User talk:Callmebc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Callmebc has been unblocked following this discussion on WP:ANI. While a number of admins, and users, have expressed concerns over his future behavior, the general consensus appears to be that it is worth giving Callmebc another chance at comporting himself genially and in a collaborative manner. For the record, he has formally agreed to a number of terms, making this statement: I wish to be unblocked from Wikipedia. I was indefinitely blocked apparently because of my attitude -- I put accuracy above all else, and I don't play well with others whom I suspect of not being honest. This has led me to be combative and somewhat sarcastic at times, with both other editors and admins. While I feel very strongly that whatever comments I have made were entirely justified in context, I understand that Wikipedia is not all about being accurate at all costs -- it is a social, collaborative effort requiring some degree of patience, tolerance, encouragement and giving editors and admins the benefit of the doubt even when I strongly disagree with what is being said or done. I've been inactive over a month and thought about behaviorial & attitude changes I can agree to that would strike a balance between my wanting things accurate and up to date in a timely manner, and the Wiki process of collaboration and WP:AGF. This is what I think would be a good compromise: 1) I will refrain from making any changes at all to the main article page without first going through a Talk page discussion. If the discussion degrades to WP:TE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME (as is often the case with politically sensitive topics), I will still avoid simply going ahead to make the changes anyway and instead will follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR The only exceptions I'll will be blatent vandalism and substantial undiscussed changes I have problems with in terms of accuracy and content -- I will just revert the first as a matter of course, and will revert the second with a note on the editor's home page to please discuss first on the Talk page. In the second case, if the editor makes an effort to discuss the changes, I will follow consensus and not object to putting the changes back even if I still have problems with them. If it is an issue with a single editor wanting to change something and there is no other feedback from anyone else, I will instead again follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR rather than engage in an edit war. 2) I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation. The articles I tend to be interested in are politically charged and regularly draw in anonymous IP's, sock/meatpuppets and the like. In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be. 3) I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions. I will even go further and start with a clean sheet in regards to editors and admins I have bumped heads with in the past and regardless of my personal opinions. In real life, you get to pick your job but not your coworkers, and you are expected to get along regardless. The same is much the case with the Wikipedia -- you can pick which articles to work on, but you can't choose your coeditors, and you should try to get along regardless. They may include people you would never want to socialize with, but that's not the point of why you're there in either case. 4) In a nutshell, I will endeavor to improve the quality of articles without violating, however accidently, the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. In addition, he has expressed a willingness to restrict himself to avoid making comments of a nature detrimental to the reputation of living people, and restricting his focus primarily to editing. He has expressed a legitimate and serious understanding of what resulted in his last block, and has committed to ensuring it does not happen again. Accordingly, he has been unblocked, with the understanding that his edits will be under scrutiny. --Haemo (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Request handled by: Haemo (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Welcome back 1.1 Thank you all kindly 2 Original Research 3 Suggestion 4 Re message on notice board 5 Declassified documents 6 Blocked for edit warring 6.1 Unblock Request 7 Two points (and redent) 8 Speaking of Global Warming... 9 Puzzled 10 Whoops.... Try again 11 Progress 12 Blocked 13 Unblock request 14 New AfD on United States journalism scandals 15 Unblock requested 16 Final response to BC 17 Low level vandalizing spree at Killian documents 18 Whither Wikipedia

[edit] Welcome back

I sincerely hope you enjoyed your time away from Wikipedia, but I'm glad to see you're giving this another shot. If you ever find yourself in a situation that is getting the best of you, don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page. I'd be happy to lend an opinion or give another perspective. Welcome back, - auburnpilot talk 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped to be the first to welcome you back but, contrary to my plea, nobody bothered to inform me of this very welcome development. Alice^✉ 10:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Welcome back!" from me, too. htom (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes in your return to editing. If you ever need any advice or a chat, my email is always open ;) Anthøny 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you all kindly

I wasn't getting much in way of feeling tidings of comfort and joy when I asked to be unbanned, but mucho kudos to Haemo who did a lot more than just talk the talk when I emailed him. To be honest, I can totally see the attraction of taking a "wikibreak," especially these days, but after observing the goings on in regards to politically tainted articles like Global Warming (Have you guys been aware of the sock puppet parade there the past month or so? See this and this), and considering how widely used Wikipedia is as a ready reference, there is a sense of obligation to try to help. And in my particular case, to try to help without getting into fights and/or stomping on toes.

Unfortunately, whether anyone wants to publicly admit it or not, due to its high use and search engine rankings, Wikipedia has become a informational/disinformational battleground, but....one can only try to be accurate, fair, congenial, and most of all, honest, regardless of the circumstances. The ultimate assumption of good faith is that the good guys outnumber the bad guys and that things will therefore sort themselves out properly at the very end when it matters. All things considered, Wikipedia's evolution into a comprehensive and up to date knowledgebase is pretty darn amazing giving its anyone-can-edit nature. As it has reached both maturity and very high popularity, I think it will only need a few tweaks here and there to move it further in the direction of reliabilty & trustworthiness as well as comprehensiveness.

I made a lot of promises in both my statment and in other emails to Haemo, so I guess the onus is on me to also not just talk the talk. We/you shall see....

But thanks again, especially to some of my old adversaries, for being helpful and supportive in letting me come back. I'll endeavor to be not such a pain at the very least. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, already calling global warming politically tainted. Here we go again... ~ UBeR (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe I'm on pretty safe, noncontroversial ground describing anything connected to the topic of "Global Warming," especially Wikipedia articles, as being the target of an awful lot of political maneuvering. But this is really just a reflection of the current situation in real life, for better or worse, and is to be expected. But in keeping with my promise, I will be giving all editors, old and new, including even ones I strongly suspect of being socks, the benefit of the doubt and will behave towards them as though they are there with good intentions towards improving the article. You yourself and others have had to deal with a steady stream of new Scibaby/Obedium sockpuppets. I've noted how each potential sock initially is given the AGF benefit of the doubt until it becomes painfully obvious it is just a new sock, and then Wiki procedures are followed as a matter of course. That seems to be a neutral, straightforward, non-toe-flattening approach I'll try to emulate. Does that seem reasonable? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. I think you're smart and are capable of editing constructively, and look forward to your contributions in that spirit. You're getting a chance that many don't get -- please use your opportunity to best advantage. Don't hesitate to ask for advice if you think necessary. (And I've been known to give advice unbidden anyway. ;-)Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back my friend to the project that never ends. (Hmm, I may be showing my age here.) Cheers, CWC 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Certain things, like gaining and spreading knowledge, should never end; other things, however.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

Please read WP:OR before making changes to George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy. Please also stop saying that I should use the Talk page when I have already done so. 166.34.208.92 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read WP:OR, but that has little to do with your behavior. Your actions have been to delete first with no discussion and then ignore everyone else's cites and opinions about why that may not have been a good thing. And actually almost all of my changes have been reverts of deletions of longstanding content, and all without discussion. If you can't be neutral and involve yourself in the discussions in a meaningful way, perhaps you should consider recusing yourself from editing the article. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who I hope you both will regard as (at least, geopolitically) neutral, I concur with both your analysis and your conclusion, Callmebc. I would also urge 166.34.208.92 to take a look at WP:WHY Alice^✉ 23:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As I figured, it's been tricky business so far. I have been trying mightily to stick with the terms of my statement, especially in using the Talk pages first to discuss proposed changes to articles (I did semi-slip up once, though, with this small edit, but I thought I was just pointing out the obvious). As expected, this has led to some lengthy discussions and my having to regularly rephrase/repeat points and questions in attempts to get clear responses, but that is why I had mentioned the possibility of discussions degrading to WP:TE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME. But this won't be enough to cause to me to go ahead and make the changes anyway (too bad Wikipedia doesn't have a policy along the lines of WP:GIVEEMENOUGHROPE).

