User talk:Anonip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 SBVT NPOV 2 1st PH 3 1st PH continued 4 Edit wars 5 Killian 6 Killian Documents 6.1 Futility 7 3 revert rule 8 Pablo Neruda 9 Gamaliel and Impartial 3RR Blocking 10 Limitations of Wikipedia 11 Your username 12 RFC Time. 13 Where R U ?

[edit] SBVT NPOV

[edit] 1st PH

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

Allegations Concerning John Kerry's Purple Heart Awards

The Purple Heart is a military decoration awarded for injuries sustained in combat. During his four months in Vietnam, John Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts. Having three Purple Hearts allowed Kerry to request a Thrice Wounded Reassignment to return from Vietnam after serving only four months of a twelve month tour.

Pertinent Purple Heart Qualifications

The SBVT alleges Kerry did not qualify for his first and third Purple Heart awards. These allegations depends both on factual evidence and application of the Purple Heart award criteria. The factual allegations will be discussed separately below. Here we briefly review the award [[1]] pertinent to the SBVT allegations. These are:

1. Award does not require recommendation, but is an entitlement "upon meeting specific criteria".
2. The injury must have been "caused by the enemy".
3. Commanders are to consider "the circumstances surrounding an injury, even if it appears to meet the criteria."
4. Participation in combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but "is not sole justification for award".
5. Wounds from "friendly fire" may qualify if caused "in the heat of battle" by fire "with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment".
6. Self-inflicted wounds "in the heat of battle" may qualify if not involving "gross negligence".
7. The "key issue" commanders must consider is "the degree to which the enemy caused the injury".
8. The injury must have "required treatment by a medical officer".

The SBVT allegations that Kerry did not qualify for the award generally rely on items 2 and 3.

Allegations Concerning Kerry's First Purple Heart Award

John Kerry's first Purple Heart was awarded for an injury sustained on December , 1968.

The SBVT alleges that Kerry lied about the circumstances of his first Purple Heart in the account given to historian Douglas Brinkley and on other occasions.

The SBVT alleges that Kerry did not qualify for the award because his injury was not caused by the enemy, as no enemy were involved. This is based on the eyewitness account of Adm. William Schachte. It is supported by the absence of an after-action report, which would normally have been filed if the enemy had been engaged. This SBVT allegation is disputed by eyewitness accounts from Kerry and two enlisted men.

The SBVT alleges that Kerry did not qualify for the award because his injury did not require treatment by a medical officer, as it was so minor. This is based on the eyewitness account of Dr. Lewis Letson. It is supported by the absence of a personnel casualty report, which would normally have been filed if someone had been wounded.

The SBVT alleges that Kerry lied in order to obtain his Purple Heart. This is inferred by the conclusions that he was not qualified for the award and the fact that he received it nonetheless.

John Kerry's Account

According to Kerry's account, he was in the sole officer in command of a skimmer on a covert mission to disrupt Viet Cong smugglers. When a flare fired from the boat surprised a group of men on shore, Kerry and his crew opened fire. Kerry's M-16 jammed and as he reached for another gun he felt a piece of shrapnel hit his arm. After the enemy fled, "running like gazelles", Kerry and his crewmates destroyed the smugglers' beached sampans and returned to Cam Ranh Bay.

Schachte's Account

The principal eyewitness supporting the SBVT allegations is retired Rear Admiral William Schachte [2], formerly Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy. Schachte is not a member of the SBVT, but has said he admires them as "men that are willing to stand up and put up with what they've been putting up with just to tell the truth – of what they know to be the truth." He originally declined to be interviewed for the SBVT book, but after the controversy erupted he said that he realized he had a duty to "step up and be heard" as a matter of personal honor. He did not appear in a SBVT ad, but told his story in a television interview with Lisa Myers of NBC News [3] and a print interview with Robert Novak. [4] Shachte has said his only motive was "to tell the truth". However, critics have noted that he was a contributor to the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, and also donated to Bush as a primary candidate in 2000.

At the time of the incident, Schachte was a lieutenant and the senior, second in command officer of Coastal Division 14. He has stated he was the senior officer aboard Kerry's skimmer that night. Schachte said that he and Kerry opened fire on a sign of movement suspected to be guerillas. Schachte asserted that there was no hostile return fire and that Kerry was wounded by a fragment from an M-79 grenade launcher he fired himself.

