Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Merecat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Discussion

I do not deny heMerecat^{edit by Kevin Baas} made edits to the talk page. What I say is that these comments do not constitute debate and are not intended to resolve any differences regarding the contents of the article in question.

Nomen Nescio 19:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Kevin's claim of Bad Faith

Kevin has chimed in above with the accusation that Merecat has acted in persistent bad faith. I strongly disagree. In fact, I couldn't disagree more strongly. Merecat has provided reasons for his edits and Nescio responds in every case with an "argument" following the form of "your wrong because (insert non-sequitor here)" and then reverts Merecat's edits. Merecat has not only provided reasons for his edits but also provided logical rebuttal to both Nescio's and Kevin's objections. They have not answered with logic, but rather alter the argument and make claims of POV for simply trying to edit out their POV. Merecat's edits do not introduce POV into the article but simply try to neutralize their obvious POV. They are the ones who are acting in bad faith. They have proven time and again on various contoversial pages their very pronounced Anti-Bush POV. Kevin even had a ranting, Bush-bashing screed on his User Page (it may or may not still be there, I haven't bothered to look at his page recently). Their interjection of POV may or may not be in bad faith (I am willing to believe that they are blinded by their hate), but their defense of their rampant POV is, IMHO, bad faith as is this action against Merecat.--WilliamThweatt 22:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My experience with Merecat is very different, and have personal experience with Merecat refusing to discuss his disputed edits. As you and I are probably different political views, it leads me to believe that perhaps Merecat treats those with which he disagrees politically with less respect. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved 3rd party here, but Merecat is making it extraordinarily obvious that he's spamming user pages to attract support for this RFC, wouldn't have bothered mentioning it if it wasn't for the big deal about someone doing the same thing for an AFD vote, probably where he got the idea from in the first place--152.163.100.6 23:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact he's spamming virtually all of the same talk pages as in that incident--152.163.100.6 23:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio is also recruiting. So what? Thatcher131 01:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

But not with a specific request. I clearly asked editors to give their objective opinion, I never asked to support me.

Nomen Nescio 01:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Recruiting" here is a misnomer. Nescio is being indiscriminate. There lay the crucial difference. Kevin Baas^talk 03:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, assuming that your premise is accurate: If I walk 10 boxes of cookies down the street to my 10 neighbors who I think want them and Nescio hands out 10 boxes to complete strangers without a thought as to whether or not they might like cookies, we both give out 10 boxes. Of what relevance is it that my cookies are knowlingly earmarked for people who like cookies while his may not be? Merecat 03:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a false analogy. This is a survey of opinion. If you asked each of those people if they liked cookies, already knowing that they will all say yes, your results will no doubt be "10 out of 10 people that I surveyed like cookies.", which, though undoubtedly a statement, does not tell you anything. Kevin Baas^talk 03:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Then what are you saying? Nescio's messages to other users were somehow purer or better than mine? Precisely what is your point? Merecat 04:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would not be so abstract as to say "purer". I addressed it mathematically on the article page of this talk page. It's not a matter of saying what 2 and 2 make, it's a matter of knowing whether 2 and 2 really do make 4. At risk of being esoteric, I will say that the background to that wording comes from information theory; that the point of an RFC, properly/theoretically, is not to control or to determine, but rather to assess. The "meaningfullness" of a statememt or proposition is directly proportional to it's information contribution, that is, how much it adds to knowledge, in contrast to being a reiteration of what one already knows. One does not survey things that they already know the results of, that is worthless; absurd. One surveys in order to discover the results. I would say that it's a scientific endeavour, and as such, requires a degree of disinterestedness. Kevin Baas^talk 08:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, what you say make no sense to me. The only reason me or Nescio telling other editors about would be notable, is if it contravenes a rule or convention which ought not to be violated. My point was, that since Nescio and I each told about the same number of editors, then the fact that we did, is not notable. Also, implicit in your explanation is the suggestion that a communicator (me or Nescio) can actually adversely influence the commentary of the outside invitees, by the nature of our invitation to them, and the interest level we personally place in our invites. Frankly, such a suggestion does not say much for the independant thought of each invitee. Merecat 08:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I resent the implication, both here and on the aforementioned AfD page, that I am participating because I was spammed. I am also an uninvolved 3rd party. You will see that I have not made any edits nor contributed to the discussion at the disputed page. Nor, Ryan, have I had any dealings with Merecat. As I stated in my opinion on this project page, I have had dealings with Nescio and came accross this page this morning by following Nescio's User Contributions link. Anyway, how he treats those who agree with him has little to do with his response to Nescio's hard-headedness. (As for the AfD, check the timestamp. I nominated another page and in reviewing the AfD page found another AfD and chose to participate, it wasn't until after I voiced my opinion that I was contacted by one of the participants who thanked me for my opinion and urged me to contact others to do likewise. I did not do so and do not condone such SPAMing for "votes").—Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamThweatt (talk • contribs)