One thing I did not anticipate was massive deletions of content (perhaps in anticipation of my getting unbanned) starting with this. That put me in an awkward position of doing reverts to put back the content at the risk of bumping into 3RR right away. Fortunately there are others looking out for the George W. Bush military service controversy wiki at least, so I think I can stay out of trouble there fairly easily.

The behavior of some of the involved anonymous IP's seems rather familiar, so there may be justification for a WP:SSP discussion soon if this keeps up. Sometimes I wonder if I should stick with less controversial articles, like, say, along the lines of this. Probably wouldn't be as satisfying, though.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've broken my own rules and replied here. I know it must be very frustrating sometimes, but just bite your lip and kick the cat or something. Anyone who actually reads your edits knows you are a fine writer and will be a credit to our encyclopedia if you can just continue to make the editor interaction behaviour changes (unfairly?) mandated by your unblock. Alice^✉ 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Hi BC. Good to see you back. May I offer a suggestion, though? It's clear that you are passionate about a fairly large number of topics. But you might want to concentrate on only a few of them, and spend the free time to build a solid, sourced, deep understanding of those. You don't have to fix all of Wikipedia alone and now. See it this way: If many Wikipedians agree with your point of view, they will take care of some topics. And if not, you are fighting windmills - it might be better to take them on one at a time, and with the best possible tools. All the best! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. But as you may have noticed, I've been focusing strictly on Talk page discussions and suggesting edit changes, although I also dealt with some visits by anonymous IP's seemingly more interested in deleting and reverting rather than discussing. Other than that, I really have been trying to avoid any revert wars by using the Talk pages instead to work things out. There has been some communication issues, though, but I'm trying to resolve those via the Talk pages as well -- it's a bit awkward thinking that you've reached consensus regarding a proposed edit only to get your change reverted right away because someone apparently hadn't been following the discussion. But like I said, it's only a communication issue that I'm sure will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. As long as we focus on improving articles and getting along amicably, things should work out, no? By the way, I see that Global Warming has been relatively placid of late for whatever reason -- that must make some of the regulars happy, eh? Take care and thanks for the concern -- I'll try to do what's best. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re message on notice board

I was not aware I had. I just appended at the end of a question. I can only assume that I inadvertantly delited some stuff, but I have no idea what I did to achive this. I appoligise.[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)]]

[edit] Declassified documents

In general there is no prohibition against using primary sources such as declassified documents. I noted that you had posted to RS, (check out reliable sources noticeboard) and apparently your post got buried into another discussion. We can cite primary sources, and doing so does not constitute original research, rather this is "source-based research". We are not creating statements when we cite a primary source, we are merely repeating what that source states. We should not draw conclusions from primary source material. However by way of example let's make something up like "Woodrow Wilson had an income of $100K per year (New York Times, "Wilson", pg 13A), but recently declassified documents show he borrowed $45K from Bernard Baruch in 1921 (State Department Papers, "Wilson", Drawer 143, "Loan from Baruch"). An issue brought forward by a secondary source, can be illuminated further from a primary source. That is not original research. That is just research, source-based. Wjhonson (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would however point out that when citing a primary source, my own personal approach is to merely quote the primary source without comment. Our readers are fairly intelligent, we don't need to draw conclusions that are apparent from the source. "...we believe there was a second gunman, but we don't want to start riots..." Wjhonson (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for edit warring

It appears quite clear to me that you, like the anonymous user you reported, are edit warring, and therefore I have blocked you for two weeks. The length of the block takes into account your several blocks for edit warring in the past. Given your rather recent return from an indefblock, I find this edit war troubling and will be making a post at ANI about it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock Request

I'm not too sure what's going on here. The sequence was: A) a shortlived anonymous IP, 67.168.86.129, started making a series of very dubious edits on both the Killian documents authenticity issues and especially Killian Documents articles; B) I reverted the edits and posted messages on the IP's home page explaining why and requesting that the article Talk pages be used prior to making any further edits; C) the IP posted comments on the Talk page but nevertheless ignored attempts at discussion to keep re-inserting his/her edits; D) I reported this to 3RR, and I also apologized for unintentially making a 4th revert, and said that I left 67.168.86.129's "last edit insert to stop the edit warring"; E) after the 3RR request, I tried to convince the IP to stop its behavior on the Talk pages and left the article spaces completely alone; and F) not only do I still end up getting blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring, but the IP gets only 24 hrs. I know I made a mistake in going to 4 reverts, but I had a very busy Wiki day, and I had already apologized for doing that when I made my 3RR request. I also haven't touched the articles since the 3RR request and, as stated, have no intention of getting into a revert war. With all this, does my block make the slightest amount of sense? What else could I have done other than be more careful on the revert count? Well? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather baffled as to what you don't understand about your block. You reverted four times in well less than 24 hours. This is nearly always viewed as blockable edit warring. The fact that you then discussed the matter doesn't mean it's OK. As for apologies and such, that might suffice for a first offence, but not for a repeat one, especially since a condition of your unblock earlier this month was that you would no longer revert war. The bottom line is don't repeatedly revert, end of story. I'd think this would be quite clear to you after your many blocks in the past. Pursue dispute resolution instead. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I reverted 4 times, but again I had apologized for doing this when I made my 3RR request. I admit it was a mistake, but it was totally unintentional and I quickly apologized for it when I noticed it. The IP made a lot of edits in a short amount of time and I simply lost track of the count in dealing with them. Given that this was a short lived anonymous IP making numerous edits, and along with the IP's attitude towards discussion, 3RR seemed the most appropriate first step rather than true dispute resolution. I apologize if that was not the best call given the circumstances. Making the 4th revert was a slip up on my part, I admit, but a two week block seems to like the equivalent of towing my car and giving my a $100 parking ticket because I didn't get back in time to feed another quarter into the parking meter because I paused to help a little old lady cross the street. And if you ever checked the reason why I got those many prior blocks, you will find that dealing with anonymous IP's and gaming editors in general is one of the risks in minding the Killian wikis. They are the mindfields of Wikipedia -- ask any of the more experienced admins and ArbCom members about this. You can be as careful as you can be, but.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What was dubious about the edits? WP:3RR has very specific exemptions to the three-revert rule. I don't see that any would apply here. --B (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think my first post on the IP's home page indicates some of the dubiousness, starting with the IP changing the number of the Killian memos to 4 from their actual number 6. Not exactly the stuff for improving an article, I would say. If you are knowledgeable about the Killian memos, the IP's first edit not only made the intro less accurate and more confusing, it also seemed an attempt to push a more right wing POV into the article. Its subsequent edits were much the same, except for possibly its last and 5th one, which actually contained relatively minor edits. I also noted this in my 3RR update.

And my understanding of WP:3RR is that "reverting" counts towards "deleting content" the way the IP did so. So the IP removes/changes content, that's the first revert. I undo that, inform the IP what I did and why, and strongly encourage it to use the Talk page for discussing the changes. The IP ignores this to put back its revert, and so on. I had intended to not exceed 3 reverts if the IP was going to be difficult. I was going to give it 3RR warning on its 3rd and then make a post to 3RR on its 4th, but as I said, I screwed up on the count.