SBVT member Larry Thurlow has stated that, at the time of the incident, Steve Gardner told him that Kerry had received an injury due to a mistake he made when he fired an M-79 close aboard and was hit by his own shrapnel. [4] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/) However, Gardner himself was not aboard the skimmer that night. [5] (http://mediamatters.org/items/200408240001)

Bill Zaladonis and Patrick Runyon, who claim to have been on the skimmer that night, dispute Schachte's account. They deny that Schachte was present. Zaldonis has stated that "Myself, Pat Runyon, and John Kerry, we were the only ones in the skimmer." Runyon added, "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three." Statements by Runyon and Zaladonis support the version of events given by Kerry himself. They believe, but are not completely certain, that the skimmer received return hostile fire; Runyon commented, "It was the scariest night of my life." Runyon also stated that he is "100 percent certain" that no one on the boat fired a grenade launcher. [6] (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/20/kerry_comrades_have_credibility_on_their_side/) [7]

sorry I accidentally left my reply on your user page, not talk page. you might want to move that. Wolfman 23:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1st PH continued

Anonip, I made a reply to your last post over on SBVT. Do we want to move this discussion somewhere else? It's a little messy over there. --Nysus 01:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars

Getting into an edit war with Wolfman is a total waste of time, and just irritates the heck out of those of us who are trying to whip the article into some sort of useful shape, and are lost in a blizzard of edits. Please stop. (And rest assured I'm saying the same thing to him.)

I removed the second sentence, and replaced it with the line from the WPost, for two reasons. First, they say basically the same thing (no other docs of this form have been found), and the WPost line is a major media quote (which it's harder to object to). Second, insisting that you have to have it 100% your way is a guarantee of deadlock with someone else who's the same way. They say about the same - can't you just leave it alone? Noel 17:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Killian memos -Joseph (Talk) 04:54, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Noel, As I've tried to explain, the text I added states the argument concerning the authenticity of the documents for which the WPost references provides some specific evidence. This places the WPost reference in context and makes clear what the argument is. This is helpful to the reader. The only purpose served by deleting this text is obfuscation. If Wolfman can provide a reasonable justification for this deletion, I would like to hear it. Otherwise the text should remain, for the benefit of the readers and the Wikipedia. Please understand that I do not intend to engage in an edit war. My purpose here is to address Wolfman's behavior. This is not a new problem. Anonip 05:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Killian

As you have recently expressed interest in this article, please see Talk:Killian_documents#A_poll. Wolfman 18:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hank, believe I have left the above message on the talk page of everyone who has participated in the Killian discussion since November. Regards, Wolfman 18:54, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Wolfman. Please let me know when the number of respondants reaches 0.1% of the Wikipedia community. Anonip 19:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I take it you feel there is insufficient community involvement. Ok then, I have announced the poll at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Article_content_disputes. I'm not sure how to encourage more widespread involvement than personal notices on Talk pages and top listing in the RFC. Do you have any further suggestions? Wolfman 22:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wish I did. My earlier RFCs produced little response. Anonip 22:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response I composed for the Killian discussion. But I think it's more appropriate for a private discussion.

Alright, but not briefly :-) In addition to the inference I draw from the panel's wording, here are my views about the typographical evidence. I wouldn't bet the farm on any of them, but combined they do create some doubt in my mind.

1. The documents have been photocopied and faxed, creating great difficulty in either authenticating or discrediting the documents.
2. While an exact match might not be in reference books of standard office typewriters at the time, at least one very close proportional-spaced typewriter would only requires the addition of a # and superscript 'th' to match. Now, it does seem unlikely that your average office would have a non-standard typewriter ball. But, it would not terribly surprise me if an institution as large as the military had all kinds of weird special orders, especially during wartime. They for example had an unusual need for the 'th', given the squadron names.
3. I'm less inclined to trust the expertise and impartiality of someone like Newcomer who does a lot of self-promotion based on the incident.
4. I find it unlikely that Burkett would be stupid enough to try to bring down the President with a document typed in MS Word; a teenager sure, but not Col. Burkett.
5. In the end, the problem is that you are trying to prove a negative: they are not authentic. It's like trying to prove there were no WMD's in Iraq. Well, at the time it seemed to me pretty darn unlikely that there were WMD's. And two years after the war it seems virtually impossible that there were any. Yet, Dick Cheney still maintains that there were. How can you disprove it? Basically you can't. All you can say is that serious doubts have been raised, and no WMD's have turned up. And that's exactly how the relevant wikipedia article handles it.
6. Now, I have always granted it is unlikely these are authentic. But not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Okay, one-by-one (briefly):

1. For some techniques this is indeed a problem. Not so, according to experts Newcomer, Phinney and Tytell, for the evidence they rely on.
2. I think you're wrong about this. What typewriter are you referring to?
3. Have you actually looked seriously at Newcomer's analysis? And as for his qualifications, he did early work in digital typography and wrote a book on Windows font technology. And if you don't believe him, what about Tytell and Phinney? Have you actually looked at their credentials and analyses?
4. Who says Burkett created them? Maybe he just passed them on. If Dan Rather didn't catch the typography problem, why would Burkett?
5. But in document authentication you can prove a negative, in principle, at least beyond reasonable doubt. For example, if a document is signed with a kind of ink that chemical analysis shows is a modern ink not available during the lifetime of the signer, you have proved that the document is not authentic, at least beyond a reasonable doubt (not absolute certainty, of course, because you can't rule out use of a time machine).