~~I'm sorry but I don't understand why you directed a comment at me.~~ I was responding to your condemnation of the certifying editors' (Kevin and Nescio's) conduct as 'Bush-bashing', I didn't mean to imply you had personal experience with him... I don't know whether you have or have not. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I am the first to admit I am strongheaded, we must not forget that it was Merecat's umwillingness to discuss and find compromise which resulted in this RFC.

Nomen Nescio 00:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I am willing to discuss and find compromise with you regarding the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 05:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why was my summary moved to the discussion page?

Per the above notice: "This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete." Kevin was allowed to second Nescio's complaint; why am I not allowed to dispute his claims here, again, as per the above-cited notice?

Kevin and Nescio are the certifying editors. They can edit that section, but not 'responses' or 'outside views'. You signed an 'outside view', and therefore cannot edit the 'certifying' section, nor can you edit the 'response' section. The instructions read:

''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

The policy is clear and straightforward. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Ryan. I misunderstood what "other sections" in the second sentence was referring to. But now that I understand, I see it is clear and straightforward, as you say.--WilliamThweatt 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. No harm, no foul. Be well. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answering Merecat

Merecat, we are of the belief that process is important. And that process is not my process or nescio's process or your process, it is common sense and community-developed process (such as are in the policies and guidelines). (though status quo ante bellum while the dispute is being resolved (i.e. as a stopgap) was my own suggestion to stop an edit war, which i made to try to help to resolve the dispute peacably, that as far as i know isn't policy) You do not see any attacks on your character on the RFC because that is not what RFCs are for. User conduct RFCs, as i see it, are responses to persistent process violations (such as good faith, etc.), not espousals of feelings that one another may have. Their proper use is to discuss a user's actions in relation to the community-accepted process. Kevin Baas^talk 00:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, your words ring hollow. On this RFC, you have explicitly accused me of "bad faith" - such accusations are indeed attacks on character. Also, as I have explained to you several times during this RFC, I am interested to discuss, with Nescio and also with yourself, certain concerns I have regarding the quality and quantity of links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Several times in the last day or so, you have made definate statements indicating your intent to refuse to have such a discussion with me. Do you deny that you are refusing? And where is the proper application of process in your refusal? Merecat 05:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Thatcher131

There are some observations I want to make.

You contend I need to explain why I revert Merecat's edits. Although I am more than willing, I would think that the burden of proof is on the editor that is making the change, not on the one disputing it.
As to my reverting the deletion of CCR. You are misrepresenting the facts. Just as Merecat asked for cites to substantiate claims in the article, which I provided, I expect that he also produces sources for the claim CCR is POV. Contrary to you assertion I do not object to anything but only ask him to provide a source for that claim before deleting the CCR reference. The assertion that using certain sites proves POV is not what I would say.
As to problems with sources, feel free to insert sources you think are better suited. Nomen Nescio 02:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to examine every diff, but there are clearly some of Merecat's edits that were quite well explained in the edit summary, where I believe it would have been better for you to edit over the top of Merecat to create a compromise, rather than reverting a series of edits all at once without any consideration of the indivudal merit of each edit.

As far as sources, the only source to what constitutes a reason to impeach the president is a bill of impeachment produced by the House (or at least a draft bill by a representative). All we have so far is a call for a committee to investigate possible grounds for impeachment which has not been voted on. Everything else is speculation by partisans that some alleged misdeed might be grounds for impeachment. And your view of the misdeeds themselves is incomplete because all the evidence is not in yet. You asserted in one edit summary that there were no WMD at all. There is an Iraqi pilot who I believe is claiming they were flown to Syria. His claims may not be true, but unless we invade Syria we may never know. If someday the Syrian dictatorship falls and we discover Saddam did transfer WMD, one of your "rationales" evaporates, because its based on partisan opinions. Thatcher131 03:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If my memory serves me well, the Bush administration's position is that these weapons were not present and probably will not be found. Let's stick to that official position and not speculate. As to partisan, clearly people discuss impeachment, among which legal analysts, so why can that not be presented? Furthermore, it is odd that you ask me to compromise but Merecat can simply use edit summaries as explanation. When edits are in dispute the usual thing to do is stop continuing the edits, and start discussing. Why I need to compromise while Merecat can continue not debating I fail to understand.