But I thought I explained all the circumstances fully in my unblock request. Aside from my slip-up in counting my reverts in the face of a seemingly problematic anonymous IP editor, again what else could I have done? Seriously. I'll let you and the others think about this before I make another unblock request in the morning. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The edits by the IP do not constitute "blatant vandalism" - which alone would entitle you to an exception. Moreover, "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique" (from WP:3RR). I find two weeks a bit on the heavy-handed side, but I agree that you earned the block in the first place. The one argument that you could have made (and maybe tried to do somewhat clumsily) is that you could not self-revert your 4th revert because the IP already did so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If that happens again, Callmebc, make a null edit and say in the edit summary that you mistakenly made a fourth revert and would have self-reverted if you had had the chance. I advise you take the time from this block to watch and learn other methods of editing other than reverting. Be more patient, build up a consensus on the talk page, then make changes on the basis of that consensus. I'd also advice not "counting" reverts. Better to only revert once or twice and then go to a talk page. Easy way to avoid 3RR. Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in my defence and as I had also pointed out, I did leave the IP's last edit in place, ironically enough to avoid an edit war. And indeed I made my last revert at 19:46, 20 January 2008 and I was in the midst of writing a reply to a comment by the IP on the Killian Documents Talk page at about 05:30, 21 January 2008 when the block was put in place. By my count, that's over a 9 1/2 hr difference where there was no more reverting being done, just some Talk page discussion. So the "revert war" was already long over before the block. And I really thought I was basically just reverting vandalistic edits -- the Killian-related wikis are much like the Global Warming wikis in terms of their being politically sensitive as well as there being large amounts of misinformation on the Internet relating to them. The main difference between Global Warming and Killian Wikis, though, is that Global Warming has a much larger base of responsible editors minding it to deal with their recurring troublesome socks, anonymous IP's and such. Hence I find myself often alone in dealing with editors/IP's (and probably some socks) trying to make edits based on "information" obviously originating from right wing/conservative blog sites.

And regarding "consensus," as I pointed out, I went well out of my way to try to get the IP to use the Talk pages to discuss its proposed edits. The IP had last expressed the opinion that went I think the changes were generally self-explanatory, but I'm happy to explain them on the Talk page in response to specific objections, as I have done. I had composed an answer showing that Wikipedia has a policy of WP:PROVEIT where the "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material," but unfortunately the block took effect just before I clicked on the "Save Page" button. Again, aside from the 4th revert screw-up, I really made what I thought was a good effort to follow Wikipedia guidelinse to get a discussion going on the merits -- or lack thereof -- of the IP's edits. Aside from the suggestion doing a self-revert when I noticed I had made a 4th revert by mistake, I'm still not sure what else more I could have done in this situation.

And let me emphasize again that the revert warring was long over before the blocks were put into place thanks strictly to my backing off. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It sounds like you will have no trouble editing productively after your block expires. Probably best just to sit it out for now. Possibly someone will shorten it if you e-mail after a week, but the key thing is your behaviour after the block expires. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....well, to be honest, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes more than just myself wonder if it's really worth the hassles to edit here. I put in a lot of time and effort trying to resolve editing issues with an anonymous IP that will likely disappear shortly, and I still end up with a two week block. I run no puppets, I strive for accuracy, I remain civil in the face of exasperating behavior, I research extensively to find the most relevant, up to date refs, I propose my edit changes on the Talk pages first, I strongly encourage discussion, and...to what avail? Whatever, I will appeal my block one more time, but not today. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc, may I suggest that once your block expires you commit to stay away from Killian Documents and related pages? That's clearly a hot-button issue for you, where you have gotten into trouble over and over again. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could use more hands at Global Warming, eh? It is an interesting choice. On one hand, the Killian wikis are kind of rundown and left to seed, involve a topic that few people in the mainstream care about anymore, are minefields to edit because most of the people who still "care" apparently don't want to see them improved in any way; and all my blocks have resulted from my trying to fix/improve matters there. On the other hand, the Global Warming related wikis are among the most active and important in Wikipedia, involve a topic the mainstream cares greatly about, are fun and challenging to edit because of high standards, and I would have little trouble avoiding blocks because of there being plenty of people like you around to maintain article integrity and defend against relentless puppet attacks. The practical choice seems obvious, but....I've never been much of a practical guy. Also, I don't know if you ever noticed this, but my being active on the Killian-related wikis seems to strangely correspond with a decrease in problems with Global Warming for some strange reason, so there might be perhaps some benefit to Global Warming while I'm busy trying to keep my buttons cool with the Killian stuff.... Thanks for the suggestion, wish me luck, and take care. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two points (and redent)

I'd like to pick up two of your points. The first: Can you please stop to call Wikipedia articles Wikis? The term Wiki has a very well-defined meaning, and while it may be petty, this misuse really annoys me.

I was just using "wiki" in place of "Wikipedia article" mostly because it's easier and quicker to type, which is all somewhat related to its definition. Also "article" seems like such a static term whereas "wiki" connotes a more fluid construct of words and ideas. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, and no matter what SEWilco says: The activity at global warming is very much driven by external forcings. The recent spat was due to the AR4 publication and related media blitz that brought a lot of attention and corresponding traffic to the article. This has now cooled down a bit - there will be an infrequent random trouble, and minor waves whenever the paid-for-opinion shills find a new paper they can misinterprete. I'm fairly certain there is at best a very minor connection to your editing the Kilian documents. By means of corrobation: GW was quite calm during your block. We will see more uninformed but strong opinions when the next major conference or report comes up, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not stated that he's having any effect, only his stated intent. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I hope I did not imply that you said anything else. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can only point out that SEWilco made his comment out of the blue during a discussion on Killian documents authenticity issues. Ironically enough, given the circumstances of my current block, I had raised questions about the intro to the article and along with SEWilco, those "involving" themselves in the discussion were IP's, 68.242.34.237, 65.14.229.26 and 166.34.208.92. The IP whose "improve intro" edits and re-edits led to my block, 67.168.86.129, makes an appearance in the next discussion section.

Just the normal stuff one should expect when editing a Wikipedia article, no? (Hmmm...how about "Wart" for short instead of "Wiki"?) -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WArt would better express the etymology of the neologism (if not your opinion of some of our articles). Commiserations that you became another victim of another "preventive (and non-punitive)" block. Please don't go anywhere near that electric fence again. Alice^✉ 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit more like this rather than an "electric fence" per se.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of Global Warming...

Grundle2600 made what appears to me to be a not too relevant edit to Global Warming under "Causes" about an hour ago and it's still there. FYI for anyone interested. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was finally fixed, but it sure did take a long while. Actually from just a cursory trace of his/her contribs, this Grundle2600 person seems to regularly add what appears to be not exactly the best stuff to a wide variety of articles, in case anyone might be interested. But what do I know -- I'm just a blocked-head, so to speak.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm....now I'm getting curious as to how long this sort of thing will go on..... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzled

I'm puzzled by "whom I have bumped heads with briefly last year" in your post on WT:3O. I think I've seen the username Callmebc before, but I don't know what you meant. — Athaenara ✉ 17:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This because of this, which happened back in April during a conflict with other LGF puppets/supporters. I seem to remember that further investigation indicated that you were involved only because you were doing clerical-type work and were seemingly unaware of the background shenanigans.