I don't claim there isn't doubt in your mind. But you're not an expert. And I don't think you've seriously considered the evidence. I think you haven't in part because you don't think it's necessary, because you think even if you were 100% convinced based on the evidence you shouldn't impose your conclusion on Wikipedia. What I'm saying is that this is the expert's conclusion, not mine (although I have examined their evidence), and it is not seriously disputed by any competent source. I don't think any reasonable person who seriously reviewed the evidence would dispute it (including you). And I don't think NPOV applies to facts which are not in serious dispute. I don't think our difference is actually about the evidence, it's about your understanding of NPOV. So if you'd just admit that you can't give a specific reason from a competent source to doubt the expert conclusion, but you don't need to based on your understanding of NPOV, I would accept that. Otherwise, I'm holding out for a specific reason from a competent source.

And honestly, this isn't personal (there are plenty of others who share your misguided :-) understanding of NPOV).

I think Antaeus gave a very apt answer on his Talk page. Look, I just think you're wrong about how we handle these things. It was telling that Cecropia didn't agree with you. As far as I've seen, he's pretty conservative. But he's also very well respected here. I'll toss you a bone and ask User:Ed Poor to express an opinion. He is definitely a conservative. But, he also is very experienced and well-respected. Wolfman 02:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Ed_Poor#Killian Wolfman 02:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to hearing what Ed has to say. In the meantime, which of the items you enumerated above do you think qualify as specific reasons from competent sources? Anonip 03:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe all of the reasons above qualify as specific reasons from a competent source. I also believe you would be well-served to brush up on the basics of probabilistic inferential logic per the sources I suggest on the Talk page. Finally, I wonder why if there can be no reasonable doubt based upon the evidence clearly presented in the article, you have such an overwhelming desire to state the obvious. Shouldn't it be obvious to all, if it is indeed obvious? Wolfman 20:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you identify your sources then, please? Anonip 21:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anon, you argue that it was absurd to state that the panel might have uncertainty. I provided above several reasons for doubt that any 6-year-old could plainly see. You, on the one hand, state that the panel's doubts cannot have merit if they do not explicitly state the reason why. I ask you, why does it matter that they explictly state reasons? Are you competent to assess the validity of those reasons? If so, why am I not competent to raise a few fairly obvious points. And, by the way, the first two reasons are explicitly stated in the panel report. As in our past encounters, you have once again argued endlessly on, selectively choosing only the facts which butress your desired conclusion, which you want to state as fact. Once again, you have convinced exactly no one (including conservatives) of the merits of your case. Are you just trying to win here, or do you honestly believe that everone else here is a moron? Wolfman 22:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

while convincing exactly no one of the merits of your argument.Wolfman 22:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wolfman, I asked you to identify your sources. It's a simple request. You listed six items which you claimed all qualify as specific reasons from a competent source. Please give your source for each item. If your source is "Wolfman's speculations", that's fine, just say so. (Or say "any 6-year-old", if you must.) As to the question of competence, this quote from the NPOV tutorial may be helpful:

What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:

• the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
• whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
• whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
• whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
• whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)

In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance. Few people may know that a belief is wrong, but sometimes that is because most are unaware of the evidence against it. If you are not an expert in a subject yourself, your intuition that an article is biased may not be reliable. Keep an open mind and ask others about the evidence.

While a 6-year-old might have doubt, it could simply be because they are unaware of, or incapable of understanding, the evidence cited by experts. Do you really want to rest your case on a source with that level of credibility? No, I don't think you're a moron. I just don't think you have seriously considered the evidence. Anonip 22:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Killian Documents

