User talk:Ramsquire/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Hal Turner 2 What is this damning evidence? 3 Thanks for the Welcome 4 Fox News 5 Thank You 6 bait 7 FNC 8 Clay Shaw article - Homosexuals Killing Kennedy? 9 Fox News Request for Arbitration 10 Good Faith 11 RfARB on Conduct 11.1 Workspace 11.2 Purpose 12 I added something

[edit] Hal Turner

How can you possibly remove a statement that Hal Turner is outlandishly racist? His own website is ample testament to that. It is so undeniable that I cannot fathom your motive for removing the statement.

What on earth is going on in your head to justify your bizarre editing???

I did not attack you personally. His own words on his own website are a primary source. I cannot imagine a more reliable indicator of his position on racial issues. His own statements are certainly more reliable than any secondary reporting from a newspaper or third party.

It is not original research to describe his words as racist. It is accurately summarizing his incessant, ad hominem attacks based on race alone. This is *not* research. It is simply description.

[edit] What is this damning evidence?

Ramsquire writes:

My most inspiring, and tiring, work at Wikipedia has been in the JFK articles. I'd like to thank Oliver Stone for getting me interested in the subject. However, I have been disappointed that most of his most damning evidence in the film, is quickly shown to be false or misleading upon a very cursory review of the actual evidence."

What is the "most damning evidence?" And how did you find the "actual evidence?"

RPJ 06:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a good faith question? When I say "his most damning evidence in the film", I am speaking only of what initially led me to believe that Oliver Stone's version of the assassination was correct. Ramsquire 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is a good faith question. What exactly is film's "most damning evidence?" How did you find out that this "most damning evidence" was "false or misleading?"

RPJ 08:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just didn't feel like getting baited into something, that will be thrown up on the talk pages later as "evidence" of some improper motive behind my editing. But to answer your question, after watching JFK, I was convinced there was a conspiracy involving the CIA, Clay Shaw, and David Ferrie. I was convinced by the following scenes in the movie:

• The "magic bullet" argument in the courtroom.
• David Ferrie admitting that Garrison was on the right track.
• Clay Shaw admitting the alias of Bertrand.
• And the entire Mr. X scene.

Upon further research, I found that there is a scenario for one shot to cause all the damage to Kennedy and Connelly; Ferrie never admitted anything of the sort per Garrison's own aides; Shaw probably never admitted an alias per the hearing, (you can get the transcript online), and Mr. X is actually Prouty, who has spouted off on some racists, and other far out theories. Not to mention, that Mr. X, also got some facts wrong, like the phones being out in DC after the assassination.

Let me once again say, I am open to the possibility that Oswald had help, but I just don't see any compelling evidence of it. However, as much as you don't want to believe me, the major problem I have with some of your additions is the reliability of yours source, not with the content.

Ramsquire 16:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Welcome

Thanks for the Welcome. I appreciate the links, however I am mostly going to use the "Ignore all rules" policy as cited on your user page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

[edit] Fox News

"I will assume good faith and participate _in this malformed RfC_" - This doesn't seem very WP:AGF :-( It didn't seem to me that there WAS consensus on the wording of the intro, although there was consensus that it should be included in the intro. My objection is NOT that I don't think there is a lot of criticism out there. My objection is only that I don't think the criticism is being addressed NPOV. My impression was that there was some agreement among the editors that some better wording could be hashed out. (also, since AuburnPilot doesn't want to be involved anymore, could you make a statement under "Statements by editors previously involved in dispute" to represent the other side?) Cbuhl79 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

RE:Malformed - Sorry, I hadn't yet placed it on the RfC page because I was still trying to find where the original RfC had been placed. I've since added it, and afaik, I've followed proper procedures. "Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first." - there had already been signficant discussion about the wording of the introduction. Cbuhl79 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bait

hi,

my heartfelt thanks to all who participated included you as well.  ;-) AuburnPilot got a special acknowledgement because I actually went to Auburn University back in the day. if i knew what ramsquire was and it had some personal connection to my life, you would have gotten the same.

sorry to possibly overstep boundaries, but i wanted to counsel caution in taking the bait and participating in the fox news channel RFC. by everyone's judgement, it is simply this guy being difficult. it rarely behooves one to participatin in such discussions, and though i applaud your continued willingnes to asume good faith, it could be possible that he's only trying to provoke someone in the hopes that they will end up making themselves look foolish.

