Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Raggz 1.1 UN charter 2 Examples of User:Raggz's disregard for Wikipedia's core content policies 2.1 Propaganda campaign by User:Raggz 2.2 I don't understand... 3 ahem 3.1 Viriditas and his conspiracy theory 4 Disruption 5 Still ongoing 6 User:Raggz is issuing threats 6.1 Rationale for the Iraq War 6.2 What would be correct? 6.3 Is Viriditas the problem? 7 Changes made by Raggz to Legality of the Iraq War 7.1 Evidence 7.1.1 12 January 2008 8 Boldness is critical 9 Introduction to a defense of Raggz -------------------- 10 In defense of Raggz --------------------- 11 Are any administrators reading this?

[edit] User:Raggz

Can someone please keep an eye on User:Raggz? For several months, he's been adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything critical of the United States government — often for patently false reasons. He's received countless warnings, and several editors have gone to great lengths to explain how he's been violating Wikipedia's core policies. He either ignores the warnings or apologises and carries on exactly as before.

For example, he's just added a brazen lie [1] into an article about the Iraq war. In response to a Human Rights Watch claim that the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion was "not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention", Raggz states that "the International Criminal Court refuted this claim after an extensive investigation". However, the source he cites (PDF) makes absolutely no mention of the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion. In fact, the International Criminal Court has never examined this, as it's clearly outside the court's jurisdiction. This is just one example of how Raggz systematically invents stuff and distorts his sources to advance his POV. I've included a few more examples in the collapsible box below. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When I first began editing WP, controversial topics unfortunately drew my attention because they so clearly violated the WP NPOV and OR policies. The ICC articles drew my interest early, they might have been my first editing projects. I did sometimes and still do violate WP policies, but by error and not intent. When this was correctly brought to my attention by Sideshow Bob Roberts I apologized and changed. When this was incorrectly brought to my attention by Sideshow Bob Roberts I did not apologize and persisted. Sometimes I later discovered that he was correct, sometimes not. Sideshow Bob Roberts is not easy to work with, particularly when his pov-based agenda is denied expression. He knows international law and WP policy better than I do and does not collaberate or help, but uses this as an advantage to advance his pov. I've asked for insight six months back from other editors on a WP page for this, and got one comment and none from him. I suggest reading my comment to Sideshow Bob Roberts on his page last week. More than anything else it will explain my collaberative attitude with Sideshow Bob Roberts.

He cites errors of six months or more back, but not my many useful edits. I could debate his collapsable box material, but why? I should be judged by how I edit now. As for the "brazen lie", he could have simply added his concerns to TALK, and if he was correct (as he too often is) I would have changed it if necessary. I don't know how to source his abusive posts and am not inclined to play his game anyway.

On page 7 (footnotes) of the source cited is the information referenced in regard to Human Rights Watch. On page 3? it states that 250+ claims of human rights violations were recieved and no evidence was found to support these. The ICC does have jurisdiction over ICC members in Iraq, and did investigate the human rights issues with this jurisdiction. It is all in the citation. The US and the UK have conducted joint operations, and if widespread violations of human rights were ocurring, the UK would be involved with these and these would be in the report. You may judge if the inclusion of the UN and ICC sections involve "brazen lies".

I stand by my edits generally. I also stand by my unintended errors, and also my corrections and retractions that were sometimes necessary. Sideshow Bob Roberts is a pov warrior, but a smart one that plays within the rules. As I get experience, as I become a better editor, my participation with controversial articles threatens the few pov warriors camped in a few controversial articles. I knew that editing controversial articles where the pov warriors are camped out would eventually require your review. Human rights and the United States is a better and far more recent editing project, I suggest visiting it to get a sense of my style, strengths, and weaknesses as an editor.

Sideshow Bob Roberts is incorrect to say "adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything "critical of the United States government". I make errors, and admit to these when corrected. I systematically edit OR and NPOV, sometimes aggressively. The articles that I edit are usually heavily in violation of NPOV guidelines, so I often delete material "critical of the United States government", but only when it is OR or in violation of NPOV. I recently deleted dozens of citations where the citation did not support the text. Most material "critical of the United States government" is of course retained if it meets WP guidelines (in my opinion). A review of the articles I edit will prove this, they are filled with such material "critical of the United States government". The United States government has much that should properly be criticised, but this should be accurate, referenced, and need sustain the NPOV policy. I delete or edit that which is (in my opinion) innaccurate, unreferenced, and does not sustain the NPOV policy. Raggz (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A few quick points:

1. Raggz has repeatedly made false claims about me. His assertion that I'm "on a POV campaign" is flatly untrue, and I encourage other editors to examine my edit history for any evidence of POV-pushing. I've addressed this claim before [2] but he ignored my response and continues to make this claim.

If anyone wants to understand how Sideshow Bob Roberts advances his pov, read International Criminal Court from around 6/1/2007 and read it now. On the plus side, it is a better article in general readability. On the negative side, it has carefully suppressed every criticism of the ICC present on 7/1/07. This pattern and his obvious expertise has caused me to wonder if he works for the ICC, but I am not yet convinced that he does. I cannot know his motivation, but his agenda is clear, to suppress all criticisms of the ICC, and he is quite effective at this task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Raggz (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2. I made a specific accusation that Raggz told a "brazen lie" today. He responded, as usual, by citing a source that has nothing to do with his claim.

3. It's true that I'm mostly citing examples from a few months ago, but a glance at his recent contributions reveals that his behaviour hasn't changed. Of course any admin action should be based on his current behaviour, not past mistakes.

4. "I've asked for insight six months back from other editors on a WP page for this, and got one comment and none from him." - I have no idea what this means.

5. With respect to his most recent message on my talk page, Raggz pretends he wants to collaborate with other users but he conistently ignores editors who disagree with him. On countless occasions, I've written lengthy posts explaining to Raggz how one of his theories is wrong and asking him to cite a source for his claim, only for him to completely ignore me and continue making the false claim. There's just no point trying to engage him in a rational discussion. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From International Criminal Court This is a typical example of me making an error and admitting to this. I suggest visiting Talk, and note the lack of collaberative effort by Sideshow Bob Roberts. He claims that I am incapable of engaging in a "rational discussion". Judge below if this is actually true. Raggz (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Dozens of reliable, published sources explicitly state that judicial authorisation is not required where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council. See, for example: Christopher Keith Hall: "The Powers and Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Global Fight against Impunity". Leiden Journal of International Law (2004), 17: 121-139; Michela Miraglia: "The First Decision of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber". J Int Criminal Justice 2006; 4: 188-195; or Annie Wartanian: "The ICC Prosecutor's Battlefield: Combating Atrocities While Fighting for States' Cooperation. Lessons from the U.N. Tribunals Applied to the Case of Uganda". Georgetown Journal of International Law 36 no4 1289-316 Summ 2005 (which is free to read here). Does anyone object to changing this? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not I. Your legal expertise when engaged, rarely fails to illuminate. Thank you for correcting my error. I didn't follow your explanation fully, but as long as you are certain that the ICC Prosecutor may investigate the Iraq War without referral from a State Party, I'm fine. Raggz 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC) "

=================================

"Hello, you became so heated last time we worked together that I took a break to give you the opportunity to calm down. I've been working on some articles today and expect that you will have comments. This time may we work together collegially and productively? Our past collaborations have improved several articles and we may continue to do this together. So, let me know which, if any edits may be issues for you. Raggz (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)" [from usertalk: Sideshow Bob Roberts].

_{[The following comment was moved up by Sideshow Bob Roberts]}

Would it help you both to ask for outside assistance, i.e. mediation or RFC? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see what that could possibly achieve. I have no doubt that Raggz would just ignore the outcome, just as he ignores our core policies, ignores user warnings ([3] [4] [5]), ignores consensus, and ignores detailed explanations of how his claims are incorrect. I have no doubt that he'll continue to do this until an administrator intervenes. If he's allowed to continue inserting blatantly false claims into articles, our core policies are pretty meaningless. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I would participate. I would like to become a better editor. There is no doubt that I have a great deal to learn. Some of the errors claimed were in fact real errors. Sideshow Bob Roberts goes through hundreds looking for these, and all too often, they exist.

It would help both of us. There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts but I have not reported him because I believe that banning him would deny WP a talented and insightful editor who has a strong educational background, who holds everyone to peer-reviewed citations, and has a net beneficial impact upon the articles we have collaberated on. If he could learn how to collaberate, he would likely move to the top rank of WP editors, rather than the C- level he presently earns.