In any case, it looks as though my WP:3O notice is back up, so I'll chill until I see what becomes of that. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the not-quite-encounter :-) — Athaenara ✉ 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops.... Try again

I think your browser burped. Try again. Section 3 vanished. [1] -- SEWilco (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay -- I was mostly unavailable yesterday and I thought you and Athaenara had fixed it. I have no idea what happened so I copied all the content edits since the glitch, restored the page to its state prior to that, and then readded the edits. I think it's OK now. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

Dear BC, I gave some thought to whether or not I should leave you a personal message here at the talk page, but I wanted to give it a chance, especially in light of the (small) amount of progress made yesterday on the KD talk page. Although we have disagreed, and likely will continue to disagree, on the subject matter there, I hope you can come to see me and the other editors there not as part of some league of wingnut villains trying to obscure the truth, but as people who disagree strongly with you on some questions of fact and opinion. For my part, what has made ongoing discussion with you difficult in the past is that (in my view) you are quick to attribute malice in an argument, and pretty free with your personal remarks: as an example, the comment you most recently made that I found shockingly hurtful was something to the effect of "oh, you finally decided to reply on point for a change." (Addition: this is the diff,[2] just fyi). That's just unnecessary and inflames the situation - from my perspective, I think I just finally understood what you were asking and was able to reply precisely to your argument. That should be an avenue for finding consensus, not an opportunity for an insult. So, I will continue to make an effort to understand your arguments and reply to them as well as I can, and I would ask you to think twice before "save change" and try to strip any anti-personal remarks from your comments. I think this would be nice on a personal level, and also frankly, would help you get your points across more clearly and effectively. Finally, please forgive anything above that isn't clearly expressed or that you may find offensive, I am writing it with the best of intentions and I hope my word choice and subject matter is coming through in the way in which I have intended - as a hope for improved relations and effective editing. Regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what to think, honestly, about these comments here and on the Talk page. The pattern, at least to me, is that I suggest changing, say, "Article Text A" because of "Reason 1," "Reason 2," and so on. I usually take the time to give plenty of reason and refs. The pattern in your case has appeared to be to ignore all of this and just offer up opinions and comments not really relevant to my post. Which forces me to try to rephrase things, offer up analogies, whatever to try to get you to address the issue(s) I'm raising. At times nothing seems to work -- including trying to phrase in a Yes or No answer context. That diff of yours was in regards to what I think was one of the very few times you had actually responded to my points, but even then it was was kind of presented in a very messy way that I had to separate out in order to relate more clearly to what I had asked.

While I'm on computers a lot, I do have other things to do besides repeating myself over and over again. I had mentioned before how the Killian related articles are like the haunted houses of Wikipedia: seemingly abandoned and derelict until someone decides to come by to try to fix things up, and then all of a sudden all sorts of ephemeral characters come out of the woodwork. Things get very, VERY busy and strange, but usually not in a good way, given the still very poor encyclopedic state of the Killian articles after all this time.

But I'm quite willing to start afresh -- when I bring up points A & B, and/or ask question C, just address those first before going on to other matters. If you think I'm asking a trick or leading question, just tell me and I'll respond. If you're not too sure what I'm asking, especially if I ask it again, again just tell me and I'll try my darnedest to make it more clear. Fair enough? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, had enough of your argufying. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, asking people to stay on point and address the issues and refs raised rather than just head off into the wild blue yonder of unrelated opinion is so "argufying". -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Callmebc, you were unblocked on the basis that you would not cause further disruption, and I now find that you have caused yet another complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation office due to your continued vitriol against one of the sources discussed in the Killian case. This behavior is no more acceptable now than it was before you were unblocked, so I have reinstated the block. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Having stumbled upon this "dispute" at AN/I, I strongly support reinstatement of the block. There's no place on the project for incorrigible POV-warriors. Bellwether ^B_C 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I just noticed that you're the conscientious editor who popped by after I got blocked to casually make this little undiscussed, POV'd revert of a change that came about through a long debate/discussion on the Talk page. Nice way to utterly ignore hard reached consensus for the sake of your utterly irrelevant opinion. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• SecondedThirded. A brief review of your recent contributions at Killian show a profound need to insert your own POV-tainted WP:OR rather than improving the article with reliable sources. Ronnotel (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response -- reality has been extra intrusive of late, and I kind of overlooked this little comment of yours. I guess your review was extremely brief because you kind of got things how one might call "butt backwards" -- I've been the only one debating on the Killian documents Talk page using reliable sources, both primary and secondary. And actually all of the modest genuine improvements to the article contents have come from my efforts in the face of hostile POV'ing and repeated instances of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:GAME. If you don't believe me, try to do more than just a brief review of this most recent not-quite-discussion I had started. And since I've been banned, the article has slowly been degrading, much of it being disguised by a surge in WP:GNOME-type housekeeping edits, and with apparently only my monitored comments here keeping it from degrading faster. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Fourthed, on the basis of 100s of kilobytes of bloat the user has personally contributed to a single article talk page in thoroughly tendentious pursuits. — Athaenara ✉ 12:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• And you're the admin who initially deleted my WP:3O request and only put it back after I and others complained. Not so nice behavior, it would appear. Also do I really need to point out that tendentious stuff was actually caused by others engaged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:GAME, and repeated violations of the provision of WP:CIVIL that goes Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others? But then again, you did seem pretty chummy with the most obstructive and gaming of the editors.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note to link the full discussions in chronological order:

1. User talk:Athaenara/Archive 3#Killian documents
2. Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#Athaenara's removal of WP:3O Request
3. Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 7#What to do about user circumventing WP:DR
4. User talk:Callmebc#Puzzled

• It was Padillah, not I, who "put it back." — Athaenara ✉ 03:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

!!??!!

1) I have no idea what Guy is talking about. Seriously. I've been excruciatingly careful in following my agreement as stated above, and I dare him to come up with a diff, any diff, showing this alleged "vitriol". In any case, Guy has been chronically antagonistic and rude to me despite, as far as I know, my not doing anything against him. His history has been very peculiar, including bizarre redacts like this and this and making accusations without a shred of evidence. His reinstate of the block is typical -- again I dare Guy, whom I'm thinking is another LGFer (it would explain a lot), to come up with any evidence whatsoever to back up his not exactly credible charges.

2) I have no idea who Bellwether and Ronnotel are, but it's safe to say that given their comments, they at the very, very least haven't done much in the way of homework.

3) As promised, I left the controversial article pages alone to try to work out things on the Talk pages in the face of multiple, multiple violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the part of WP:CIVIL that goes, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." So this is how you treat someone who kept his word, kept his calm in the face of an awful lot of deliberate provocation and bad behavior, who still managed to find some time (not much) to work on other articles, including doing boring housekeeping stuff, and who took pains to present a very complex case as clearly as possible to WP:AN for assistance and/or opinion?

I know this page is being monitored. I'm not going to ask for an unblock at this moment -- just for Guy to come up with one iota of evidence, diffwise or otherwise, to justify his actions. He mentions "OTRS" and alleged complaints a lot, but he has never, ever told me exactly what that has been about. I suspect it is pretty much no more than hot air, especially this time around since I know I haven't done anything wrong, including even being at all uncivil in the face of relentless incivility. If he can't come up with anything more substantial than his vague, wholly unsupported allegations, then I do believe it's well past his time to be desysopped for engaging in such shoot-first, don't-bother-with-questions, petty abuse of his admin privileges. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, you haven't been careful, you've been advocating WP:TRUTH against WP:V. Sorry, but that's how it is. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll take your WP:TRUTH and raise you WP:ROUGE. And I'll likewise take your WP:V and raise you WP:PROVEIT. You failed to supply the iota of evidence I had requested -- was that too much to ask? How about half an iota if that would make things easier for you? -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You gave an undertaking, several people consider that you have broken that undertaking (e.g. you were already blocked once since for edit warring). Guy (Help!) 13:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is "Nonresponsitis" an epidemic on Wikipedia? I do believe Wikipedia is not a "democracy" where the biggest cabal wins -- admin or not, and no matter your personal opinion may be, I am under the impression that you have to provide something, anything resembling evidence, in the form of diffs showing clear violation of Wikipedia policy, guidelines or such. In other words, give me just one relevant, demonstrable reason to justify my not filing a WP:RFC/ADMIN.

Also, the bottom line is that if I'm taken out of the picture, the Killian-related articles are likely going to remain mostly poorly sourced (if sourced at all), POV'd, illogical, and rather disinformational nonsense, even if we completely take the "memos should be called memos" bit out of the equation. Most if not all of the content improvements to the article since at least October have come from my supposed advocation of the WP:TRUTH:

• Bush's military service was corrected to being in the Air National Guard and not the U.S. National Guard
• "insufficiently authenticated" replaced the longstanding POV phrase "not properly authenticated"
• a mention at least of how CBS's story was just part of a greater media investigation into the George W. Bush military service controversy.