Thanks for commenting on the Killian documents issue. Are you familiar with the facts concerning the authenticity of these documents? Anonip 00:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Wikipedia's principle of NPOV, which is why even on issues that are a whole lot more black-and-white than the Killian documents, we don't jump in the jury box and say "Here is the conclusion you would have to come to if you looked at the facts", we say "here are the facts." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to clarify. You haven't actually investigated the specific facts in this case, your position is simply based on your understanding of the Wikipedia NPOV principle. You believe NPOV does not permit Wikipedia to state that the documents are forgeries, even if that assertion is not seriously disputed. Correct? Anonip 00:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I do not accept your judgement on what is "serious" disputation and what is "unserious" disputation. If there wasn't any dispute, then there wouldn't be any debate about how to refer to the documents. Since there clearly is a dispute, it is Wikipedia's policy to describe the dispute, not to assert "this is the side of the dispute you should take, since it's clearly the correct one." The only exception I'll make to this is on mathematical topics where certain truths are simply unescapable given a certain set of axioms. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please bear with me. I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand your thinking. When you say "there clearly is a dispute", are you referring to a dispute about the fact among competent sources, or a dispute about the fact among anonymous (possibly incompetent) Wikipedia editors? Do you believe that the latter, in the absence of the former, requires Wikipedia to state that the facts are disputed? Anonip 03:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be trying to angle towards the idea "the only people who are not absolutely convinced that they're forgeries are people too incompetent to be taken seriously", presumably under the mistaken assumption that if that could be shown to be the case, it would logically follow that Wikipedia would describe the situation the way the smart, right people see it, and would completely ignore the way the "incompetent" people see it. But since this latter assumption is completely incorrect, you can angle towards the former idea all you want and it won't make a damn bit of difference. Look at Raelism. If we went by your mistaken assumption that Wikipedia should state as truth the beliefs of "competent sources" and ignore views which are fringe, "incompetent", or outright lunatic, don't you think the article would state "The Raelians are some real freakin' nutjobs, man!"? I certainly think their beliefs are seriously bizarre -- but have I tried to edit the article to say "Everyone who's sane agrees that the doctrines of the Raelians are completely wrong"? No, and if you understood NPOV and cared about it, you wouldn't be on this wrong-headed campaign to say "Everyone who counts knows they're forgeries, and anyone who doesn't think they're forgeries doesn't count, and therefore the article should state as fact that they're forgeries." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble following you. By "competent" I mean those with recognized expertise (in the real world) relevant to the subject, who have examined the matter carefully, and have stated their expert conclusions supported by credible evidence and clearly articulated reasoning. By "incompetent" (perhaps I should have said "non-competent") I mean those who lack relevant expertise, who have not examined the matter carefully, and who simply assert their beliefs without credible evidence or articulated reasoning. The qualification of competent sources is objective and does not depend on their conclusions. In principle it is possible to have competent sources who reach different conclusions. In that case there would be a serious factual dispute. But what if there are no competent sources who disagree about a fact? Is disagreement by non-competent Wikipedians sufficient to require Wikipedia to treat a fact as disputed? That's my question.

And although I don't think the issue here is about fringe beliefs, suppose the Zaelians believe Abraham Lincoln was an extraterrestrial. Would the Wikipedia article on Lincoln have to say something like: "Lincoln is generally believed to have been born in Kentucky, but the Zaelians believe he was born on Sirius Zeta-9."? Anonip 05:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First off, you need to go read WP:NPOV, because the questions you're asking are answered there. Really. Second, you can define "competent" all you want and yet it's not going to change the central point: even if it was provably true that the only people disputing the non-authenticity of the Killian documents were "incompetent", "non-competent", "partisans", "real morons", whatever -- it wouldn't change the fact that they dispute it.

Thirdly, your Zaelians example cannot be fairly evaluated because the Zaelians are a made-up group and do not exist. It is therefore impossible to evaluate whether it is truly a "fringe belief" or whether it is a belief held by enough people to make it notable even if it is a belief that no one should be believing (in, of course, the evaluation of those who don't believe it.) But again, I believe that what you are pushing towards is "if I can convince everyone that everyone's who's anyone believes that the Killian documents are forgeries, and that it's therefore a fringe belief that they might be authentic, then I have all the ammunition I need to say 'Why even acknowledge such a fringe belief? Let's just go with what we in the right" (no pun intended) "know to be true, that they're forgeries.'" Trust me, the belief would have to be very much more fringe in order to justify the kind of changes you have been proposing to make. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I actually have read the Wikipedia NPOV pages. I don't disagree with any of it (at least as I understand it). It just seems like common sense to me. Here's what I read in the NPOV tutorial:

Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.

One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Some criteria include:

• the reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which he or she works, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
• whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
• whether the expert has or has not failed to respond to criticisms
• whether the expert has reputable supporters of his or her claims
• whether the expert's point of view belongs in a different article (e.g. evolution vs. creationism)

In other words, an idea's popularity alone does not determine its importance. Few people may know that a belief is wrong, but sometimes that is because most are unaware of the evidence against it. If you are not an expert in a subject yourself, your intuition that an article is biased may not be reliable. Keep an open mind and ask others about the evidence.

This seems to suggest (at least to me) that expert opinion is relevant to how Wikipedia treats a subject. Here's a related quote, from NPOV:

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

It seems to me that based on Jimbo's criteria, if you can't identify a prominent adherent for a point of view, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article).

There's also this (again from NPOV):

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

I understood this to mean that if a piece of information is not the subject of a serious dispute, then it can be considered a fact, and asserted as such in Wikipedia.

The question then becomes, what constitutes a "serious dispute"? Applying Jimbo's criteria of "substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" and "should be easy to name prominent adherents", along with the need to actually describe the dissenting point of view, it seemed to me that:

Given that the World Book Encyclopedia (2005 Year Book) treats the assertion that the Killian documents are forgeries as a fact, and that qualified experts in typewriter and computer typography have stated this conclusion with authority and a clear articulation of their reasoning, a minimum requirement to sustain the claim that a serious dispute exists would be to identify a specific reason from a credible source that would provide the basis for a serious dispute about the issue.