If you read what he says (above), it seems unlikely that he will listen to my suggestions about becoming a better editor. He is not here to become a better editor nor to collaborate, he is here to get me expelled. If he really is not a particularly skilled pov warrior, he will accept. I expect that he will decline the offer to become a better and more collaborative editor, because he really is a pov warrior. I hope that I am in error. So Sideshow Bob Roberts, are you an editor or a clandestine pov warrior? Here is your chance to prove me wrong... no pov warrior would ever accept.Raggz (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

=== "Bald Faced Lie" ===

Here is the alleged "Bald Faced Lie": "The Prosecutor denied the many allegations made by hundreds of human rights organizations, and specifically denied those made by Human Rights Watch.[100]"

Here is the alleged source: "Similarly, following its investigation into events prior to June 2003, Human Rights Watch reported that forces had “engaged in a number of practices that may have violated international humanitarian law” but “evidence did not emerge suggesting that coalition forces committed war crimes.”: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/ihlqna. htm ; the statement was in relation to the HRW report “Off Target”

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/ (Page 7 footnotes)

Raggz's claim that "There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts" is false. Again, I urge admins to review my contributions for any evidence of "reportable misconduct" or POV warring.

His claim that I've suppressed every criticism of the ICC is ridiculous. In fact, most of the criticisms in the article were originally added by me.[6] I did remove the criticism section [7] (which I had originally added) but all the substantial criticisms of the court remain.

You are a good editor and produce quality work. Among your weakness is your strong habit of claiming to know what the "substantial criticisms" are and what they are not. The WP policy does not permit you to be The Editor but one of several editors on these decisions. When a point is offered, a reliable source is cited, collaboration is required to remove it. Your edits have improved the article's readability, but deleting all significant criticisms - especially those by the ICC President himself, have diminished the substance and credibility. The criticism section (which you added) was a mess, and required collaborative effort to improve. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz suggests visiting Talk:International Criminal Court to see my "lack of collaberative effort". Please do. You will note that I have an excellent relationship with all the other editors and I always seek (and achieve) consensus before making any potentially controversial changes to the article. I think it's safe to say that Raggz is the only person who thinks I have problems collaborating.

I agree with you on this point, that you do well with editors who agree with you. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

When Raggz first started editing, my messages to him were polite, patient and detailed. (See the early discussions on his talk page [8] and this archived discussion page). It was only when he pointedly ignored my lengthy comments, persisted in restoring his false claims without addressing my concerns, and started distorting my words and making false claims about me that I became reluctant to engage with him.

You did try Sideshow Bob Roberts, you tried briefly. I was new, had a great deal to learn and your best efforts collapsed very quickly and you then launched into personal attacks. No one at WP may distort your words. Not every editor must always address your concerns, especially when you offer them in a fit of pique. You are not a patient person, and having a new editor editing "your article" was a challenge that you were not up to. You do view articles as "your articles" and you resent other messing around with them (editing them). You are easily frustrated, and soon stop communicating on TALK, for the reasons that you have outlined (above). Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding his "brazen lie" about the ICC and Human Rights Watch, Raggz says I should have raised my concern on the talk page and he would have changed it if necessary. This is simply not true. Past experience shows that Raggz generally ignores concerns that are raised on discussion pages. On the rare occasions when he has admitted that he was wrong, he has never removed any of his false claims.

(Also, note that when I accused Raggz of lying, I was clearly referring to this edit. As usual, his response has nothing to do with this claim.)

I'm disappointed that no admin has commented on this thread yet. If my request for help was inappropriate, can someone please explain why, either here or on my talk page? It's pretty clear to me that Raggz has been systematically violating our core policies to advance a political position. Contrary to his belief, I'm not here to get him "expelled": I just want him to start respecting our core content policies, and I believe administrator intervention is the only way to do this. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Raggz's contributions today. Not only has he deleted large chunks of sourced material as "OR" (like this), but he's adding more false claims.

If you want to revert Battlestar Galactica to crimes against humanity - feel free. I will accept this. Just read TALK (below)

Battlestar Galactica

Wow, I came to this page wondering, "were crimes against humanity ever mentioned in a random episode of Battlestar Galactica?"...and, to my shock, the answer is yes!

Seriously, as great as Wikipedia is, things like this sort of reduce its credibility. Thunderbunny 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Raggz (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, he says the International Court of Justice "is directed by the Security Council" [9] and he claims that "Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations".[10] This is all complete nonsense and, when challenged, he will never cite a source that agrees with any of this. Nor will he remove it, or allow other editors to do so.

If you want me to cite the UN Charter provisions, fine. Why ask me to do this here? If you go to TALK and request this, I will add these. All organs of the UN are directed by the Security Council. If you want to edit this article, why not edit it there and not here? Your comments are to be expected given that you only follow my footsteps and did not carefully read TALK. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And he has twice claimed that Henry Kissinger has been accused of war crimes "by one commentator", which is pretty damn misleading.[11] [12] (See the Henry Kissinger article for an idea of how many "commentators" have accused him of war crimes.)

Why not contribute at TALK then? Henry Kissinger is only "accused of war crimes "by one commentator" by the Article. The reliable citation does not say "many" but one, so I edited the text to match the cite. Just add the Kissinger cites you know about in. It is my personal opinion (read talk) that if this Nobel Laureate is an alleged war criminal, the Article should specify what court is investigating him or has convicted him. If none have done so for allegations made thirty plus years ago and they were never substantiated, relevance is an issue for the allegation supported only by a cite to Christopher Hitchens. After 30 years, this is very old news and irrelevant. This is my opinion, why not contribute yours on the proper page? The Article suggested that Kissinger's recent academic papers were written with the intent to evade war crimes charges somehow, and for this reason were not credible. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go to Henry Kissinger, fine, go there. Don't tell me to. You are capable of editing in your edits and I won't edit the way you want anyway. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Today's edits were less disruptive than usual, but they reflect a pattern of deleting stuff he doesn't like for spurious reasons and inserting ridiculous claims that he just makes up as he goes along. Surely this is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I edited today as best as I can. I've not changed just because you are still unhappy. QUESTION: Do all organs of the UN (including the ICJ) interpret the UN Charter as the UN Security Council directs? If not, post your source and PROVE me wrong. Don't just make allegations, so just PROVE it. I NEVER delete anything because I don't like it (although I WISH I could sometimes). I made the "ridiculous claim" that the UN Security Council directs all of the organs of the UN. So, disprove my "ridiculous claim", do it now. Here is the chance to prove your point. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, it's not my responsibility to disprove your claim, it's your responsibility to cite a source that supports your claim or withdraw it.

You will never find a reliable, published source that supports your claim that the ICJ "is directed by the Security Council" because your claim is blatantly untrue. It's just something you made up. Nor will you find a reliable, published source that supports your claim that "Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations" because this claim is blatantly untrue.

You will never find a reliable, published source that agrees with your claim that the United Nations Security Council's decision to not act in regard to the 2003 invasion "definitively settles" the question of whether the invasion was illegal, because it's a load of nonsense you made up and inserted into various articles. When asked to cite a source, you refused. When other editors tried to remove the claim, you repeatedly restored it.

I've lost count of the number of times I've asked you to cite a source for one of your crazy claims. In every single case, you've either ignored my pleas or demanded that I cite a source to prove you wrong.

I have no idea what Battlestar Galactica has to do with any of this. Are you trying to suggest that, because you deleted one piece of obvious rubbish, all your other deletions are okay? I'm not saying you've never made any positive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least half the claims you make here are untrue.

Can I pleeeease get at least one administrator to comment on whether or not it's acceptable for an editor to keep adding false claims like this? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ was created by the UNSC under Article Article 29: "The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions." If you review the United Nations Charter, you will note that it does not mention the ICJ. The ICJ is clearly an organ of the Security Council. When Nicaragua prevailed against the US in the ICJ, the US appealed to the UNSC which declined to hear the appeal. The appeal voided the ICJ judgement. You are on record as opposing all primary sources, such as my quoting of the UN Charter directly. Here is your opportunity to renew your complaint.

WP says in International Court of Justice "Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings, but this is subject to the veto of the Permanent Five. Presently there are twelve cases on the World Court's docket." If I edit this language in, would it work better for you?

Today I aggressively edited Human rights and the United States, and I suggest that review of todays edits would be the perfect example of how my edits enrage you. For weeks we have been debating the theory that the US has committed a single example of a human rights violation in the past decade. It is possible that such have occured (certainly Abu Girab was, but there were also convictions), but the article lacks any reliable source that establishes that any have occured. I'm adhering to the WP policy for an opening summary that it need summarize the body of the article, and that there be consensus for the body. I may be in error, your perspective would be useful.