I could be completely wrong about motives, and this isn't an accusation. I just think from a pragmatic standpoint further discussion with the individual is pointless. Reasoning can be seen in the final part of the original RFC...

	It should be noted (AGF notwithstanding) that some editors seem to be set on finding new objections when the old ones are satisfied (first, there are unsourced generalizations in the intro; then specific citations shouldldn't be in the intro; now, weasle words are the problem) -- almost like the goal is specifically to keep it out of the intro by using whatever means necessary. I don't think consensus requires 100% agreememnt, especially when evaluating those who find new objections when it serves their purpose. Sorry to fall off the good faith bandwagon, but it's hard to keep the faith when it appears the intent is to construct further obstacles instead of finding solutions to existing issues.
	— /Blaxthos 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FNC

That's why I was trying to get an agreement to agree to the result, before the vote, so it would definitely settle it. If it came back overwhelmingly in your favour and he still disagreed, you'd have reason to get admins involved. The problem is that consensus was built over time and over several issues at the same time, so, in his eyes, it wasn't completely beyond doubt (you clearly disagree). I thought a vote would help - if you think it has no merit, ignore the idea. But getting into a revert-war doesn't seem to be a very good solution.Trebor 18:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Trebor 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Shaw article - Homosexuals Killing Kennedy?

Thank you for adding a citation. I think I still have a problem with the wording of the sentence. It reads as if the alleged conspirators' homosexuality was part of the reason for the conspiracy. The way "homosexuals" is lumped in alongside "right-wing extremists" and "Cuban exiles" gives homosexuals a common bond/unified reason to kill JFK that I don't really think existed the way it may have for Cubans or right-wingers. I believe Garrison believed that some of the conspirators may have been homosexuals. I also believe that this sentence is worded so as to make Garrison look like the biggest possible kook. (Which, admittedly, isn't that hard). Your thoughts? Dubc0724 16:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It really isn't my intention to do that. Feel free to make a more neutral edit if you feel I crossed the line. I did a peer review on the article requesting if it seems biased, and no one found it did. However, all suggestions to improve the article are welcome. Ramsquire 18:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to point fingers at you or anyone else in particular. I'll see if I can think of another way to reword the sentence without changing its fundamental meaning. Thanks Dubc0724 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News Request for Arbitration

This is a notice that I have filed a request for arbitration[1]. You are either an editor with which I am in direct dispute, or an editor who has been involved in the discussion.

[edit] Good Faith

Thank you for your continued efforts to assume good faith.

Obviously, I felt that the closing of the RfC was premature (From WP:RFC "After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing."), but made a good faith effort to discuss my concerns by opening a new RfC. I would have preferred to actually continue to discuss the issue, but I feel that the other editors were trying to stifle discussion entirely from this moment [2] on.

I've been accused of trying to keep the information out of the article, despite the fact that I've agreed numerous times to inclusions of the information, and have even made edits to add information about Fox News' bias (including edits, not deletes, to the introduction).

I have also been accused of "failing to abide by an RfC", but I don't think that there is any policy that states that RfCs are binding, are final, preclude ANY further discussion, or are the final step to resolving disputes. Since I felt that there were WP:NPOV issues, and since WP:CONSENSUS states that consensus cannot be used to violate WP:NPOV, I wanted to continue discussion. As you have seen, I have made very few actual edits to the page about the specific issue (even though I've been accussed of violating WP:3RR).

I opened the arbitration primarily because I felt that the other editors (primarily Blaxthos) involved were making these (and other) false accusations against me to any other editors involved in order to discredit my arguments. Note that other editors were willing to discuss the issue, and that previously uninvolved editors who read the entire discussion believed that I was acting in good faith and that I only wanted to discuss the issue. I wanted a neutral party who would not be swayed by nothing more than accusations to decide whether or not I had been committing violations.