Can you now at least understand how I came to believe this position was consistent with the Wikipedia NPOV policy? Where did I go wrong?

As for my "Zaelians", of course they're hypothetical. But assume they're as numerous as the Raelians you cited. Should their beliefs get prominent treatment in the Lincoln article? Note that I'm only asking about this because you brought it up. I really don't think the issue with the Killian documents is "fringe" beliefs, but rather inadequate research (and of course, my understanding of what NPOV requires). Anonip 17:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but I've already given you my answer, several times. You seem to think that there is some clear distinction between "serious dispute" in which both sides's views should be acknowledged, and "unserious dispute" in which there is still a dispute but the views of one side should be completely eliminated from the article. This is a doubtful proposition to begin with. Then you seem to think that saying "Gee, I have one reference work on my side that pronounces 'They're forgeries', and so far no one has found a reference work that pronounces the opposite conclusion," is actually enough to push it into that "unserious debate" category which allows you to call the matter concluded and remove any reference to the fact that not everyone believes what you do. You're ignoring a far more significant question: if so far only one reference work can be found which has even pronounced a conclusion, why exactly does that signify "Oh, someone out there pronounced a conclusion, therefore it's time for us to abandon our policy of not taking sides and pronounce a conclusion as well"?

Frankly, where you went wrong with the Wikipedia NPOV policy is in trying to find a way around it. If you truly believed that the facts are as wholly and clearly and obviously on your side as you're claiming they are, you would not be fighting so hard the policy of the article restricting itself to the facts and leaving the conclusion for the reader. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, don't be sorry. I appreciate your help. I think you've made your position as clear as you can. There's no need to repeat your answer. You don't have to respond any further, unless you want to.

Yes, I do think there is a difference between a "serious dispute" among those with relevant expertise and an "unserious dispute" among uninformed Wikipedia editors. To repeat a quote from the NPOV tutorial:

Few people may know that a belief is wrong, but sometimes that is because most are unaware of the evidence against it. If you are not an expert in a subject yourself, your intuition that an article is biased may not be reliable. Keep an open mind and ask others about the evidence.

That's why I initially asked if you were familiar with the facts concerning the authenticity of the Killian documents. I suspected you were not. Your response suggests that you think it's unnecessary to know the facts, that the NPOV policy is all you need to know. If that's your position, that's fine. (You're not alone in that view.) I just disagree. I think facts matter.

I have not only cited a commonly accepted reference work, I have cited qualified experts who have explained the evidence and reasoning for their conclusions in detail. I have clearly demonstrated that the assertion that the documents are forgeries is a serious, informed position held by qualified experts. No evidence has been offered to show that this expert view is seriously disputed. No basis for disputing it has been indicated. No experts have been identified who hold an opposing view. I simply don't believe that claims made by anonymous Wikipedia editors who are unfamiliar with the evidence is an adequate basis for Wikipedia to characterize the authenticity of the documents as seriously disputed. But again, it seems we disagree.

I'll also menton that I'm somewhat annoyed by your accusations that I don't "truly believe" that the facts are as I say, that I "don't care" about NPOV, and that I am engaged in a "wrong-headed campaign" trying to "find a way around it". Aspersions of this kind do not contribute to constructive discussion. It's better to just respond substantively. Anonip 20:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I notice you quote Larry Sanger on your user page. Here's what Larry said about NPOV: Neutrality is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced you are that your facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties disagrees with you, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. --Larry Sanger. You are completely convinced that "forgery" is a fact. Yet it is indisputably true that this is not accepted as fact by all -- including the panel and the CJR who explicitly stated so. The undisputed facts are all clearly and forthrightly presented in the article. The findings, or lack thereof, of several prominent parties are also forthrightly stated. This is the very essence of NPOV.

What is it that enables you to conclude that forgery is a fact, when the panel stated that it could not based on the same evidence? The first "compromise" I suggested highlights the very absurdity of it. Yes, I know you will say that they made no attempt. Yet, that requires that you disregard their literal statements to the contrary. You will say that they didn't have the evidence we do. But that is simply a ridiculous notion, and plainly contradicted by their discussion of that evidence as well as their discussion of the role of drudge, little green footballs, buckhead, etc. You will say that if only they had interviewed Newcomer & Phinney they would know, so what information do you have about these guys that the panel didn't? You don't care for the way we do NPOV around here. Fine, as I've pointed out to you in the past, there are other wiki's that adopt your policy, but wikipedia does not. Wolfman 21:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Futility