I invite you to join this debate, you may know of a reliable source that will establish that a human rights violation has been commited, and if you can, I will welcome your addition. Rather than sulk here, why not just improve this article that could use your expertise, which exceeds my own? Abu Girab would be a good starting point. This is an example of a documented human rights violation that is not yet in the Article. We have an abundance of speculative allegations and a total lack of objective documented examples (like Abu Girab). Can you help? Without your help there is a risk that my edits might violate WP NPOV, with your help this risk is reduced to zero. Raggz (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Today I aggressively edited Human rights and the United States - is anyone paying attention to this? Wikipedia is not a battleground, Raggz, and your edits to the aforementioned article removed WP:NPOV, a core, non-negotiable policy. You need to step away from the computer and review the relevant policies and guidelines. This is not a content dispute, but a refusal by User:Raggz to adhere to basic Wikipedia policies. —Viriditas | Talk 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As usual, Raggz is just making all this shit up. His claims that "The ICJ was created by the UNSC under Article Article 29" and "If you review the United Nations Charter, you will note that it does not mention the ICJ" are complete nonsense. The ICJ was established by the United Nations charter, not the Security Council. (See the ICJ website and the UN Charter, Chapter 14 of which is titled "The International Court of Justice", funnily enough.) As usual, the source he cites (Article 29 of the UN Charter) does not in any way support his claim (that the ICJ was created by the UN Security Council). This perfectly illustrates how Raggz just makes stuff up and inserts it into articles.[13]

His claims about the Nicaragua case and Article 39 of the UN Charter are also pure fantasy, as anyone with even the most basic understanding of international law will attest. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UN charter

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

FUNCTIONS and POWERS

Article 24 In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf. In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.

Article 25 The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Article 29 The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions.

Article 34 The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 36 The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

Article 37 Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

"Raggz's claim that "There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts" is false. Again, I urge admins to review my contributions for any evidence of "reportable misconduct" or POV warring."

Sideshow Bob Roberts, you too are human and you make mistakes like all of us do. On almost every day I interact with editors who commit "many examples of reportable misconduct". I don't report them because they are people trying to make the Article better, as editors we need to tolerate those with different views, and TRY to work with them (and because the Administrators already have a LOT to do). Don't take offense, your errors are less serious than are many I regularly encounter. You are a covert POV Warrior, but because you generally play by the rules (when challenged) I have never reported you. Look at the positive here, after challenge on key issues the International Criminal Court article is GREATLY better due to our interaction. Look at what is was last May, and now? So we bumped into each other a dozen time during the process, it worked to make the article better. Raggz (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of User:Raggz's disregard for Wikipedia's core content policies

1. He has made dozens of false claims about the International Criminal Court, without ever citing sources that agree with him. For example:

• "there are no appeals"[14][15]
• "there are no nations who oppose the ICC"[16]
• Human Rights Watch "tacitly admits" that the Rome Statute violates Americans' basic constitutional rights[17]
• "No constitutional authority rests with any organ of the US Government to enter into a treaty that would permit any judge to try any American, Americans may not be tried, except before juries"[18]
• "There is no doubt that these measures [bilateral immunity agreements] are fully legal" [19]
• "Many ICC advocates expect the ICC to soon exercise "universal jurisdiction"" [20]
• "The three political appointees acting as judges have no checks or balances upon them beyond their own interpretation of law" [21]
• The ICC Prosecutor appears to be pursuing a political agenda in Iraq [22]
• The ICC Prosecutor "exceeded his authority" in Iraq [23]

2. He has falsely claimed in various articles that the ICC Prosecutor has stated that all war crimes committed during the invasion of Iraq were "properly investigated and prosecuted by national governments". [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. He also claimed that "The report of the ICC Prosecutor that there were no known crimes related to the Iraq war to prosecute disapointed the radical left". [31], [32]

3. He has repeatedly claimed in various articles, without ever citing a source that agrees with him, that the United Nations Security Council's decision to not act in regard to the 2003 invasion "definitively settles" the question of whether the invasion was illegal (for example, [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42])

It has been repeatedly explained to Raggz that this is false, that it's original research, and that there's a consensus against making this claim. He has ignored these detailed explanations, and he has attempted to use his theory to silence all debate about the legality of the invasion: he has claimed on the talk page that Wikipedia's discussion about the legality of the war "only requires one paragraph"[43] and he has repeatedly removed the statement that "A dispute exists over the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq" [44] [45] [46].

At one point in the discussion, he falsely claimed that "we have consensus that the legality of the war is a long-settled issue" [47]. When it was pointed out that there was a consensus against including his claim and that Raggz was the only person who disagreed with this, he claimed a "consensus of one" [48] [49], cited WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY as an excuse to ignore the consensus [50] [51] and carried on inserting his false claim into various articles.

4. He has repeatedly claimed that United Nations personnel were accused of war crimes (or other crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC) and that the ICC prosecutor was ignoring this. [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]

5. He systematically deletes material critical of the United States government, often for patently false reasons. A few examples:

1. He removed a link to this New York Times article about a State Department memo, calling it an "unreliable citation".
2. He deleted a well-sourced opinion by Benjamin B. Ferencz (a highly respected Nuremberg prosecutor) that President Bush should be prosecuted for waging an aggressive war, with the edit summary "OR deletes, fact updates, cites".
3. He deleted the claim that "Former CIA officials have stated that the White House knew before the invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but had decided to attack Iraq and continue to use the WMD story as a false pretext for launching the war", saying it was "not supported by the citation". (Read the source here.)

(- Maybe you should just have said 'A former CIA official'? That article only mentions one, Tyler Drumheller.--Lopakhin (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

1. He deleted the claim that some of America's traditional allies opposed the invasion of Iraq and wanted to give the UN weapons inspectors more time, calling this "unsupported extraneous material". He removed all mention of countries that opposed the invasion of Iraq: when he was done, the section called "Countries supporting and opposing the invasion" only discussed countries that supported the invasion.
2. He deleted a paragraph consisting almost entirely of direct quotes from a single source, calling it "original research".
3. He deleted well-sourced statements by Human Rights Watch and US Ambassador David Scheffer on the grounds that, since he disagreed with them, they were not reliable sources "for lack of fact checking".[57] He repeatedly deleted Ambassador Scheffer's quote, falsely claiming that "the citation is used out of context and introductory sentence is partially incorrect factually".[58] (Read the source here and decide whether the quote was taken out of context.)

6. When he does cite sources, he frequently misrepresents them. For example, he has repeatedly claimed that "Judge Philippe Kirsch, President of the International Criminal Court states that "balancing the disclosure of evidence necessary for the defence to prepare its case with the need to redact information to protect victims and witnesses" remains an ongoing challenge." [59], [60], [61]. According to Raggz's source, this is what Kirsch actually said: "One of the significant areas of activity has been balancing the disclosure of evidence necessary for the defence to prepare its case with the need to redact information to protect victims and witnesses" (PDF).

[edit] Propaganda campaign by User:Raggz

This situation is out of control and needs to stop. User:Raggz refuses to adhere to WP:NPOV and has begun removing all instances of it in every article he edits. —Viriditas | Talk 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What sort of administrative action do you have in mind? MastCell ^Talk 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is your issue?

"Let me be specific: which speculative allegations do you find in the article (lead/body/etc) that are not supported by a WP:RS? —Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"It has a powerful and often independent judiciary and a constitution that attempts in many areas to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny." Raggz (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)"

..."often independent judiciary" implies that the judiciary is sometimes not indepedent, a NPOV violation (in my opinion). There is no supporting reliable source within the article that suggests that the judiciary is ever not independent, making this a OR violation. Did you offer a reliable source when you reverted it to suggest that the US judiciary is not sometimes independent? No Viriditas, you did not. Raggz (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue Viriditas has raised, I believe, specifically has to do with the massive amounts of text Raggz deleted, citing WP:OR as the reason for deletion: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], and so forth. Raggz continually claims that he has the consensus of other editors to make these edits. Nevertheless, this material was arrived at through the usual editorial process, imperfect though it may be. Furthermore nowhere does any other editor (besides Raggz) actually seem to endorse a massive deletion of any kind. Finally, even when attempting to engage in discussion in the talk pages, Raggz frequently asks POINTy leading questions, and to misrepresent assertions made by other editors in the same page. (See for instance the above attempt to minimize Viriditas' concern by deliberately misrepresenting it.) Raggz also repeatedly misrepresents Wikipedia policy, such as WP:OR and WP:CONSENSUS, to reach similar bizarre conclusions and self-serving ends. I, and I see other editors as well, find this behavior highly disruptive and tendentious. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are raising a very hefty charge against another user as Propaganda. Cannot you be a little more specific before levying liable on someone? Is he pro USA or against? Is he pro Humanrights or against? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Numerous pro-US edits attempting to remove, or minimize, entire sections of material critical of the US. In addition to some of the diffs above, see the edit history of Human rights and the United States. It is littered with removal of material, as well as coloring things in a non-NPOV pro-US manner. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue of tacit consensus is just me asking on TALK if anyone objects. Silly rabbit objects to this. My view? "In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." Consensus.