All that being said I will seriously consider your request to drop the RfARB. I was (and am) quite willing to live with versions of the article that were not exactly how I would have written them, but I feel that the other editors involved are making unfounded accusations and are totally committed to keeping my input out of the article. Would you be able to suggest other remedies to deal with this? Cbuhl79 17:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the first part of what you need to do is accept that consensus has been reached in regards to the intro. I understand you disagree with what the consensus did because you see it as violating NPOV. But considering editors who were on opposite sides of the discussion agree that it is over, and others (from both sides) refuse to even re-visit the issue after being made aware of the continuing discussion points to the fact that consensus has been reached. If those editors felt otherwise, they would have made their opinions known. It need not be 100%. Once Gamaliel and Blaxthos endorsed the current version, that is the point where consensus had been reached.

As for your reputation, you've harmed it more by your repeated insistence on posting the same thing over and over again, than if you had simply said "I disagree with the consensus", and moved on. That being said, consensus can change, so keep on editing and maybe at some point, consensus will change. But for now, just keep looking for weasel words as you see them, place {{Who}} tags on them and listen to other editors responses.

Ramsquire 17:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is intended for Cbuhl79, not Ramsquire. Let me jump in right here and clarify a few points.

1. The work towards a commonly acceptable intro was ongoing for almost two weeks before you jumped in. Many editors had already brought up the points you attempted to assert. The reasoning was clearly discussed and explanations for each choice the group made is clear in the previous pages of discussion (what content went in intro, proper wording, etc.).
2. Every other editor showed a willingness to give as well as take, and incorporoated others' ideas into their suggestions. Instead of doing the same, you kept repeating the same phrase over and over, asserting why you are right (when, in fact, I can find no other forum (in 2 RFC's, 1 RfARB, policy talk pages, article talk pages, and personal talk pages) where anyone but you agrees with your reasoning). Which leads me to...
3. Unwillingness to listen to anyone else. I think this is the fundamental root cause of your current woes. Every time someone has tried to explain where your reasoning is flawed (for example, ignoring the word "often" or "usually" in the policy you repeat over and over) you simply ignore them and escallate the issue or attempt to find someone ELSE to bolster your position (and the cycle is repeated).
4. Wikilawyering and gaming the system -- both of these are clearly discussed (WP:POINT in particular). It is absolutely unethical and insulting to other editors to try and find new ways to effect the same change. Call it what you want, but you've tried for three weeks to get the same result; every time several people would show how you're misinterpreting/misusing policy, you'd find another policy to try and use.
5. Falsified claims and accusations -- no one that I have seen has issued any personal attack against you.
6. Bad faith -- re-issuing RfC's (even if using wikilawyered policies) on issues just decided is completely insulting to the wikipedia process as well as your fellow editors. Calling for Arbitration on something like this is mindboggling, as noted by every other editor as well as the ArbCom.
7. Discussion -- We weren't trying to "stifle" further discussion, however it is accepted wisdom (by everyone BUT you) that your logic is flawed. When we tried to explain why, you simply ignore us and assume we're wrong. There is no point in continued discussion because (1) the same issues/reasons have been discussed previously; and (2) there is no possible way your position will overcome the consensus (because you're the only one!). It should be noted that there is a complete consensus (excluding you) about there being a consensus on the issue as well.

Some policies you should read (emphasis added):

	However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.
	— WP:CONSENSUS

	In the case of a small group of editors who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a larger group of editors, it is worth considering that they may be mistaken.
	— WP:CONSENSUS

	It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
	— WP:NPOV

	Some specific exceptions that may need calling out: When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify.
	— WP:WEASEL

	Gaming the system is the use of Wikipedia rules to thwart Wikipedia policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption...
	— WP:POINT

	If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. The clause is designed to prevent editors from using wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster.
	— WP:SNOW

	The snowball test: If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause.
	— WP:SNOW

All these policies are directly applicable to your reasoning or your behavior. Hopefully this will help you understand why you've encountered as much resistance as you have. In either case, the only thing you've accomplished is to garner a reputation that I would characterize as undesireable.  :-( /Blaxthos 19:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Blaxthos, unlike Ramsquire, you have consistently acted in arrogance and explicitly in bad faith, which is one of the main reasons that I have continued this for so long. Your first excuse for acting in bad faith was that I was attempting to keep the item out of the intro by any means necessary, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Ever since then, you have been rude and arrogant in constantly pointing out what you believe I have done wrong. Your behavior was the primary reason I submitted an RfARB, it may not have been the appopriate place to seek remedy, but your comment here leaves me less inclined to consider Ramsquire's request, and leaves me more inclined to continue to seek remedies. Cbuhl79 20:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfARB on Conduct