Some of the gains have been offset by the addition of a cite to the right wing Weekly Standard and representing Joseph Newcomer as a recognized expert, but still if one looks at the edit history, you'll see that the recent round of activity started concurrently with the end of my being banned (see above). Even the more inarguable problems with the article will likely never be addressed, some of which are:

• a ridiculously inaccurate description of the CBS segment that caused all the fuss, even though I had provided links to the complete 12 1/2 minute story on the Talk page (Part 1 and Part 2 for those interested)
• the "Background and timeline" omits how the CBS story was only one of numerous media investigations into Bush's military service, including how it was broadcast just one day after a major release of Bush's Guard records via an Associated Press FOIA lawsuit
• the Content of the memos section only has the content descriptions of 4 of the 6 memos
• the intro still has the phrase "less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election" implying there was something suspicious about the timing of the story, even though this was part of the issues I raised on the Talk page, where it was determined that there wasn't a single source available anywhere that thought the timing was suspicious -- probably because, I had noted over and over, the CBS story was only one of many media investigations in Bush's service, and it wasn't even close to being the last one before the election
• very little mention is made of USA Today, which had obtained the memos separately from CBS
• numerous assertions, some bordering on weaselly, poorly sourced (including opinion columns), if sourced at all, through the article
• and use of the CBS Panel Report for multiple refs, even though it is neither quite a primary source nor a secondary source and has no official standing.

FYI, for what it's worth.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• We already know your views on the Killian documents, you've been asserting them endlessly for a very long time. Repeating them does not help. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to assertions, the difference between myself and pretty much everyone else I've bumped heads with recently (and not so recently) in this little corner of the Internet is that when I assert "A," it comes backed up with Ref 1, Ref 2, Ref 3 and so on, whereas the others tend to assert B, and if it comes with anything at all, it'll only likely to be Opinion 1, Non sequitur 2, Random comment 3, and so on. And aside from my getting some improvements made to the Killian documents article despite relentless obstruction, I also managed to fix a few things here, here, and here, plus I started a nice, polite discussion here, and added that nice, pretty picture here.

But getting back to the topic of assertions, I don't suppose you would mind adding something along the lines of a ref or two at your end to support your little assertions towards me -- they so far have been lacking in any visible means of support. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your inability to see the problem, along with your wikilawyering, constitutes a major part of the problem. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Defending oneself in the face of baseless, unref'd, unsupported accusations is not exactly wikilawyering -- it's more the case of, well, defending oneself in the face of baseless, unref's, unsupported accusations. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

Hmmmm....so in other words, you completely agree with Guy's contention, which apparently goes, "I am an admin and I don't like you, therefore I'm going to block you for no good reason because I am an admin and I don't like you. Don't ask me to justify it because I am an admin and therefore don't have to. Don't ask me to answer any questions because again I am an admin and therefore don't have to that either. Also don't bother offering up any proof showing that you did no wrong because I am an admin, so it doesn't matter. And certainly don't ask other admins to help you, because, well, they are also admins and we stick together."

Have I somewhat accurately covered the situation?

Look, I know this is a private playing field and I'm basically a guest, but if I play by the rules and still get railroaded, I'm not going to tolerate it. All I'm asking for is real evidence -- diffs, whatever -- demonstrating that I'm in the wrong in any way, shape or form, especially showing if/how I had violated my statement above. That would be a very modest request, to say the least, in the real world. I'll give you guys another day or so to get your act together and decide if you're going to be like the townspeople in "High Noon" or the good guys. If I have to, I'll use an IP and present my case in excruciating detail to Arbcom. Any admins making un-ref'd, hostile, and/or insulting comments will be invited to the party and can expect me to do my homework. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the debate at [3] tells us all we need to know here, I think. You were unblocked on the strict understanding that you would cease the behaviour that got you blocked, and you resumed that behaviour, resulting in further complaints to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. It is not really surprising that people consider that the trouble you cause overwhelms whatever benefit we might expect from you novel syntheses from published sources. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm...."the behaviour that got you blocked" you say, eh? The behavior that got me blocked me before was mostly 3RR stuff (with mostly the same obstructive editors) with a little unsubstantiated OTRS claims thrown in. If you read my statement above you will see:

1) I will refrain from making any changes at all to the main article page without first going through a Talk page discussion. If the discussion degrades to WP:TE, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME (as is often the case with politically sensitive topics), I will still avoid simply going ahead to make the changes anyway and instead will follow Wikipedia policies regarding WP:DR

• Did I violate this? No -- as promised, I left the main article page alone, even in the face of blatant WP:TE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and WP:GAME. after having asked about this stuff on WP:AN a little while back, I dutifully gave WP:3O a try and then posted a summary of the issue to WP:AN, and asked what should I do next. Which of course led to you blocking me for still unref'd and not exactly credible reasons.

2) I will endeavor to be polite, regardless of the circumstances and provocation. The articles I tend to be interested in are politically charged and regularly draw in anonymous IP's, sock/meatpuppets and the like. In the worst case I will only adopt a neutral tone and will strive to avoid even making sarcastic remarks, however "appropriate" the circumstances might be.

• I think I did more than a pretty darn good job here, even when this nonsense was attempted. The closest I've come to sarcasm was probably this little ditty:

• What can I say -- I talk turkey, you talk canned ham; I say zebra, you say painted horselike object; I say "Ref A and Ref B shows C", you ask, "Does C have a hat?"; and if I ask "What about Ref A and Ref B?", you reply "What does this have to do with C having a hat?

3) I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and then some, regardless of my suspicions. I will even go further and start with a clean sheet in regards to editors and admins I have bumped heads with in the past and regardless of my personal opinions.

• Again I think I did a more than a pretty good job here -- as expected, the usual suspects showed up at the Killian documents when I was unblocked and started their usual shtick, but I pretended it was all new, kept my cool and tried to ref, reason and explain things just as though they were actually trying to improve the article.

4) In a nutshell, I will endeavor to improve the quality of articles without violating, however accidentally, the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

• It takes more than one to collaborate. On the non-Killian wiki's like Global Warming, Universal Health Care, and such, when you raise "Issue A" and give "Ref B," the other editors will generally discuss "Issue A" and "Ref B," as is usually the case in real life. But in the Killian-related articles, raising "Issue A" and "Ref B" means dealing with editors who evidently will do everything they can to not discuss "Issue A" and "Ref B." Which was sort of the whole point of my trying to bring it to the attention of WP:AN because I was led to believe that such behavior relates to both WP:CIVIL and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Hmmmm....so it would appear upon closer inspection that I stood rather well by the conditions of my statement. Agree?

Now as far as the complaints to the Wikimedia Foundation Office bit goes -- do I need to point out that nobody has ever told me what these so-called "OTRS" complaints were about in the past, so it was kind of hard to tell if they were serious or just sour grapes. However, nonsensical redacts like this and this does give one a clue, though. Now as far as this new alleged OTRS complaint goes, again no explanation, but given the history of these "complaints," I'm guessing that this little reply is what brought it on (Go here and do a page search on "anecdote" to see the full context.).

If this is the case, then, well, I think that kind of indicates the level of seriousness of all these supposed OTRS complaints. (Note how I again avoided making a sarcastic remark, despite the "appropriateness" of the circumstances.)

And your last bit about "novel syntheses from published sources" is, shall we say, a pot o' crock. For one thing, I've been excruciatingly careful about using primary sources, especially the bits in WP:PSTS that allows for this when it only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. Some of the obstructive editors tried to "reinterpret" this by acting like there is no primary source obvious enough to satisfy the easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge bit. Also sometime primary sources like this DoD repository of Bush's records are the only sources of real info on certain matters.