I am not for or against the USA, but in favor of improving this encyclopedia article. The NPOV violations are entirely about an anti-US bias. This means that most edits correct this. The article should focus upon PROVEN human rights violations and not focus UNPROVEN allegations. Consider what I said (above}.

... "Abu Girab would be a good starting point. This is an example of a documented human rights violation that is not yet in the Article. We have an abundance of speculative allegations and a total lack of objective documented examples (like Abu Girab). ... Raggz (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit is an exceptionally concientious editor who participates in TALK, and strives for consensus. I feel this input should be weighed at twice the combined weight of the preceeding comments from editors who engage in reportable violations themselves. She has corrected my on one WP policy, and I have abided by her correction. We just disagree. She seems to feel that a reliable source for a speculative allegation of a human rights violation is a good basis for a section that claims a human rights violation. This article is (in my opinion) a collection of speculative assertions about human rights, and Silly rabbit and I disagree about this. She resists my claim that without reliable sources that move beyond speculative allegations, the Article may not move beyond speculative allegations. We have debated this at length. In particular she has resisted correction of one of the major flaws of this article, the lack of articulation of what is and what is not a "human right". I am an advocate for defining in each section specifically what human rights were denied, and how the determination was reached.

She is correct about the other editors, they share a common pov and my participation brings a divergent pov into this mix. The process would have significantly less controvery if I were not involved, but the NPOV policy would also greatly suffer. Raggz (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what you believe or what your position is on any issue. I'm here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not use Wikipedia as a battleground for a select POV. You joined Wikipedia at 06:27, 24 December 2006 and you have had a year to learn how to edit. The discussions on your talk page indicate that your behavior has not changed. Page protection and a user RFC aren't going to solve the problem, but that's where we seem to be headed. I would like administrators to be aware of the problem and to monitor the situation. To quote User:Nickhh on dealing with Raggz: "I simply find it too frustrating, as it would appear do several other editors who have come across your often bizarre, inaccurate, unsourced or irrelevant insertions and deletions to articles. When these are pointed out to you, you respond with a combination of irrelevant queries on talk pages going down the same tangent you started off on (or a repetition of questions which have already been answered), combined with promises to correct any mistakes, and apparently sincere requests for help with editing. You then just carry on as before. Sorry to be so hard about this, but as a very occasional editor, I've got better things to do with my time than fill up Wikipedia talk pages." —Viriditas | Talk 05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas correctly asserts that I will continue as before, because I am proud of my WP edits that have helped bring NPOV to this and other articles. I have made mistakes and likely will again, and as always, I will learn from these. If corrected here, I will accept such correction, and perhaps even cease editing. I do not believe that I am a "problem". I believe that there is a problem, the article has a serious NPOV problems. Viriditas, if you don't have time to use TALK, perhaps you need reduce your editing burden to a more manageable level?

I have asked you repeatedly to offer one reliable citation from the article that documents that even one human rights violation actually occured. You will not do this, why? Why is it an error to keep asking an important question that you will not answer?

I did the same thing with Silly rabbit. I kept asking what specific human right does health insurance policy in the US deny, and she would never answer this important question. I asked her again and again. Finally she named a UN treaty. I then asked Silly rabbit for a reliable source that (1) the US or (2)UN judiciary decision confirmed the allegation. I asked Silly rabbit for this repeatedly, because this is a critical question. Silly rabbit then said that human rights should not be limited by legalities and I responded fine, just offer a reliable source for support. The very existence of a debate within the US over health care proves that this debate has not yet been settled. When we have a reliable source that establishes that an actual human right to universal health care actually exists, then we should add a claim for this. Silly rabbit and I went round and round the tree. This in my view, is merely part of the consensus process. There is no rule against repeating the key unanswered questions. I suggest that the key unanswered questions need be repeated until they are answered. Raggz (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that my disability has had an impact here. I retired after a traumatic brain injury in 2005. I doubt this has any effect, although my memory suffered, I do not percieve any impact. IF this is the case, my disability should not be an excuse, I should then be banned anyway. Context is important, Administrators might better sort through this long section knowing this. If it comes to banning, I'm fine with it. WP is but one of many ways to contribute. The article would then resume its former equilibium. Is this really a good thing? I think not. Raggz (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You say you have made mistakes and that you have learned from them. However, looking at your talk page, you seem to be making the same mistakes. As I explained to you on your talk page and on the article page, I do not need to answer questions about your edits, especially a question that has nothing to do the topic we are discussing. I am sorry that you have a TBI, and if you need help with anything, Wikipedians are always around to help out, but it might be a good time for you to take a break and figure out what you love to write about most, and just focus on that one thing. —Viriditas | Talk 07:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The most important issue is the poor condition of the Article. Do you recognize that the Article is filled with serious violations of NPOV and OR? Why not include examples where the US has been proven to have denied human rights (like Abu Girab) and only focus on alleged examples like circumcision? Visit capitalism, does every unsupported allegation ever written about capitalism appear in that article, or just the serious issues? Would capitalism be improved if the article was written to advocate another system? Some editors would prefer this.

You can help me. When I discover an Article like this one with entrenched editors who resist this shift in Consensus, how may I then best help them with their angst? Take yourself as an example, you are so convinced of your own pov that you have to this very moment refused to provide reliable sources for any of your claims. How may I best help persons like yourself to understand that OR applies to you as well as me? How may I more gently persuade people like yourself who are too busy to engage in TALK or strive for consensus? I don't know how to edit articles like this one without upsetting people like yourself, or to get negative input on my user page. My question is sincere. Raggz (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall ever discussing my POV. Could you tell me what is it? Since I have not made any claims, I do not have to provide RS for them. —Viriditas | Talk 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't understand...

I'm at a loss to understand the lack of administrator interest in this. I made some very serious allegations about Raggz's behaviour, which I backed up with plenty of diffs. He hasn't refuted any of these charges. Instead, he has responded by telling a bunch of outright lies about me (for example, that I'm a "clandestine pov warrior", "There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts", and his bizarre suggestion that I work for the International Criminal Court). He hasn't cited a single shred of evidence for any of this, and my contribution history reveals it to be patently false.

Meanwhile, he continues to add false claims to Wikipedia. Many of his lies will likely remain in place permanently, because there are so many of them and because he invariably revert-wars when other editors attempt to correct them. Stuff like this misleads our readers and seriously damages Wikipedia's credibility.

MastCell asks what sort of administrative action we have in mind. My understanding is that editors who persistently insert patently false claims into articles should be blocked. Am I wrong in this understanding, or do you still not believe that Raggz has been persistently inventing crazy claims and inserting them into articles? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like this misleads our readers and seriously damages Wikipedia's credibility." Editors are permitted to add relevant material that denies your pov. They then need add supporting reliable sources when they do this. I really am unable to understand your issue here, would you mind explaining exactly what the issue here is? I presently believe that you believe that your pov is TRUTH?

Do you deny that the ICC Prosecutor's report is a reliable source in regard to human rights violations? Do you claim that I misapplied it, if so, how? I don't follow your logic. HRW made an unsupported allegation in 2004, in 2006 an ICC investigation denied this claim (with qualifiers) and on the footnotes of page 7 specifically cited HRW when denying these. Why shouldn't the ICC Prosecutor's report be included? In fact, since the 2006 report dismissed the 2004 HRW allegation, the 2004 allegation should be deleted because it was not supported by an ICC investigation? I will do this edit if left at liberty to do so.

Your unwillingness to answer the question above leads me to believe that you are a pov warrior, but of course I cannot know what motivates you. If you don't act like a pov warrior, I won't call you one. Even if you were one, you needn't be one now. Please answer the question? Raggz (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that were Raggz to be blocked, Wikipedia would be better off and Raggz could easily find another forum for their slant on history? I would suggest a cooling off period by blocking Raggz for 3 months. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I very much dislike intervening in content disputes as a rule, but after reviewing the contributions from Raggz, I cannot help but agree that he has waded deep into tendentious editing and is currently a net liability to the project. I will give him a stern warning to stay away from the topic entirely. — Coren ^(talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. His edits have been a royal pain. And I am only referring to his edits of the torture related articles. torture United Nations Convention Against Torture Human rights and the United States Crime against humanity Human rights‎ I see that his edits on other articles have been just as bad. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Coren. I hope this will be the end of it. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ahem

I'd just like to say that Raggz does seem to be implementing some long overdue cleanup on several articles. He seems to be trying to follow policy and NPOV (I've looked at his edits) in addition to engaging people on article talk pages when asked to do so and has been remarkably civil, all things considered. However, several editors have refused to AGF where he is concerned and constantly engage in personal attacks and accusations of policy violation. From what I have seen, Viriditas is the most egregrious of these cases-- check out the current edit by him under the subtopic concerning Raggz on the page this was forked from, as well as his edits to Raggz's talk page. I think a careful examination of who's been complaining about Raggz and what their conduct has been towards him should be done before any action is taken. Jtrainor (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's easy for Raggz to remain civil while he lies about other editors, ignores our comments, and flaunts our policies. And it's difficult or other editors to assume good faith when he inserts blatant lies into our articles.

