ruthfulbarbarity argued that since I believe that Protest Warrior, as an organization, is not especially notable, then the stats can't be notable. These important stats have been deleted, once by Tbeatty without one word in the edit summary, over and over. Once after I objected to the deletion, Ruthfulbarbarity misstated the admin's position and claimed that the admin had deemed them OR and/or POV. Now they claim that since the stats change regularly that they can't be included. The article on Free Republic includes them, and it's no problem keeping them up-to-date. Again, I contend that the pro-PW editors (excluding Lawyer2b or Rogue 9) are actively 'gaming the system' using Wikilawyering, misinterpretations and violations of WP, extensively and consistently to exclude valuable and notable information that they consider unfavorable to PW. (to be continued)
NBGPWS 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the only edit I have done to the stats was here, when I removed the accompanying unsupported conclusion that the organization was declining in popularity and/or activity. I have also mentioned I think the stats’ notability is dubious and that most Wikipedia articles about organizations simply do not include such statistics. If the information meant the organization was undergoing a similar decline, which seemed your interpretation, I would agree on its notability. In this case, however, there is not non-original research to support such a conclusion and I would argue the same whether the article were about the ACLU, the United Nations, or ANSWER. When the notability of a primary-sourced fact like this is challenged, as a general rule, I think it is a good idea to find a secondary source that references it. This all being said, the inclusion of these statistics is simply not a major issue to me and you won’t find me editing them out should a consensus be reached to include them. However, other people may feel strongly enough that they are not notable, they detract from the article, and they don't want them included without it being a case of Wikipedia policy being applied unfairly. This is simply how consensus works. Lawyer2b 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
EXAMPLE TWO
I only have a cursory knowledge of, and a passing familiarity with WP but could tell intuitively, just using common sense, that the feeble attempt to get the ENTIRE ARTICLE classified as a biography of Alan and Kfir (by Tbeatty?) was improper WP and nothing more than a specious ploy to stifle criticism. It's hard if not impossible to AGF in light of the mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise.
NBGPWS 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Ruthfulbarbarity continues to obsessively-compulsively focus on and edit MY words on the mediation and discussion pages - content with no encyclopedic value - rather than the ARTICLE itself, where this GRAMMATICAL(added for RB) error been OBVIOUS for DAYS, and brought to his attention. "Very few major news organizations ' have ran ' (sic) stories on Protest Warrior, critical or otherwise."' Especially considering that, from what I can tell, I'm the only editor he does this to, I consider this an intentional provocation and an attempt to bait me. [27] [28]
NBGPWS 17:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Meritless ? LOL !
Maybe you can get L2B to explain it to you. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of you constantly correcting my spelling and grammar, but ingoring the grammatical error of the article using the incorrect and improper version of the Past Participle of the Verb 'run' - specifically ' HAVE RAN ' instead of the correct ' HAVE RUN ' .
Jeezus!
NBGPWS 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You only corrected MY spelling and grammar - and ignored the obvious error in the article noted above - and when you made an ERROR editing my spelling - as in you did when you mistakingly corrected 'né' to née - you refused to correct it back to the PROPER and CORRECT spelling when you were proved wrong. Your actions aren't fooling anybody.
NBGPWS 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 22:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You nead to AGF. I dint vandalize aneething. I corected ruthbars bad spilling. Jest like him, Im onlee tryeng to bee helpfull.
NBGPWS 05:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Doant forgette fooks, it waz ruthabraility nè wrathboone himselve who bragged wihle tonting me :
" I do not need your "permission" to make edits (to your text) that I deem proper and necessary. If you have a problem with them, then simply revert my changes."
NBGPWS 09:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Because anyone who examines how this problem started - with your incorrect and improper of edit of my word nè to nêe - followed by your refusal to edit it back to the proper and correct usage when asked - followed by more predatory edits to my text on non-encyclopedic talk pages after you were asked to stop can see who's at fault ?
The solution is simple. Don't edit my text on talk and discussion pages - and I won't edit yours.
Deal?
NBGPWS 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You are WRONG again, Ruthfulbarbarity. Discussion on talk pages is not Encyclopedic Content submitted for 'peer review'. Please stop. To take liberties with the monumentally memorable line of speech from 'The Planet of the Apes', spoken by the great actor and tireless defender of the 2nd amendment Charlton Heston - and offered only in good humour - again I suggest: "Keep your stinkin' paws off my text, you damned dirty ape !" I hope you are enjoying your Worker's Day, Ruthfulbarbarity! :-)
Basic rules for all talk pages
Sign your comments (see above)
Log in. (Read why here.)
Use coherent formatting.
Copy formatting from others.
Indent with colons (:), not with tabs.
Break up very large paragraphs.
Be civil at all times.
Don't make personal attacks
Don't SHOUT
Do not edit other user's comments.
NBGPWS 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Basic rules for all talk pages
Do not edit other user's comments.
Stop it ! NOW ! No more ! UNDERSTAND ? ! (I already have stopped correcting your spelling and grammar, now that I know its verboten)
NBGPWS 23:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 04:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Notice to Ruthfulbarbority
Regarding your improper and disallowed edits of my talk and discussion comments:
You told ME to 'look it up' and it would prove you right. Once again, after 'looking it up', I am right, and YOU have proven WRONG. Show me EXACTLY where you claim WP says you're allowed to edit my talk and discussion comments.
Basic rules for all talk pages
Do not edit other user's comments.
Until you document, with WP that overides the WP which I posted - proving that you are allowed to edit even one letter or period of my text on talk pages - you are hereby ordered not to edit my talk or discussion comments !