My comment on Kaisershatner's talk page: You aren't the first to try to correct the massive problems with the Killian documents article. You probably won't be the last. All such efforts will fail. This article is a case study in the limitations of the Wikipedia paradigm. It simply is not possibe to produce a satisfactory treatment of the subject. You are just wasting your time. Anonip 17:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments on my talk page. I had already found my way here after reading your exhaustive argument on the Killian documents talk page, and yesterday I found myself asking the question, "is it really worth continuing to contribute to this project." I've spent a good deal of time here and I do enjoy it, but experiences like this are just ridiculous. I also went and read that founder's statement about anti-elitism. So if nothing else, you should know that I appreciate you've already covered the ground I'm treading. Thanks for the note. And FWIW, I know you agree that this isn't even that controversial an issue, except for people who are really really really angry at Republicans or the President. Makes the whole thing even more frustrating. Kaisershatner 22:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3 revert rule

Just to warn you: you may not revert a single page more than three times in a 24-hour period, as per the Wikipedia:3 revert rule. ugen64 07:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm... not sure what you're referring to here. Anonip 07:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, now I see. That was a threat. I'll be looking for your justification for reverting my edit on the Earth Day Talk page.

[edit] Pablo Neruda

Conversation moved here from Viriditas's Talk page:

What was your reason for reverting TDC on Pablo Neruda? Anonip 23:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I answered this already on User_talk:TDC. --Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What brought his edits to Pablo Neruda to your attention? Anonip 00:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue is closed as far as I'm concerned, but if you must know, I became aware of TDC through edits by the sock puppet User:UDoN't!wAn* as well as User:LevelCheck, which brought me to related pages, but the initial contribution that day by Jmabel at 20:53 attracted my attention, as I was scanning Jmabel's contribution list. Be seeing you. --Viriditas | Talk 00:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that the edit you reverted attracted your attention because it was made by TDC, who you recognized as having been a problem in the past, rather than because of the content of the edit itself? Anonip 01:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. As I have already explained to you above, I was attracted to the pages in question by other users, not by TDC or his edits. TDC happened to be editing those pages. Please do not attempt to twist what I have stated in good faith. This conversation has now ended. --Viriditas | Talk 01:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to twist what you stated. I'm trying to understand your explanation. You said:

I became aware of TDC through edits by the sock puppet User:UDoN't!wAn* as well as User:LevelCheck, which brought me to related pages, but the initial contribution that day by Jmabel at 20:53 attracted my attention, as I was scanning Jmabel's contribution list.

I understood this to mean: You were scanning Jmabel's contribution list, and his contribution to Pablo Neruda that day at 20:53 attracted your attention. You looked at that page and saw that TDC happened to be editing it. You had earlier become aware of TDC through edits by the sock puppet UDoN't!wAn* and LevelCheck which had brought you to related pages. You then looked at the edit and recognized that it needed to be reverted.