I'm sure that, among his mass deletions, he has removed a lot of terrible stuff that didn't belong on Wikipedia, but he's also removed plenty of relevant, well-sourced stuff, usually for patently false reasons. I have no doubt that some of the articles he's edited were in awful shape and have improved as a result of his pruning, but he's seriously damaged some really good articles, and there's absolutely no excuse for this. Take a look at his edits to International Criminal Court during the summer: he introduced dozens of blatantly false claims into the article, and removed anything he thought reflected badly on the United States.

I was the person who originally made this complaint. Every single accusation I made was backed up with diffs. If you think we need a "careful examination of who's been complaining about Raggz and what their conduct has been towards him", I encourage you to examine my contributions and cite concrete examples of where you think my conduct was inappropriate. I have asked Raggz to do this, but he hasn't taken me up on the offer. Meanwhile, he has continued to attack me personally and tell a bunch of outright lies about me.

I'm sure that some of the people who have been involved in disputes with Raggz (and he's had disputes a hell of a lot of people over the last few months) have behaved pretty badly, but many of us have played by the rules and are frustrated by the fact that he can systematically violate our core policies, apparently with impunity.

Anyway, I welcome any "careful examination" of my conduct towards Raggz, as long as he's not allowed to continue to disrupt Wikipedia in the meantime. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity." Five pillars Raggz (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have specifically stated prior that I do not wish actions to be taken against Sideshow Bob Roberts. Despite his flaws (and who am I to talk about those), he is doing his best. As a very new user I did commit a number of errors, and I then earned his ire. I have since learned much, but do not consider myself that experienced. Luke0101 is a new user that is presently driving me crazy, doing pretty much what I did in the beginning. I find myself writing him notes that remind me of what Sideshow Bob Roberts wrote to me last summer. I hope to be considerably more patient, nor will I stalk him to new articles, I will try to help him in the manner that I wish that Sideshow Bob Roberts had helped me. Perhaps the WikiGod has inflicted Luke0101 upon me for my past transgressions? I suppose that I do deserve him. Raggz (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viriditas and his conspiracy theory

Viriditas and I have never edited an article (as far as I can recall). This explains why he is arriving everywhere I edit. I had wondered where he came from, now I know and you might want to know as well.

His primary contribution is to work against consensus for all changes all of the time. Consensus. He is also harassing Ryder Spearmann because he believes that we are the same person. Is this the place to get help? May I request here that Viriditas be banned from the articles that he was not editing two weeks ago, but joined just to interfer? Raggz (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

From Stone put to sky

Investigation: "Aloha. I was given your name by User:Silly rabbit. I would like to ask you about what happened last spring on AN/I concerning someone named "MONGO" and anyone else. Feel free to e-mail me with information or contact me on my talk page. This is the first I've heard of it, so excuse me for my learning curve. While watching my enhanced watchlists this week, I noticed a high amount of content deletions (negative numbers) occurring that were traceable to articles related to Iraq. I have no real interest in the topic nor in any content dispute, so my investigation concerns only the pattern of noise that emerged from these recent changes - a pattern that seemed to be in sharp contrast to relevant policies and guidelines typically enforced by administrators. Strangely, no administrators were rushing to revert or engage. When confronted with this evidence, a number of editors and admins came forward to dismiss this as a content dispute but it appears to be a disruptive behavioral pattern masquerading as a content dispute. As an experiment, I engaged several involved editors and quickly realized that they were working together to game the system. That's where I'm at now and I would like to pursue this further. Please contact me at your convenience. —Viriditas | Talk 09:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)"

You should change this section title to "Raggz and his conspiracy theory". Everything I wrote above can be confirmed with diffs below. You and User:Ryder Spearmann began deleting a massive amount of content at the same time making duplicate arguments on different talk pages, including false claims of "tacit consensus" - words that the two of you both used on different pages. This is more than a coincidence and showed up as a unique pattern on my enhanced watchlist. Jtrainor's defense of your edits cannot be substantiated by any stretch of the imagination, and I see that he has supported this type of disruptive editing in the past. To recap from the main page: The content deletions with and without edit summaries are continuing on Iraq War,[69] and Rationale for the Iraq War, except this time, a single-purpose account named User:Ryder Spearmann which showed up out of the blue to work with Raggz is now helping him disrupt multiple pages, claiming that there is "tacit formal consensus" to remove all criticism from the article.[70][71]. This is the exact same behavior Raggz had been engaged in earlier in the day in the same article [72] and previously in other articles like Human rights and the United States‎ where he removed criticism wholesale [73] and claimed he had consensus on the talk page to do so. Raggz also used the same wording as Ryder Spearmann to justify his wholesale deletions just a few days earlier, claiming, "Tacit consensus may be reached when the discussion settles out..." [74] According to arbcom, "Removal of sources is generally met with bans on editing the articles in question in conjunction with penalties issued for POV editing". These two users, User:Ryder Spearmann and User:Raggz are working together to disrupt multiple articles by removing sourced content and claiming consensus between the two of them as their justification. —Viriditas | Talk 10:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, you claimed that my "primary contribution is to work against consensus for all changes all of the time". Could you please provide diffs showing that to be true? In fact, what I have done, is show that that your claims of consensus were completely false, and were being orchestrated by you and Ryder Spearmann. Both of you were making virtually identical edits (deletions without edit summaries, deletions of criticism, etc.) and using the same arguments and vocabulary across multiple articles. That's it. Pointing out the obvious isn't "work against consensus". What I have shown is a consistent pattern of gaming the system, in other words, disruptive behavior. This has been going on for a long time from you as documented on your talk page, and I have only recently become aware of it. Frankly, I haven't said anything that other editors have not already observed, and you can add my voice to the list of editors who have complained about your behavior on your talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas, I have documented instances at Viriditas where you have intervened in pages you do not edit ONLY to interfer with the process of building consensus. This is a serious violation. You admit (above): "I engaged several involved editors and quickly realized that they were working together to game the system." The most important thing you may do to help here is to provide the diff showing the clues that lead you to this most remarkable conclusion. Let everyone see your evidence for themselves? I am certain that you cannot offer any evidence because I am in a position to know that I simply edit articles and have no grand schemes to control WP (or anything else). You are accusing a brand new editor of conspiracy, so you now need show your evidence. If you are correct, the situation needs to be dealt with and if you are making wild and unsupportable charges to harass a brand new editor, you need to be strongly dealt with. To this point, in my opinion, you have yet to offer any evidence for your theories (above) and should be dealt with strongly and appropriately. So Viriditas, do you have ANY evidence at all?

Thank you for offering the link to learn diffs. I have not yet taken the time to lean. Raggz (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The evidence has been offered in the form of diffs above. Please review them. Further evidence for your disruption can be found here. —Viriditas | Talk 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No one wants to read ninety pages of diffs. I'm involved, and I don't care enough to read all of that. You are using the smokescreen tactic, throwing bytes at such a volume that no one will read them and discover that you have NO evidence. I asked you to offer your best shot and apparently you don't have one (or it is too pathetic to be called a best shot). OK, here is your first charge. What policy violation is involved?

"Examples of User:Raggz's disregard for Wikipedia's core content policies

1. He has made dozens of false claims about the International Criminal Court, without ever citing sources that agree with him. For example: "there are no appeals"

The ICC has an internal form of appeal, but there is no external appeal of any ICC verdict. There has never been an actual internal appeal of any ICC verdict internally. Now reasonable people may debate the facts below reasonably, but it seems extremely unreasonable to me that you have us here to mediate these facts and that you prefer this forum to TALK. I ask that your insistance for this be noted as unreasonable and as contrary to policy.