Hey Ramsquire,

I'm initiating a request for arbitration regarding cbuhl79's conduct. I listed you as a "witness or interested party", and I would appreciate it if you could relate your experiences and thoughts. Thanks! /Blaxthos 17:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workspace

After some consideration, I've decided to take a very firm position regarding the situation with Cbuhl79. I considered stuff like "be the bigger man" and "not a big deal", "let it slide", etc... but it occured to me that in order to preserve the value and absolute functionality of the wiki system, 'somebody has to stop those who would abuse the project or the editors who make good faith efforts to improve it. It is ironic (or perhaps apropos) that my career goal is to become a U.S. Attorney -- though I'm very aware of avoiding WP:LAWYER. I realize that everyone's time is best spent actually improving wikipedia's content, but I'm requesting that you review (and contribute, if appropriate) to my workspace for the pending case (which I believe will be accepted). You can find the workspace at USER:Blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79. Any relevant contributions, collaboration, or advice is absoultely welcome and appreciated. Thanks! /Blaxthos 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose

One ArbCom member has voted to reject, and his reasoning "let this dispute die" seems to be influenced by Cbuhl79's constant rambling about content. The ArbCom needs to realize that i'm calling his behavior into question. Without some sort of censure, this guy is going to (1) damage the credibility of wikipedia; and (2) frustrate other editors to the point that they probably will not wish to continue working on whatever articles he's hawking. It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that he can get away with all this. This is my first real experience with any kind of disciplinary actions on wikipedia... do you have any advice or guidance? I now have an advocate to assist with prosecuting the case, assuming it gets accepted. /Blaxthos 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The advocate for this case has suggested I urge any other users who have pertinant information to issue statements as soon as possible, or risk the case not being taken seriously. I also direct your attention to the discussion on the opposing ArbCom member's talkpage. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. /Blaxthos 16:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the statement. I considered it, as you did, but I'm pretty sure that the only thing that is going to curb Cbuhl79's misguided ways is something "official" -- community explainations and guidance is dismissed as incorrect. He reminds me of someone who has Asperger's Syndrome, honestly, which is probably the most dangerous thing to have running around Wikipedia without knowing limits and proper norms. I want to be clearn -- I have no doubt that for at least much of the conflict, Cbuhl79 believes he is acting appropriately. However, once you examine all of the evidence (RfC, RfA, false noticeboard reports, claims of conspiracy, blatantly applying inappropriate warning templates to my user and talk spaces) it becomes very clear that he is willing to do whatever it takes to win. Check out his admissions about the RfA. Also, note that an ArbCom member told him to go talk to an admin for guidance, and after that Cbuhl79 ignored him and went and vandalized my spaces. Your statement bends over backwards to WP:AGF I think. Weren't you the editor who got burned by Cbuhl79 on the second RfC?  ;-) Anyway, thanks for the time. Update your statement if you change your mind. /Blaxthos 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just added what I hope is a clarification. Namely that something should be done, but I don't know what. And that his violating your userspace and placing improper warning tags, does show a user who will as you say, do anything to make a point. Ramsquire 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hesitated to suggest what action should be taken, but I think a review and reprimand is all that is necessary. I sincerely appreicate your support, and I hope if they accept it you'll contribute to the workspace. Thanks again! /Blaxthos 01:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I added something

This seems to be a simple problem; Editors who stand by the Warren Commission, and those who don't. It's a case of "Yes it is", and "No it isn't". The truth is that nobody knows what happened, because nobody actually saw Oswald actually fire the rifle. This is a fact, despite one or two people saying that "It looked like him". Asking for citations (when all the books written about the subject are POVs anyway) is going nowhere. RPJ is asking that all points of view are included, i.e., "let the reader decide" - which is fair.

I understand that Wikipedia is about facts, but don't forget that Bush and Blair both believed that "Weapons of mass-destruction" were in Iraq before it was invaded. Give RPJ his own page, and stop fighting. Be nice. --andreasegde 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)