Am I wrong about this sequence of events? Anonip 02:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, 100% wrong. I became aware of the /pages/ through other users, and I was aware of the pages that I reverted TDC on through them. TDC has nothing to do with any of this, other than the fact that I happened to revert him. Since this matter is closed, I see no need to keep discussing it. --Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to be so defensive about this. I did notice your participation at 01:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) in an exchange on Gamaliel's Talk page with Gamaliel, Rbellin, and Viajero discussing concerns with "POV pushing" by TDC. This exchange also happens to include a mention of the Neruda page by Viajero. So perhaps you will understand why I might be a bit skeptical when you say that "TDC has nothing to do with any of this, other than the fact that I happened to revert him." I also noticed that in your justification for the revert which you gave on TDC's Talk page, you said that some of his content additions had been described as "overstated" on the talk page. I did use that word on the Pablo Neruda Talk page, but my comment there was made long after you made your revert. This suggested to me that perhaps your justification was developed after the fact, and that the prior concern about TDC's POV-pushing may have been the real motivation for your revert. Please understand, I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm just trying to understand the dynamics of the editing process here. And again, if I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me. Anonip 04:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for corroborating my original statement with a link to my edit on Gamaliel's page, which reveals where I first became aware of TDC through edits by the sock puppet User:UDoN't!wAn*. An edit by that user at 01:15 on 23 Apr 2005 led me to Shining Path. After checking a contrib by Jmabel after editing his user page earlier in the day at 02:59, 24 Apr, I was led to Pablo Neruda. Regarding the comments you made about some of his content additions being "overstated" after I reverted at 23:11, I orginally said: You have been asked to cite sources for some of your content addtions, which refers to the unsubstantiated nature of the NKVD content added by TDC as described at 17:12, by Gamaliel in the edit summary, (rv - who cares about pinochet? removing unsubstantiated NKVD nonsense yet again) after which I stated, which have been described as "overstated" on the talk pages, which indeed describes your comments made the next day at 00:31 after my revert. I hope that helps you understand my comments. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me, but be aware I may not be online. Otherwise, I consider this trivial matter closed. --Viriditas | Talk 05:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anonip, I wonder why you are grilling Viriditas about his revert of material that you yourself raised concerns about on the talk page. Why should he not revert unsubstantiated content and POV just like anyone else? Gamaliel 23:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this because it's my perception that Viriditas reverted TDC based on the prior conclusion that TDC was a "(wrong) POV pusher" and on the edit summary from your preceeding revert, rather than an independent examination of the edit and the related discussion on the Talk page. I don't believe a revert of that sort is helpful. It's just taking sides in an edit war. It's not much different from using a sockpuppet to evade 3RR, and in fact could be felt to justify the use of a sockpuppet to avoid prejudiced reverts. It simply does not contribute constructively to dispute resolution. And my own concerns about TDC's edit in this instance aren't relevant to the larger process issue. But just to make it clear, I raised concerns about TDC's edit on the Talk page in the hope of initiating a more constructive dialog, not to support either side in an edit war. Anonip 01:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like you are "just trying to understand the dynamics of the editing process", you are confronting Viriditas over your perception of his motives, a perception that as we can see from the comments above has been wrong before. You may not want to support a particular side in an edit war, but by singling out Viriditas for his supposed motives, you are, intentionally or not, choosing a side. Gamaliel 04:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider my conversation with Viriditas to be a confrontation. I certainly didn't intend it as such. My purpose was precisely to allow him to correct my perception if it were in error. I don't understand your remark that my perception has been wrong before, but I'm always willing to consider that possibility. In any case, the substance of the content dispute is not the issue here. My position is that edit wars are not a constructive method of dispute resolution, and should be discouraged. That is what I am trying to do. Anonip 07:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I said you were wrong before, I was referring to Viriditas' comment that you were "100% wrong" about interpreting his actions. This is most likely unintentional and exacerbated by the inability of text to entirely capture conversational tone, but your conversational style resembles something like a police interrogation at times. It's also likely that you have the best of intentions with your own personal approach to discouraging edit wars, but grilling one person on one side of an edit war is neither a productive nor fair method of dispute resolution. Gamaliel 08:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I asked Viriditas about his revert because I wanted to understand his justification for it. My questions were direct but not impolite. I believe it's neither unreasonable nor unfair to ask for an explanation of a revert. At the time I wasn't aware of Viriditas's response on TDC's Talk page. (I think his willingness to include explanations on the Talk page for future reverts will be helpful.) I also wasn't aware at the time of TDC's angry reaction to the revert on Viriditas's Talk page (because Viriditas had deleted it). While I have some sympathy for TDC's frustration over the edit war, I don't condone the intemperate language with which it was inappropriately expressed. (I'm hopeful that his mediation with Tony will help here.) In retrospect I can understand how Viriditas may have believed that my query had some connection to TDC's allegation that Viriditas was "following" him, although it didn't. This could explain why he reacted defensively and said I was "100% wrong" and that TDC had "nothing to do with" it .

As I've said before, the substance of the Neruda content dispute is not the issue here. But I do believe that discouraging unfair and unproductive edit wars is a positive step toward fair and productive dispute resolution. Anonip 16:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is reasonable to ask for an explaination of a revert. However, what you did was to repeatedly question Viriditas' motives while not subjecting TDC or anyone else to the same line of questioning. Now you are expressing sympathy for TDC regarding this issue. You have said you do not wish to support either side in an edit war, but it seems what you have done, inadvertantly or not, exactly what you said you didn't want to do: you have picked a side to support. Gamaliel 18:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My reason for asking Viriditas about his revert and not TDC (or you) is quite simple. TDC had a lengthy history of activity on the Neruda article. I could review his edits and his explanation and discussion of them on the Talk page. That enabled me to get some idea of where he was coming from. The same was true of you. But Viriditas had no prior involvement with the article, and gave no explanation for his revert either in the edit summary or on the Talk page. In order to get some idea where he was coming from, I had to ask. I do sympathize with TDC's frustration at being reverted without explanation by Viriditas. And I do not approve of edit wars. My purpose is not to support either side, but to discourage both. The substance of the Neruda content dispute is a separate issue from the edit war. As I indicated on the Talk page, my preliminary assessment is that the article inappropriately downplays Neruda's ardent Stalinism, but some of the factual details as presented by TDC may be overstated and need further examination. But as I said, that's a separate issue. Anonip 21:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gamaliel and Impartial 3RR Blocking

Moved from Gamaliel's Talk page...