The Facts

States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: "The status of the United States and the International Criminal Court ... US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment. Others have commented that it violates international law, that it is a political court without appeal, that it denies fundamental American human rights, denies the authority of the United Nations, and denies US national sovereignty. (see above for details and citations)"

International Criminal Court "The Judicial Divisions consist of the 18 judges of the Court, organized into three divisions — the Pre-Trial Division, Trial Division and Appeals Division — which carry out the judicial functions of the Court.[41] The Pre-Trial Division (which comprises the First Vice President and six other judges)[41] confirms indictments and issues international arrest warrants. The Trial Division (the Second Vice President and five other judges) presides over trials. Decisions of the Pre-Trial and Trial Divisions may be appealed to the Appeals Division (the President and four other judges). Judges are assigned to divisions according to their qualifications and experience.[34]"

Raggz, you are confusing a content dispute with a dispute about your editing behavior. This incident report does not regard a content dispute. The evidence for this dispute, including links and diffs, is found in the above sections. —Viriditas | Talk 01:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who cited my "content dispute" as "editing behavior". In regard to your diff evidence regarding ICC appeals, how is it relevant to my "behavior"? This was all your idea! You made this claim, now support it. Now, I require you to do so. Raggz (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it required that I initiate the request for review of your disruptive behavior seperately? Raggz (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it works. We don't cite the content as evidence for the behavior. The list of disruptive behaviorial patterns has been presented by multiple users. I myself, presented it here. Now, if you want to address that section, feel free to do so, but keep in mind you need to start using WP:SDG. It's also best to address the edits, not the editor. —Viriditas | Talk 02:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, I'm curious, where did you get the notion of "tacit consensus" from? You referred to it at 01:40, 8 January 2008 on Talk:Human rights and the United States [75], while User:Ryder Spearmann used it in his edit summary to delete criticism from Rationale for the Iraq War at 06:54, 10 January 2008. You claimed it was a rhetorical device unrelated to Wikipedia policy at 03:25, 11 January 2008 [76], and Spearmann followed up to your explanation claiming he got the idea from the Sinhala language Wikipedia.[77] You then chimed in and said it should be added to the English version. But, Raggz, you had used the idea in another article before Spearmann explained where he had found it. Can you explain that? From what I can tell, you used the idea before Spearmann, but Spearmann claims to have used it first. Couple this with your recent explanation that you borrowed an argument from Spearmann and used it in another article because you liked it. I would like to point out that Spearmann's account was created at 23:04, 5 January 2008.[78] and has been used only for Iraq-related articles. —Viriditas | Talk 02:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your questions and claims confuse me. If another editor asks about them, I will answer, but I believe everyone but you are already bored with that issue. I am not Ryder Spearmann. I do not know him, I am not conspiring with him against you.

I used tacit consent first, suggested that Ryder consider it as a means to advance Consensus. He first used other arguments that I liked and borrowed. Ryder found something about tacit consent somewhere on WP and discussed it. I know what happened, and I just told you what happened. Construct conspiracy timelines if you must, but I am bored with these. Unless someone else asks, I'm not going into detailed conspiracy timelines with you. Raggz (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Question, where did you suggest Ryder should use the concept of "tacit consent"? I have never once used the word "conspiracy", however it seems to be a favorite topic of yours. —Viriditas | Talk 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, I appreciate that you've finally responded to one of my many accusations — a week after I posted them — but I can't believe you're actually trying to defend your claim that "there are no appeals" in the International Criminal Court. You know damn well that that ain't true. The ICC has a panel of judges (the "Appeals Chamber") whose full-time job is to hear appeals against decisions by the other judges.

You seem to be arguing now that the ICC's appeals process is in some way inadequate, as if this somehow justifies your false claim. If you can find a reliable, published source that says the appeals process is inadequate, or that decisions should be appealed to an external body, feel free to add that to the article. But you can't just claim that "there are no appeals" when you know that that's not true. It's totally dishonest and it violates one of our core policies.

Your claim that "There has never been an actual internal appeal of any ICC verdict internally" is incredibly disingenuous. You know damn well that that's because the ICC hasn't issued any verdicts yet — the first ever ICC trial is due to open later this month. Meanwhile, however, many decisions by the Pre-Trial Chamber have been appealed to the Appeals Chamber — see this very long list of appeals in the Lubanga case. Statements like "There has never been an actual internal appeal of any ICC verdict internally" demonstrate your complete contempt for the truth.

I posted a long list of policy violations by you,[79] and you responded "No one wants to read ninety pages of diffs. I'm involved, and I don't care enough to read all of that. You are using the smokescreen tactic, throwing bytes at such a volume that no one will read them and discover that you have NO evidence."[80] We both know that the real reason you haven't responded to any of my accusations is that you know that every single example I cited was a clear violation of our core policies. You know perfectly well that the ICC has an Appeals Chamber and an appeals process, so you know perfectly well that this edit violated WP:V. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

Raggz, you have been accused by multiple editors of the following behavior:

• Ignoring NPOV
• Original research
• Editorializing
• Inserting erroneous information
• Edit warring
• Wikilawyering
• Disruptive editing

Except for User:Jtrainor, who seems to find this behavior acceptable, most Wikipedians do not. You've been asked to change your behavior since May of 2007. You have not. Instead, your problems appear to be the work of everyone but yourself, and you seem unwilling to take responsibility for your edits.

I refer you to the evidence. —Viriditas | Talk 12:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no "evidence" in your diffs. You just don't know much about these topics. Already this section is ninety times longer than it need be. Please, just pick your "best shot". I will refute it, demonstrate your limited knowledge, you may then apologize, and we can all then move on. So, which part of your "evidence" is your best shot? Raggz (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment once again distracts away from this incident report and fails to address any of the evidence offered in the diffs and links above. There is nothing for you to "refute" at this time, however, you are welcome to begin changing your disruptive behavior. —Viriditas | Talk 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still ongoing

Still ongoing via multiple pages. Disruption, wikilawyering, gaming the system, threats, mild trolling on talk pages, and now a new single-user account (User:Ryder Spearmann) has showed up as of a few days ago, writing in the same style as Raggz and making the same arguments. Sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or just coincidence, I don't know. —Viriditas | Talk 09:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone inform User:Raggz that consensus on article talk pages does not override WP:NPOV. He just claimed that it does here. —Viriditas | Talk 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use the article subpage for on-topic discussion. --slakr^\ talk / 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love to, but unfortunately this problem is being reported by other editors, and is now duplicated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Raggz_is_issuing_threats. —Viriditas | Talk 06:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Raggz is issuing threats

User:Raggz appeared a week or so ago on the State Terrorism by the United States page and began making massive deletions. At one and the same time he claimed to be a new user, while also justifying his deletions with wiki-policy notes -- "WP:NPOV", "WP:OR", and so on. Regardless, today he issued a clear threat on my talk page, saying that if i did not allow his deletions then he would "pursue other means". In light of the recently exposed cabal headed up by MONGO, Tom Harrison, and Morton Devonshire, i consider this threat to be a grave and actionable matter. While it may be the case that Raggz is unaffiliated with this group, his recent behavior follows the same modus operandi and line of argument that has characterized this group over the last few years. I am here formally drawing attention to it; any feedback would appreciated. Thank you. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone, perhaps you should read WP:NOT and WP:NOR, it would be a good start for you of what the project is all about. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for POV pushing of fringe views. While we have articles on fringe views in the world, we do not ramrod them into mainstream articles to suit our fancy. Interesting you should comment on other user's behavior, ie: making comments like this as an SPA. It looks like Raggz is trying to work with others here. I suggest you do the same. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That "threat" looks innocent enough; "We may debate these issues on TALK and there strive for Consensus, or I will need to seek an alternative solution." Looks like he's threatening you with Dispute Resolution. Pairadox (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And also note the assumption of bad faith by Stone put to sky, "[i]n light of the recently exposed cabal headed up by MONGO, Tom Harrison, and Morton Devonshire." Um, citation needed anyone? Like A Rainbow (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As a note here, Ragzz and Stone put to sky are currently engaged in a content dispute in the article Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States, which, as no doubt most of you regulars know, has a long and checkered history. The thing really ought to be scrubbed out with a mop as it is STILL full of WP:SYNT violations. But anyways, with regards to these two users, well, look at the article's talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And as a side note, Jtrainor has been involved in the same dispute as a long-term participant, so his comments here should be viewed in that light. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is disruptive editing by Ragzz, not a content dispute. Have you seen the outrageous claims he has made on this page? Please read it. —Viriditas | Talk 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Raggz