But in the most contentious recent not-quite-discussion, the "should memos should be called memos" issue, not only did I have all of the primary sources on my side, but all of the secondary sources as well -- go see. But again the obstructive editors resorted to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:GAME, and repeated violations of the provision of WP:CIVIL that goes Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others to avoid addressing what all the refs were saying.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, but I tend to be thorough. Now, aside from your utter lack of real supporting evidence, I can't help but notice that you never addressed my complaint about the obstructive editors. I think I made a pretty strong case for how they not only continually and repeatedly violated clear Wikipeidia policies and guidelines regarding especially WP:CIVIL and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but demonstrated no real desire to improve anything, but you have yet to comment on any of this. If you want diffs, I can probably supply something along the lines of a 100 of them for just the past couple of months showing willful and blatant disregard of Wikipedia rules. And as I pointed out above, the only content improvements to Killian documents came about from my Talk page activity, and as soon as I was blocked, the article started degrading again. Look at what happened when someone named Bellwether_BC popped by to casually revert without discussion the one change that had been done through clear consensus. If I was not blocked, I would have immediately reverted him and put on not on his Talk that he had reverted a change that was reached through long discussion, and for him to try to justify it first. That should have been the normal response, no? Did any of the other editors do this? No -- it's back to way it was before all the Talk.

If Wikipedia doesn't want to get pounded into irrelevancy by other upcoming online encyclopedias, especially in regards to any article even slightly tainted by politics, that sort of obstructive and article-degrading behavior needs to be dealt with, especially since technically there are Wikipedia rules in place to supposedly to deal with it.

If you have an genuine desire to see bad, agenda-driven editing curtailed and for Wikipedia articles to make people smarter, not dumber, then you perhaps you should consider pointing your hostile attitude in a different direction. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New AfD on United States journalism scandals

Hi - I noticed you were for deleting this article (United States journalism scandals). Someone has put it up again (on 11th March)- I'm not sure how many know about it, so I thought I'd inform you. (I'm for deleting too). Not not sure it's good 'form' to tell you like this, but you were originally the only one for deleting, and you were very clear about your decision (and it was only a couple of weeks ago too!). I'm sure you will be interested. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the notice. I would be happy to participate in the the discussion there, but I'm currently having one or two minor issues with people somehow unhappy with my being honest, conscientious and trying to improve the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia articles through Talk page discussion and the use of verifiable sources. But if I could post an opinion there, it would go something like this:

• Delete As I stated some weeks back, it's become too much of a stomping ground for right wingers, most likely bloggers, looking to trash what they call the "MSM." As is typical of blogger driven stuff, the entries tend to be big on accusations and opinion, while providing little in the way of relevant cites or even basic logic. Ironically enough, I was the first editor to even use the the article's Talk page to discuss problems with the main page. And the subsequent discussions look very much like standard blogger nonsense. It's a junk article with little or no encyclopedic value without a major clean-up, which realistically is not going to happen, judging from just some of the editors wanting to keep the article. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock requested

• You made a deal before, and broke it, causing yet another complaint to the Foundation in the process. Why should we believe you again? Guy (Help!) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ummm, because, as I had already pointed out more than once, you haven't exactly provided much in the way of any evidence showing that I've done anything whatsoever wrong, including how I supposedly "broke" my "deal" -- I went through my statement in detail above and there was nothing I did that violated it, including even any supposed "Double Secret Probation". You know full well that the Killian documents-related articles are Pandora boxes and if I leave them be, even if temporarily, all the headaches disappear, including these very likely utterly bogus "complaints" you refer to but never explain. Besides the RFC's, Global Warming is always in need of defense from the usual harrying hordes, and I suppose I should follow up on the United States journalism scandals stuff above and the bit in Universal health care Talk I started, as well as a little project for the Commons and/or WikiSource. Admit it -- in this land of puppeteers, liars, vandals and sneaky SEOing, there is nothing remotely close to any justification for banning me. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the Wikipedia behavioral guidelines (Disruptive editing#Definition of disruptive editing and editors) states that a disruptive editor is an editor who:

Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

Consensus#Consensus in practice, which is policy, says:

Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome;
  ... it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.

From a neutral point of view, Callmebc, the block is not about the political issues you care most about.
It is a response to your demonstrated unwillingness to accept consensus and abide by the agreements which are essential for participation. — Athaenara ✉ 02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I've been rejecting community input? Did you even read my WP:AN request for advice? There wasn't any issue of rejecting any "community input" -- it was strictly an issue of a handful of tendentious editors repeatedly gaming any attempts to fix even the more blatant issues at the Killian documents by engaging in constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and completely violating the key bit in WP:CIVIL that goes "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." Speaking of which, for all the talk here, there hasn't exactly been a lot of discussion here regarding my complaints, no matter how many times I bring them up. I had to even start a new discussion section in an attempt to get one key issue actually, well, discussed. This comment further up the page here was also in regards to the problems I've been having.

Might I suggest that it might be more productive and in Wikipedia's best interest for you and the others to focus just a wee bit more on my complaints rather than to completely ignore all that to just make so far utterly unsubstantiated claims about my supposed misbehavior. I have WP:VERIFY on my side in more ways than one. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi BC. I don't know if you'll manage to get unblocked, I think three "permanent" blocks is at least one more than most people are allowed, but you are certainly entitled to portray the editing conflict over the Killian documents from your own viewpoint on your own talk page. However, I don't think it's as cut and dried as you make it out to be (presuming I am one of the "tendentious editors repeatedly gaming" that you mention.) For me, the first issue with your conduct has always been a matter of your civility. To wit, your above personal attack, "And since I've been banned, the article has slowly been degrading, much of it being disguised by a surge in WP:GNOME-type housekeeping edits." The fact that you can describe (my) systematic addition of secondary sources to the article as "degrading" it is exactly the problem. It's just gratuitously nasty. That said, I am still sorry that you were unable to abide by the terms of your parole from the second permanent block; however, it is a community of editors, even when we disagree vehemently about politics. Best of luck with your other projects, I hope you find success with your considerable talents. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you have been one of the more persistently WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editors I've been referring to, I'm hope I can be forgiven if I take your comments with more than a grain of salt. But in keeping with my tradition of responding directly to issues and comments, let me address your points:

• In terms of civility, you have repeatedly violated the key bit in WP:CIVIL that goes "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." I raise an issue, offer up some refs and reasoning, and instead of behaving normally, never mind civilly, you usually just ignore all that to instead offer up an unrelated opinion of comment, with this "discussion" section being typical.
• Do you deny that pretty much all of the recent (and very modest) improvements to the article, starting with getting Bush's military service branch correct (the Texas Air National Guard rather than the U.S. National Guard, came about through my efforts on the Talk page?
• I contend that the article did indeed degrade since I was banned. Some examples include you adding Joseph Newcomer as an expert when he's really just a self-proclaimed one. Letting this POV edit by Bellwether_BC stand, despite it completely ignoring a long discussion on the Talk page regarding the change, until I complained about here. You also included a ref to the right wing journal, Weekly Standard, which used this dubious, highly POV'd column as a source. Basically, what you appear to have been doing is to ignore all my points and attempts at discussion I had made, and instead have been scouring the Internet to stick in any pro-forgery stuff that wasn't already there, making it more like a right wing blog piece than a well researched and balanced encyclopedia article. The article has degraded despite this definite surge in activity.. Sorry. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi BC, I appreciate your response, as you must have many other things to contend with. I don't deny that you are capable of making helpful suggestions, such as straightening out the TexARNG business. I even have agreed with your view that the article needed a major reference overhaul (citation missing templates, etc.). About the Bellweather BC, I think it is arguable that his edit was better, and I wasn't in a big rush to change it, but as long as we're talking about it, your view of me as a partisan obstructionist is undermined by the very fact that I make such changes (I also took flak for removing "obviously forged" from the intro on POV grounds). Still, I can understand your viewpoint - but I don't think you understand mine. Do you understand how the use of references is totally irrelevant to the following logical argument: (1) the documents have never been authenticated, and (2) IF forged, they are not "memos" in any military sense, (3) therefore several editors feel that calling them "memos" is potentially misleading and non-neutral, (4) the only demonstrable harm that comes from calling them "documents" is a "lack of specificity." Yet, you argued for hundreds of kilobytes over this very point, and provided tons of sourcing, while dismissing the above argument because it lacks references. This isn't "I didn't hear that," it is a situation where your copious referencing is besides the point, and one where you are fighting to the death over "memos" when "documents" seems...ok. It's that kind of thing that makes it easy to lose sight of your potential for positive contributions. Lastly, I think what I am doing is simply providing refs where they are required, rather than adding much in the way of spin, but I guess your mileage may vary ("right-wing journal" and "wrong on the facts" are different things - and for everyone who sees the WS as just a right wing organ, there are those who see CBS et al. as leftist in their bias. BTW I will try to add "self-described" for Newcomer unless others describe him as an expert. Best regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was going to say that instead of arguing about it here, let some RFC's sort things out, but I see that another admin, Rlevse declined my block by yet again making an odd, snarky comment, completely ignoring every single point on this page, pretending my WP:AN query didn't exist, as well as not even bothering to offer up a single diff showing any misbehavior on my part. Maybe WP:CIVIL should be considered a nonbinding essay rather than a policy given how it's so casually ignored by editors and admins alike when it suits them. In any case, I guess the bottom line is that instead of getting RFC's to deal with the Killian problem, I'm forced now to have to resort to Arbcom and an IP to deal with not only the Killian issue but with both editors and admins who apparently believe that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIVIL (never mind WP:HONEST) don't apply to them when inconvenient. What a pain....but if that's the only choice I'm given, well.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

PS - I just noticed that on Rlevse's Talk page, he has this little ironic gem: For every editor, I try to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and expect the same in return. Yeah, well, we will perhaps see later how/if he can reconcile that little noble sentiment with his actual behavior, at least in my case. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PS PS - Ahhh, I just saw this comment: This user is proud to speak AMERICAN, not English. I do believe I sniff another LGF'er or such in the 'hood.... Hmmm....perhaps if I make one more unblock request, but with the stipulation that the reviewing admin can't be a member of a right wing blog site because of the obvious WP:COI.... I'll mull it over. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I figured you weren't going to answer my four line logic problem (you never did before now, what has changed?) Good luck fighting the conspiracy of LGFers, I guess. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Four line logic problem?" There was never ever such a thing -- those "points" of yours were never more than some non sequiturs unrelated to the discussion issues, and I actually had addressed that stuff before as being totally nonsensical reasoning. If we were discussing a possibly forged Picasso, we would be referring to it as "the Picasso" or "alleged Picasso" or some such and not just generically as "a drawing" -- doing so would just be utterly confusing since it would be withholding a key bit of info. But I had already discussed all this -- or more accurately, attempted to -- but again there was that little issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIVIL that I've may have mentioned once or twice.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's particularly amusing given that I was the one who blocked this user, and I am neither American nor right-wing. I also find it ironic that Callmebc accuses everyone else of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when the principal problem is endless repetition of the same synthetic arguments by Callmebc, regardless of opposition and other arguments. Sure the same argument comes back a lot of the time, but you can't accuse everyone else of keep saying the same thing when the only reason they do so is in response you your own endless repetition of the same thing. I suspect that this complete absence of self-criticism from BC has played a large part in bringing us to where we are here. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, for one thing, given the behavior I've been observing both first hand and as a bystander, honesty is not exactly a rampant disease on Wikipedia. Also LGF appears to have a pretty sizable British, European and Israeli following, thanks to its "Anti-Islamofascism" stance (making Charles Johnson, LGF's owner, especially popular among Jews). Lastly, when I claim or even just suggest "X," I make sure I back it up with refs and diffs galore. In contrast, despite all the assertions and claims made regarding my alleged misbehavior, there hasn't been even an iota of supporting evidence offered up for any it despite my repeatedly asking for such. In the real world, that sort of behavior is not exactly kosher, and it shouldn't be here either.

• Look, I don't want to get an IP and I don't want to go to ArbCom. If I'm forced to do so, you and the others can be sure I'll provide diffs for every damning bit of misbehavior I can round up. I had made the offer to stay completely away from all the Killian-related articles and let some RFC's determine who's right, who's wrong, who's been misbehaving, and who hasn't been. However the RFC's turn out, so be it. To me that still seems like a good, solid compromise, but I'm logical and honest. YMMV. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• BC, you are in a hole, I advise you to stop digging. I am a notorious pinko commie subversive from the land of socialism and punitive taxation and like WP:ROUGE states: Administrators have been known to oppose editors because their edits violate policy, rather than because the admins are conspiring with the Forces of Darkness. Your edits violated policy, resulting in complaints to the foundation. You have the right to appeal to arbcom, please feel free to email them at arbcom-l (at) wikimedia (dot) org. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• The only "hole" apprear" to be the one labeled "Evidence" -- again not an iota of anything to support your again snarkish comments. If my "edits violate policy," surely there must be a diff somewhere, anywhere to demonstrate this, no? And as far as those supposed "complaints to the foundation" go, again where are the diffs, any diffs, showing how/where I offended? As I stated above, I suspect that it was this brazen display of, um....discussion? Talking about facts? Referencing? Sticking to the issues? How would you put it? (if that was indeed the reason for those vague and never explained foundation complaints you keep referring to). As far as whether you are "conspiring with the Forces of Darkness," I think the simpler explanation might that you're simply a bureaucrat, and that conspiring with the Forces of Darkness is simply part of your more minor duties, along with never explaining anything, justifying an action, nor asking any questions. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Once again your attack bears no relationship to the truth. I am constantly being told that I must be more respectful of Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy, I am one of the least bureaucratic admins on the entire project. The foundation complaints are referenced by OTRS ticket numbers, anyone with OTRS access can verify them trivially easily. We're not going to breach privacy by giving you the text, that's one bit of bureaucracy I will sign up for. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• My "attack" bears no relationship to truth, you say? So....are you basically claiming that: you have been supplying evidence like, say, diffs showing misbehavior on my part as well as violations of my statement; replying directly to my points instead of making just snarkish comments; and have been asking questions of both myself and the others I have complained about to get a better sense of what's really going? And I had overlooked all that when I made my last posting about your behavior? Well, I'm always quick to admit it when I screw up, so if you can point out where and how I am mistaken, I'll be very quick to offer an apology.