Gamaliel, You own this Talk page, so you can edit it as you please. But you didn't delete my earlier comments. Why this one? Anonip 21:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to your previous comments because I believe that there should be as much transparency as possible when it comes to administrative decisions and that users have every right to know the reasoning behind those decisions. However, I feel the time has come when I have to ask you to stop. This has become a near daily occurrence for you and you have now interjected yourself in a potentially tense discussion with the potential to escalate. I ask that you leave this between TDC and myself for the time being. Gamaliel 21:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

so basically, you want to airbrush out comments critical of your behavior by others you respect. That’s certainly telling. TDC 23:55, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Nice try. I have repeatedly discussed with Anonip his critiques of my behavior, so I can hardly be accused of dodging critical comments, but keep on trollin'. In this case, Anonip is free to critique away after the fact, I just asked him to refrain for the time being for fear that he would escalate our current difficulties. That's exactly what he's done inadvertantly, as you've jumped all over his tangental comment while completely ignoring my response to your original complaint. Gamaliel 00:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel then deleted the following response:

Gamaliel, My previous comments were not so much intended to address the specific incident involving you and TDC as they were to raise the general question of whether it is appropriate for an admin to block someone for 3RR in a dispute to which they are a party. So you're probably right to indicate that the issue should be discussed in a separate section. To summarize what was said above:

You position was (paraphrasing): The 3RR is the most unambiguous, clear cut rule imaginable. Three okay, four bad. They either violated the rule or they didn't. There's no subjectivity about counting. They could get bots to do this. The Wikipedia community entrusts people with admin powers because it believes they are reasonable, impartial, and level-headed enough to make certain judgement calls, which includes distinguishing between three and four.

My position was (paraphrasing): The issue is not distiguishing between three or four, but distinguishing qualifying reverts from other edits. This determination seems best done by a neutral party. It seems a good idea, if only to ensure the appearance of fairness, not to block in disputes where one is personally involved.

Your reply was that you disagreed, that you don't think there is anything about "distinguishing" reverts that requires any sort of impartiality.

A point which we did not discuss previously (you deleted my attempted comment), but was suggested by TDC, is that when there are content issues with an article that are unlikely to be exeditiously resolved, a more appropriate admin response to repeated reverts might be to protect the article, under some version, to encourage further discussion of the proposed changes. You pointed out that protecting the article is not an option for an admin involved in the dispute, because protecting an article one is currently editing is prohibited under the rules. I believe you're right, and that's a good reason why it's a bad idea for an admin to block another editor in a dispute they're a party to. If the 3RR block is instead requested from an impartial admin, that admin would have the ability to evaluate the circumstances and decide that protecting the article is more appropriate than blocking one editor. Anonip 01:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're free to post this here of course, but don't make it seem like I've been avoiding anything. We've been discussing this for several days in depth. I deleted your comments because I asked you nicely to refrain from interjecting yourself into my dispute with TDC and noted that if you wished to take this discussion up again I would be willing to after my dispute with TDC was concluded. You responded by posting a lengthy and unnecessary recap of the points that have already been made yesterday, a discussion that could be seen by scrolling up a screen or two. You're just beating the same drum over and over again. Gamaliel 01:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For what its worth, I do believe that Viriditas was following me around and reverting me because he did not like the edits I was making on Pablo Neruda. Four revert, with the one on [[robert scheer] being entirely unjustifiable, in 5 minutes. He apologized, and that’s that as far as I am concerned. And Gamaliel, you are beginning to blur the line between editor and Admin. TDC 02:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Limitations of Wikipedia

Hey. I concede, you were right. After the Killian docs, etc., I really thought there was hope, but after a few weeks of bashing around the GWB article, I now agree with your conclusion. This project is a hopeless joke, at least as far as politics is concerned, and possibly in many other areas as well. There's simply nothing to restrain anyone who is obsessive enough and committed enough from introducing thousands upon thousands of irrelevant, poorly sourced, biased, unreliable, or patently false data into these articles, to support whatever view they've come in with. I guess I should take comfort in the fact that I live in a universe where George W. Bush was legitimately elected president, twice, and where tyrants like Saddam Hussein can be brought to heel by the US Armed Forces (ie, the actual universe). Most of the people I've been "debating" think that we live in a world where a shadowy cabal of corporate titans and demonic republicans pulls all the strings. Pity. Kaisershatner 20:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your username

Hello there. I'm a little concerned that your user name maybe confusing. You may not know this, but many anonymous users (IPs) sign with something like "anon" or "anonymous." Wikipedia policy says that you should not choose names that are "commonly used terms on Wikipedia." So, I'd just like to invite you to change your username (which will move all your past contributions to the new name of your choice) at Wikipedia:Changing username. This is entirely voluntary, but I hope you can see where I am coming from. Cheers, Dmcdevit·t 05:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Time.

Would you support an RFC against disruptive POV pusher Gorgonzilla? Erwin

[edit] Where R U ?

Please check out Talk:Killian documents, Talk:Stolen Honor and Talk:John Kerry. The entrenched editor there are running out of excuses. I have begun pointing them to Wikipedia:Negotiation and Consensus decision-making. When measured by those standards, I believe that Gamaliel, JamesMLane and others can't justify many of their reverts and edits. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 22:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)