Raggz has issued the same threats against me, and new single-user accounts are popping up on article talk pages. There are arbcom rulings against removing well-sourced material. Raggz is not a new editor, and I'm wondering how many editors have to come to this noticeboard before someone admits there is a problem; there have been at least four different editors in the last 48 hours who have commented about the disruption Raggz is causing in multiple articles. Raggz has had a year to learn the policies and guidelines and still doesn't understand them. When confronted with this, he has stated on the incident sub-page that he has a traumatic brain injury. I don't know if this is true or an attempt to elicit sympathy for his edits, but Raggz needs help, either from administrators or a mentor. The problem is, that in addition to his disruptive behavior, while Raggz deletes sourced material he also adds unsourced OR. I propose that Raggz both discuss his deletions before making them, and add sources to any new content that he writes. This will partly solve the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at Raggz' edits to the article I linked above, and at least the recent ones (modifying the intro) seem to be in good faith. Jtrainor (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On Raggz' talk page, you have referred to the concerns about his editing as nothing more than "wild accusations". Since you are such a staunch defender of this user I would like to ask you to consider becoming his mentor, or at least find him one that will guide him through the forest. —Viriditas | Talk 06:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Recently exposed cabal? What the heck is Stone put to sky talking about? Lets see, well, Tom harrison hasn't made a single edit since 11/24/2007,[81] and Morton devonshire left wikipedia on 11/18/2007 [82]...I haven't made a single edit to the article in question since last July! Stone...if you're going to make up allegations about editors, then maybe you're on the wrong website. There are off wiki websites that enjoy reading misinformation and false reports about our editors, but this one doesn't.--MONGO 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • MONGO, do you or any of the above users who have allegedly "left", use alternate accounts to edit Wikipedia? —Viriditas | Talk 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I certainly don't. I took that article off my watchlist long ago, since I saw it as a hopeless mess dominated by POV pushing radicals. Tom Harrison told me he was gone for good, and Morton was almost primarily involved in dealing wiht conspiracy theory cruft...once he saw that most of that had been removed, he said he was no longer editing here.--MONGO 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your straight answer. I am curious (mostly due to my own ignorance on this topic) as to why several users think you are the head of a cabal? And what do they mean when they say this cabal has been "exposed"? Was there an RfC, arbcom decision, or some other incident that I should be aware of here? —Viriditas | Talk 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Not to my knowledge.--MONGO 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for the Iraq War

The content deletions with and without edit summaries are continuing on Iraq War,[83] and Rationale for the Iraq War, except this time, a single-purpose account named User:Ryder Spearmann which showed up out of the blue to work with Raggz is now helping him disrupt multiple pages, claiming that there is "tacit formal consensus" to remove all criticism from the article.[84][85]. This is the exact same behavior Raggz had been engaged in earlier in the day in the same article [86] and previously in other articles like Human rights and the United States‎ where he removed criticism wholesale [87] and claimed he had consensus on the talk page to do so. Raggz also used the same wording as Ryder Spearmann to justify his wholesale deletions just a few days earlier, claiming, "Tacit consensus may be reached when the discussion settles out..." [88] According to arbcom, "Removal of sources is generally met with bans on editing the articles in question in conjunction with penalties issued for POV editing". These two users, User:Ryder Spearmann and User:Raggz are working together to disrupt multiple articles by removing sourced content and claiming consensus between the two of them as their justification. —Viriditas | Talk 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have but one account. If banned, I won't pop up gain. I wouldn't have two accounts even if they were permitted, what would I use two accounts for? I do not know Ryder Spearman, and have never communicated with him except in TALK. You are out of line Viriditas to be making rash charges only because two editors agree on something.

For the record I have since used Ryder's argument that I found elegant, that controversial articles should stay on topic, that OJ Simpson should not be a debate page if he really was guilty, and that An Inconvenient Truth should be about the book and should not be a forum for those who oppose the Global Warming theory. (For the record Global Warming is an excellent model for handling controversy well.) Raggz (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you have once again distracted away from the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 23:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What would be correct?

Could someone explain what the correct approach is if an editor discovers a sinister cabal of editors who are "gaming the system" with the assistance of a brand new editor? Would it involve conducting private covert investigations and overt efforts to disrupt their conspiracy? Would it properly involve disruption of Consensus and public allegations in TALK that the new editor was really another editor? I really don't know the rules, so could someone on this mediation page please respond?

Even if the charges were true, has Viriditas still violated policy? I suspect so. Raggz (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you always ask questions and answer them yourself? The fact is, the claims of a "cabal" were made by other editors, and I merely investigated them further. What I found was a pattern of disruptive editing. Where is the violation? Note, I will not be answering my own question like Raggz. —Viriditas | Talk 23:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You have dodged the question. If you discovered a sinister cabal, what would the proper action be? I suggest that your actions were innappropriate - even if your claim was true (which it is not). I'm just pointing out (1) that your initial suspicions are STILL unconfirmed by any evidence AND (2) even if you were correct, your actions were STILL policy violations. Did I get anything wrong above? Raggz (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are changing the subject again. Evidence has been offered for all assertions and is linked several times above, including diffs. You've also failed to answer just about every question asked of you on the talk pages. —Viriditas | Talk 00:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject is your violations of Policy. It is to your interest to answer them. When you make claims you cannot support, your conduct properly gets reviewed.

The questions are:

• What is the correct approach is if an editor discovers a sinister cabal of editors who are "gaming the system" with the assistance of a brand new editor?

• Would it involve conducting private covert investigations and overt efforts to disrupt their conspiracy?

• Would it properly involve disruption of Consensus and public allegations in TALK that the new editor was really another editor? Raggz (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the subject is your editing behavior, not me. I am but one of many participants who have stumbled across this incident report. Please take responsibility for your edits, the diffs of which are listed above. Raggz, you appear to be wikilawyering, again. —Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you "stumble" on anything relating to this. You are all over me and Raggz like white on rice, "stumbling" upon us in various, unrelated places. You exhibit the randomness of a sniper. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Viriditas the problem?

You are the subject, as I am complaining about your behavior here. Do I need to complain somewhere else to get you banned and to stop you from following me from page to page and disrupting the process at each? If so, where? Raggz (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs showing that I have disrupted consensus. In all cases, I have intervened to revert deletions made without consensus and violations of NPOV. I have not added content or involved myself with any content dispute. I have made a few comments on talk pages regarding content. Also, please respond directly to the allegations made about your editing behavior and address all of the points made by other editors. As I look at the previous discussion on this page, you have avoided addressing all of the issues. —Viriditas | Talk 02:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is enough evidence at your discussion page. Viriditas Stone put to sky and Ryder Spearmann. No one wants to read ninety diffs. There is just enough on your Discussion page - and above, (where you admitted that you don't care about the articles but you were stopping a conspiracy, defending WP from a conspiracy to "game the system"). Everyone can read for themselves on your page how you reacted to defend WP from the conspiracy. Even if I was part of the evil cabal, you have no right to act as you did. You had no right to attack a very new user for agreeing with me (which to you, proved that he was a conspirator). If you have now learned anything, if you apologize now, we can both go back to editing and we need not waste everyone else's time. So, have you learned anything? Do you apologize? 03:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot apologize for things I have never said. You have a talent for twisting words and ignoring evidence. —Viriditas | Talk 08:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that I have had Viriditas show up at a most unlikely location specifically disrupting conversation and exiting. The pattern is clear. Ryder Spearmann (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made by Raggz to Legality of the Iraq War

Firstly, let me say that I have had no prior involvement with Raggz, and was unaware this AN/I page existed until just now, when I looked at his recent edits. I just wanted to bring to admins' attention his changes to legality of the Iraq War on December 23-24; he made some significant edits, some which I felt broke the NPOV policy, and a couple that were simply factually incorrect (that resolution 1441 wasn't used to justify war against Iraq). These changes weren't supported by any community consensus, although I should point out that Raggz proposed them on the Talk page first, and no one objected. I don't have firsthand experience of him being disruptive or violating any major policies, but these edits suggest that he probably sometimes takes Be Bold a little too seriously, and sometimes allows his own POV to influence his editing. I should emphasise that he is clearly willing to be civil and discuss his edits with others, as he is doing on this very page; I don't have any concerns about his conduct in discussions, only with his edits themselves. Terraxos (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Terraxos gets it about right. I have much left to learn, and I am learning it.

As for 1441, we can discuss that on TALK. The US Department of State made its claims (check their homepage) that included 1441 but was based upon 660/678. 1441 did not authorize Chapter VII military force but 660/678 did. 1441 is a straw man, but only IF offered alone as a legal basis for war as the article suggested. Raggz (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility has never been an issue, nor has anyone raised it on this page. —Viriditas | Talk 08:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

[edit] 12 January 2008

• 05:59 - Raggz adds unsourced original research regarding Kofi Annan [89]
• 06:07 - Raggz removes reliable secondary sources that substantiate the inline text.[90]
• 06:14 - Raggz violates NPOV, claiming that JURIST is not a RS and deletes a reference to the award-winning news service.[91] It is apparently not reliable because Raggz does not agree with its POV.
• 06:28 - Raggz deletes a citation to World Press Review claiming that the "cite that did not support text".[92] However, the link in question does appear to support the text, contrary to Raggz' claim.
• 06:35 - Raggz deletes cited, attributed text comparing a war of aggression to a crime [93] claiming that the "cite does not say this". The cited material is in fact, found in the link Raggz removed. This edit was later reverted by another editor and an additional source added.[94]

—Viriditas | Talk 19:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, you should sign your stuff, Viriditas. Anyways, I just looked through that stuff...

First one: Raggz is actually right, but needed to provide a source. Not OR, but citation needed tag required, yes.

Second one: First link removed is not actually a citeable source but instead a link farm. Second one Raggz is quite correct to remove: The opinions anti-nuclear advocacy groups are not the correct people to cite about international law.