• And doesn't your comment regarding that OTRS stuff resemble the business that got Durova into trouble? Some person or persons make vague (possibly grossly exaggerated if not completely bogus) accusations against an editor, and instead of even letting the editor know any of the details, never mind allowing him or her to respond, the editor gets punished. Any attempt by the editor to find out what exactly was the complaint gets ignored, and even when the editor surmises what the complaint was about and shows that in that case there would be no basis for a complaint, that also gets ignored. This is indeed bureaucracy gone wild. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are no parallels between an OTRS complaint and Durova's ill-judged block. There are parallels between the behaviour that got you blocked this time and the behaviour that you undertook not to repeat as a condition of unblocking last time. It's that simple. Now please stop spitting in the soup. If you want to appeal, email ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final response to BC

CallmeBC, the reason you aren't being taken seriously is because you are proposing, in the absence of sourcing, that TANG functionaries were in the habit of using $8000 ($40000 in 2008 dollars) industrial typesetters to prepare "memos to file". You are welcome to make that argument as loud and as long as you care to - just not here. Your theory is fringe and purely original research (nothing in any way shape or form suggests these types of machines were ever used by Killian or his secretary or could even create the documents in question) and your excessive zeal in pushing your theory violates your previous undertaking to avoid this exact type of behavior. I am now unwatching this page - I'm sure ArbCom will let me know if and when any further input is required from me. Ronnotel (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Ummm, well, first off, this not exactly the appropriate place and time for this stuff -- I'm trying to deal with an indefinite ban I was given, apparently for just asking about what to do in regards to chronic violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines by a small group of obstructive editors who believe they WP:OWN the article, facts and elementary logic be damned. Secondly, speaking of which, there isn't exactly a lot of fact or elementary logic in your posting: the only thing I have been "proposing" is that genuine WP:RS shows that nearly all of the reasons that were given for why the memos were forged are basically nonsensical and show much the same willful and woeful disregard for research and logic as, say, global warming deniers. This whole issue of "cost" is typical -- "Oooo, a word processor in 1972 cost $8000, lets's convert that to 2008 dollars -- $40,000! No air base is going to spend that for typing up memos!" I'm assuming you used this "inflation calculator" - go stick in any piece of common office equipment from the 70's, or even 60's and 80's for that matter. How about a $510 IBM Selectric from 1964? In 2008 dollars, that would be $3,482.69. Xerox dominated the plain paper copier market during the 60's and into the 70's, especially with the Xerox 914 model. The 914 cost $29,500 in 1960, which translates into $210,977.82 with the inflation calculator. That seems absurdly high, but that didn't stop Xerox from selling 200,000 of them. As I had already pointed out, office equipment like copier machines, typewriters and word processors were leased in those days, and were expected to be in service for a long time, so cost comparisons are not valid to how such equipment is bought or even leased these days. Just go back to when IBM PC's started appearing in offices all over, often combined with an NEC Spinwriter printer -- do you have any idea how much this little combo went for in the mid 80's? Go plug these 1983 numbers for IBM PC/XT's into your inflation calculator, as well as these "discounted prices" from 1984. And check out how much the Apple LaserWriter printer went for in 1985. And if you're thinking that this would still not apply to what the military would buy, go check out the 1960 prices listed here and the little 1957 accident here.

• Not to brag, but not only did I actually bother to go to a large library to research the state of common office technology back in the early 70's, especially in regards to word processing, but I actually made a field trip to the Charles Babbage Institute to rummage through about 30 boxes of material related to early office tech that they kindly dug up for me. All of this represents roughly one one library trip and 30 boxes of more research than what was done by the entire right wing blogosphere (and the general news media as well, to be fair) in regards to the allegedly forged memos.

• Here's a little 2-part homework assignment for you and anyone else lurking here: 1) for military memos ("Memorandum for Record" and such), is the signature block suppose to be on the right side or the left side?; 2) who didn't get the signature block location correct -- a) The right wing blogosphere, b) The Washington Post, c) The CBS Panel Report, d) All of the above ?

• Later.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct location of the signature block would depend upon when the document was typed (the standards change with time), where it was typed (different locations have different standards and equipment), which service it was in (and the reserves' rules are sometimes different than the actives'), which manuals were being followed (sometimes a manual is available at some places and times and not at others), and especially, what the signer wanted, among other things. Typists in the military do as they're told by their superiors, not how those superior's manuals say things should be done. If he wants five blank lines instead of four, and left instead of right, any En who does differently will be retyping the document, and it does not matter what "the rules" say. If the En wants to complain, he would do so by complaining to the E(n+2) who was in charge of the En, and the E(n+2) would explain that fact of military life to the En. I understand that you don't believe this; I was an En typist and had it explained to me several times. I had documents that I had complained about, signed, delivered above, and had them come back to be retyped (and signed again) into the form that above desired (and sometimes it was the above's form that was not according to the rules.)

On a more general topic, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and your style of writing as a prosecutor interrogating a hostile witness with leading questions is remarkably ineffective in building collaboration. htom (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• The correct location of the signature block would depend upon when the document was typed? Really? Not only is that utter nonsense, it's dishonest nonsense -- you're one of the obstructive editors at the Killian documents authenticity issues article who wanted to block the inclusion of any and all verifiable sources and references regarding the formatting of military documents, even and most especially the USAF's own long time Tongue and Quill writing guide. You and the others also didn't want to include any and all genuine military memo samples found on the Internet like these: Dated June, 11, 1959, Dated Oct. 15, 1969, Dated Oct. 4, 1971, and Dated Nov. 30. 1971. Perhaps it was because of their not only having all of their signature blocks on the right as prescribed by all military writing guides, but that all but one of this group are also proportionally spaced as well. My inclusion of this info was all removed during my ban and the original unref'd nonsense put back, along with "Citation missing" tags galore left unattended in the current version. Your claimed personal memory of being an "En Typist" is of absolutely no value, especially in the context of your behavior related to genuine, WP:RS & WP:SOURCE citable sources and refs.

• I'm quite aware of how Wikipedia is suppose to a collaborative effort, but that has nothing to do with the behavior of you and your friends. You guys seem to believe that wholly unsupported right wing/blog-based nonsense is perfectly acceptable material for a Wikipedia article if it corresponds with your personal beliefs, and that furthermore it's totally OK to ignore and revert any and all authoritative sources that contradict your beliefs if you are in the majority. That's what Stephen Colbert calls "Wikiality," and is the type of "scholarly reasoning" that would have Wikipedia become this. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Low level vandalizing spree at Killian documents

FYI for anyone interested in stuff like integrity, knowledge and such: since I got banned, Kaisershatner has apparently felt free to go on basically a low level vandalizing spree at the Killian documents article by adding in any additional pro-forgery stuff that can be scoured off the Internet, however dubious, and quietly removing anti-forgery content like this: [6], [7], [8], [9]. Glad to see that all the finger-waving admins who popped by on this page to tsk-tsk me have been on top of the situation. Gawd.... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whither Wikipedia

Things are apparently not looking too promising for Wikipedia remaining any sort of credible source of info, especially for any topic even lightly touched by politics. I've been one of the very few honest, well informed posting here and I'm the one who gets indefinitely blocked, and for reasons I can only speculate about because nobody has told me either private or publicly. When I try to edit any other page, I get this BS:

Gave an undertaking to cease disruption, was blocked shortly after, and has now prompted yet :another complaint to OTRS, ticket 2008030210009128

As you can see in the threads further up, I had repeatedly asked JzG/Guy to point out somewhere, anywhere where I misbehaved and he repeatedly refused. What is this "OTRS ticket 2008030210009128"? Don't know because, again, nobody has told me, which makes things a teeny bit difficult to respond to, never mind defend against. I do believe it involves a certain not exactly credible old friend of George Bush who had apparently fibbed a wee bit in an opinion column for a right wing newspaper, which of course ended up being used in a not so slightly politically tinged Wikipedia article by one of the more blatantly dishonest editors I've been bumped heads with here and there. Of course that editor is freely going about Wikipedia doing his thing, as is this little group of not quite upstanding folk. I dutifully sent some emails to the ArbCom mailing list and got an auto-reply, but nothing further.

I had been contemplating using an IP to post a request for arbitration, but this whole odd world of puppets and liars kind of creeps me out, actually. And I just took a look at WP:RFAR and what did I find? A complaint against William M. Connolley, one of Wikipedia's true and honest defenders against chronic attempts by right wing editors and IP's to insert politically based nonsense. He's been targeted and harassed in the past for being, well honest and accurate. There seems to be a pattern here..... -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)