NBGPWS 04:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Your non-answer to my charges of skullduggery amounts to a concession that you were wrong, and that you agree to stop editing my comments. GOOD ! It's about time. I hope you learned your lesson !
NBGPWS 07:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Err.. isn't it spelled 'vandaliZing' not 'vandaliSing' ? Let me check ! Yup ! I'm right, and you're wrong ! AGAIN ! LOL ! Go ahead and edit it - WP prevents me from doing so. I think it's OK for you to edit your OWN misspellings! LMAO NBGPWS 08:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult for me to mediate without a clear knowledge of what people want, so I asked the questions. However, it looks like I am going to have to try and glean what I can from what I have read. Firstly, I'm still not totally sure that this issue is appropriate for mediation because both of the two most heavily involved users have been repeatedly uncivil on numerous occasions. Looking at what you are all saying, it seems to me that a fresh start on discussions with a more civil attitude would solve all of the problems the article is having. I would like to propose that all parties agree to forget all they have discussed so far and withhold any grudges, and restart a discussion on the article's talk page for each seperate content issue with better attitudes. This is because I don't think there is really a dispute over content that can't be solved normally at all - it's merely a case of incivility ruining things. Does this seem like a reasonable idea? — Xyrael / 07:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What Ruthfulbarbarity contends in his two responses below is patently untrue, but I will not sink to his level and answer with matching personal attacks. I am getting along quite well with L2B and R9, even though we are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to our affections for Protest Warrior. I have also accomplished a great deal of constructive work on the article, and much of the current version is my doing. My only goal is to prevent from happening again, what has happened to this article repeatedly since day one:
"The current edit is sheer propaganda for the Protest Warrior group. Troll edits of the article by Protest Warrior members are abusing Wikipedia for extremist propaganda" Oct 10, 2004"
I will gladly withdraw from the article if Ruthfulbarbarity does, as long as another editor who opposes Islamophobic hate groups monitors this article and participates on a regular basis to prevent the Protest Warriors and their supporters from turning this article into a press release / recruiting ad for their organization, as has been their past history.
NBGPWS 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption.
NBGPWS 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption.
NBGPWS 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Good lord, you guys can't even get through a few minutes without accusations and silly warning templates flying around. If the ArbCom saw this, they'd probably ban you both from the article and that would be the end of it. I hope we don't need to take that step, but I don't see what else we can do at this point. Vpoko 17:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Untrue. Tbeatty even argued against the inclusion of a mostly complimentary article on 'Operation Liberty Rising'-fallaciously attempting to impugn the source. Tbeatty and Morton Devonshire repeatedly deleted Alexa stats, then tried to have them excluded as OR. Protest Warriors and/or supporters also improperly tried to have the whole article classified as a biography of Alan and Kfir in an effort to discourage criticism. That's all happened in the last few weeks. NBGPWS 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You have no idea about a great many things.
Like....
There's actually a template for warning users not to edit other user's comments. (just found it) The WP which you repeatedly broke. The WP which you were POSITIVE didn't exist.
I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks,
NBGPWS 03:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
After reading more about WP, and in light of the continuing personal attacks from Ruthfulbarbarity, and Neverborn, I am thinking that perhaps the whole Protest Warrior article SHOULD be turned over to ArbCom. While posting to Ruth's talk page, I read some old comments to him from admin Kuzaar (posted here)
Editing articles in which you have a personal interest is discouraged by guidelines, according to community consensus, not just me.
it appears that you have a personal interest or opinion on the subject (which is similarly cautioned against in some of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines), and second, that because of the first reason, it is very easy to slip into adding opinion and commentary to the article, which is a fairly serious risk.
There are 4 or 5 active Protest Warriors, several Protest Warrior defenders, and one person vehemently opposed to Protest Warrior (me) actively working on the article. Except in rare circumstances, we are the only people working on the article. ALL of us have strong personal interests / opinions. Perhaps the best solution would be to turn the whole article over to one or more politically neutral disinterested editors and let THEM edit it.
I believe this all the more in light of the continuing attacks upon me by Ruthfulbarbarity, Neverborn and others even though my contributions to the article itself in the last week or so have only been constructive and beneficial. (I do tend to spar a bit on the talk page - but better there than in the article)
Should Protest Warriors, their defenders, and those strongly opposed to Protest Warrior EVEN BE EDITING THIS ARTICLE?
(I couldn't find this info in WP. A link would be appreciated)
NBGPWS 06:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice VP ! NBGPWS 18:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, it is clear that discussions are not going anywhere. Therefore I propose that both editors step away from the article entirely and do not make any edits. If one breaks this, the other one can get back involved. Does this seem fair? As Vpoko has pointed out, you are just going round in circles, so please don't post anything more to this page if you agree with my suggestion and simply sign below. Thank you. — Xyrael / 08:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussions aren't going anywhere, but the article in progressing just fine, (due much in part to my tireless, fair and bipartisan efforts! + L2B & R9) I'll just ignore the insults and attempts to bait me by certain individuals. I would only agree to your suggestion if another liberal became actively involved in the editing and monitoring of the article on a daily basis. The article shouldn't be edited SOLELY by Protest Warriors and their supporters. If another liberal wants to take over my important 'watchdog' role, I'll agree in a heartbeat. I will however, withdraw my request for Mediation, if you advise that. After reading more about WP, it could be that it would have been more beneficial if I had asked for an RFC anyway. NBGPWS 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)