Third one: This one I agree should be retained.

Fourth one: Raggz is correct, you are wrong. I read what's at the other end of the link.

Fifth one: The Truthout editorial is an obvious hit piece. Raggz is entirely correct to remove it, though for reasons of NPOV and violations of WP:RS rather than the reason he used.

In conclusion, not only are you not building a case for Raggz being intentionally disruptive and violating policy, you are in fact building an excellent case against yourself for violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. I propose that this sub-page be closed as a waste of administrators' time and effort. Jtrainor (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying "Raggz is right" doesn't even begin to address the problem directly above or duplicated here, or in the page histories. Your conclusion isn't even supported by your words. The facts are very clear. The discussion history at User talk:Raggz shows that Raggz has been informed since at least May of 2007, that he should not insert original research or erroneous information, remove sources, editorialize, edit war or wikilawyer. I do not have to build a case for Raggz disrupting multiple articles and violating policy - he has done it himself. The reason you keep coming here to defend his repeated policy violations is because you share his POV, not because his edits are "right". That's pretty obvious considering your long-term investment in Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States, an article where many of Raggz' critics (Silly rabbit and Stone put to sky) can be found. You will not find my name there or in any other content dispute related to Raggz because I have no interest in content here. My interest in this section in particular, concerns a clear and consistent pattern of disruptive editing in Legality of the Iraq War that User:Terraxos has brought to the attention of this page. That you, Jtrainor, make this out to be a case against me speaks volumes. —Viriditas | Talk 19:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boldness is critical

My best defense? 5Pillars "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content."

I have learned a lot about the balance between being bold and being inadvertantly disruptive lately, some of it was learned here. The difference is effectiveness, inadvertant disruption doesn't work, when I have crossed the boundary, the result is that the process stops for everybody. The clue that a boundary approaches is that the consensus process gets slower and more difficult. I want to be effective, so there is no gain or usefulness from being disruptive.

Boldness is critical, and this is why it is so highly valued in 5P. Disruption is only transient, a shock wave that soon passes, but a lack of boldness creates insipid articles that may persist for long periods of time. A lack of boldness is a far more serious threat to WP than is any disruption, which is merely annoying and will soon end. A lack of boldness threatens WP with mediocracy at best - and irrelevance at worst. The quest for a balanced boldness is one to be encouraged. Raggz (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to a defense of Raggz --------------------

Before I share my views about Raggz and the challenges he is facing, I include this introductory section, and then another specifically addressing Raggz.

While a newcomer to the Wikipedia as an editor, I am no stranger to group discussion of subjects of all kinds in unmoderated, moderated, and controlled forums.

Wikipedia is a very interesting, nay an amazing work as a whole. I have the highest regard for the project.

In that light, I have endeavored to "see" the underlying foundation, the principles behind wikipedia that allow it to be the amazing creation that it is. I understand the forces at work, and the broad challenges the Wikipedia faces as a whole. WP is a bright and shining work, that has, IMHO, dark cancers that live within it. While I don't pretend to have the certain cure for these cancers, I have observations and suggestions to make about them, and how Raggz, and editors like him, are vital to WP.

---------

In history we see that where man engages within the structures of reasoned debate, it is certain that such structures are a sword with two edges, one being the structure that harvests the fruits of debate and collaboration, and the other, the barrier by which outsiders are repelled by practiced means. One need look no further than the field of law, where persons are all but unable to defend themselves in times of challenge, requiring an advocate well placed within the structure for their defense.

I am as a babe in the woods before the cogs that turn in the service of this notable collaboration, yet there can be little doubt that it is within the nature of man that some would exploit such workings to his personal advantage, or his personal biases.

I have seen the founding principles all but ignored in deference to the smaller conventions of procedure. I have seen neutrality fall to the weapon of fairness. I have seen contribution crushed under false calls for consensus. I have seen selective adherence to principle, and silence as a restraint to action.

I have seen entrenched defenders repel outsiders by the use of administrative devices and formidable barrages of unrelenting accusation.

More than anything, those skilled and entrenched within this structure, acting in concert, constitute the gravest threat to the vision of this enterprise. Encamped around the most controversial views, they stand ready to resist any alteration to that which is by design and intent, free to be changed by all. History shows us that the warrior will eventually succumb to the blindness of total defense, subverted against the very causes he stands for.

This is where we are today.

Were I to suggest a new idea to repel this systematic prohibition of progress, I would suggest that encampment be met with a most serious disdain by all persons, citing the belief that a good work will stand and even strengthen when left subject to the winds of change.

Ryder Spearmann (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In defense of Raggz ---------------------

From my earliest appearance on WP, Raggz was the most welcoming in deed, not simply the worn welcome of a form letter. For this, I have a decided gratitude. I believe that we both view NPOV and citation issues as one of the most pressing concerns in controversial works.

Without exception, where I have been present to see his interactions with others, he appears at once to be both ideological in his appreciation of WP pillars which lend a certain boldness to his actions, yet tempered with thoughtful and tireless participation.

Regardless of the strengths of WP, articles on areas of controversy seem most vulnerable to corruption, and Raggz has, in all cases known to me, appears to have done work within the spirit and guidance of the most basic ideas and principles of the WP, and certainly moreso than those frequently critical of him. I see honorable intent and a patient, reasoned editor.

As I am new to WP, I do not posess a depth of understanding of the intricate workings of what one might call WP administration... but I have been exposed to it through what I see as clear efforts to stop a good editor in his tracks, his only true crime, failing to conform to the group think of those entrenched around controversy.

From editors that claim far more editing experience, I see less acceptance, fewer or no effort at consensus building, and a blindness to NPOV and citation error. My conclusion is that they are defending bias, and their expertise here is being used primarily to control content, and not to promote good works. Their hands are around Raggz throat now, and they are squeezing.

For anyone, especially administrators, to not see this, is a terrible circumstance IMHO.

Where Raggz may be flirting with, or even crossing lines of protocol, I think it is important to realize what he is facing as an editor that works in large part on areas steeped in controversy, and his work on tacit consensus is an inspiration in my view. He may be seen as 'somewhat' radical, as a disruption, a rebel, but no doubt the authors of paper encylopedias see the Wikipedia in a similar way. Raggz is that special blend of person that offers a modest challenge to the establishment, without resorting to truly radical and unrestrained acts. We should be able to work with that.

I believe that all editors should do all they can to accomodate this diversity, instead of killing it. I take it to heart that "there are no firm rules" is a true and meaningful concept that is MOST applicable in this case, and would be to the benefit of the entirety of the WP to apply it here.

To editors that work against him: Raggz is at times a challenge from your POV. Deal with it. It is part of what you are signed on to do simply by your choice to be here. Silencing Raggz is small and distasteful in my view. You need to be bigger than you are demonstrating.

To Raggz,

My recent appearance has been used as a device against you which I simply could not have forseen. Had I had it all to do over again....

You have invested far far more time and energy on WP than I, and my concern is that my being an editor that shares your concerns is exposing you to additional charges that you do not deserve, but I do not know how to correct.

My days here compared to your many months are insignificant, and your work should not be jeopardized, so I offer to you my willing departure from WP, as I think I could not stand to see injustice visited upon you that I am making, rightly or wrongly, possible. If my departure would, in your view, help you with all this... then say the word. WP is much better off to have you, than not.

Sorry to see all this going on. It is most disheartning.

Ryder Spearmann (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are any administrators reading this?

Just wondering.

I've provided abundant evidence that Raggz has been making stuff up and inserting it into articles, and deleting material he didn't like for false reasons. The only admin who's commented here, Coren, agreed that this is not a content dispute and that Raggz "is currently a net liability to the project".[95]

And yet Raggz continues to make false claims and delete relevant, sourced material to advance his POV.

For example, he deleted this link, saying it's "not a reliable source" (which is Raggzspeak for "I don't agree with this person"). And he deleted the fact that the Nuremberg Tribunal called agression "the supreme international crime". The reason he gave was "Cite does not say this", but the source clearly did say this. (And even if it didn't, five seconds on Google would have revealed the statement to be correct.[96])

A glance at his contributions reveals that this is something Raggz does all the time: delete an inconvenient fact for a blatantly false reason.

Raggz and Jtrainor are trying to characterise this as a content dispute, but it's not. This is about Raggz continually violating our core policies. He has repeatedly stated that he sees nothing wrong with his behaviour and he won't change. Until an administrator intervenes, he will continue to insert blatant lies into Wikipedia articles and remove the facts he doesn't like.

Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Coren to issue the promised "stern warning". 199.125.109.120 (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just fell into the pages that Raggz has edited on and am appalled at his obvious POV-stance and what he is trying to do. People like this are a hazard to encyclopedic projects such as this. Hooper (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)