Nomen Nescio 03:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

When edits are in dispute the usual thing to do is stop continuing the edits, and start discussing. Not necessarily. Rather than blanket reverting the entire article, you could address each section edit one at a time, considering what you want it to say and what Merecat wants it to say and try to arrive at a compromise that may not make either of you completely happy but that you both can live with. It is possible to productively edit based on good edit summaries if you are willing to let your favorite verbiage go and split the difference. Thatcher131 03:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point. This is what I have been trying to do, everytime I await discussion Merecat has made more edits. By not responding he is making his edits without considering my position. If I do not revert then his edits remain and my version is not even open for discussion: compromise remember? Therefore I object to your interpretation.

Nomen Nescio 03:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link from March 2nd, 2006 addressing the topic of the wherabouts of the WMD. There is substantially more information available on that web site. The man in charge there is David Horowitz, a well known, frequently published author and public speaker (and former radical). Merecat 03:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresentation

I have not seen so much misrepresentation concentrated in one place in my life as I have on this RFC. (forgive the hyperbole) Forgive me if that's offensive to ppl here, but it has, in the aggregate, breached the threshold where I believe it warrants mention. Kevin Baas^talk 02:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please cite for us the most egregious example. Merecat 03:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the example directly below is indicative. Kevin Baas^talk 03:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So Kevin, you are saying that Nescio does compromise? Please show me one edit of mine which he compromised over. Merecat 04:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You suggested WMD were found. I asked for sources, you provided and I included your comments after this discussion. Hereby proving that if you simply discuss, show why you want something I am more than willing to listen to you. However, apart from this example, few other instances occured where you discussed and offered me an explanation. Hence, if you refuse to explain, more than the inadequate assertions in the summaries, I do not understand why information should be added or deleted. All I ask of you is discuss. I cannot compromise if you offer me nothing. It's a game of give and take.

Nomen Nescio 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I am still waiting for your answer. Merecat 04:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be construcxtive, I answered and still you insist compromise is impossible. Clearly we need a break from WP, so I will leave abd see what happens when I return next time and less emotional. (PS this is my way of saying BE COOL!)

Nomen Nescio 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, please accept that my question was directed to Kevin, not you. I am waiting for an answer from him. Merecat 04:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Geez, I'm not on the internet all the time. Nesco's response was a good example. I might also sight an example of him working in good faith with someone else: Talk:Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Geneva_Conventions_section_doesn.27t_match_source_material, which shows that the objection at least in general does not apply. As to whether he has a particular bias against you, (for holding a different opinion, as has been suggested,) not only have I seen nothing to suggest inconsistency, but the other user in the example here, was critical in a way that a "partisian" would quickly and violently react to (on a touchy subject). But did he? No. Because the user was specific, nomen immediately acknowledged the logic and addressed his concerns. I think this is a remarkable example of how one should interact on wikipedia. And it is working towards comprimise. It is also interesting to note who got the last word.

To cite a specific (and recent) example in his dialogue w/you:

In light of our dispute, and more than possible expecting renewed dispute by others in the future, I would think that, let's say three references to support a claim is better than one.

Further, it already has a Killian style. The only difference is that I incorporate multiple links following a sentence into one.

But more importantly, let's discuss the article and what you believe needs ammending before we look at what type of reference we use. I would think that is the least of the problems on this article.Holland Nomen Nescio 03:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

At the same time, I respect how you titled the following section: "Merecat requests that Nescio discuss the "links issue" with him". I think he compromised on 3 sources, at most. And to explain why it's more than one: it's the fear that people will say it's unverified, or that one link is not enough, or that the source is biased. I think that three was a good comprimise, esp. in that you suggested five. I do agree w/Nescio that content is primary, a sentence at a time, and that citations, or the number thereof, for each sentence, is an aspect of that primary-ness. (Also, that citation style being general to all articles, there will be a solid framework from which to reach a resolution, and I praise your reference to that.

In any case, "let the record show, that Nescio has" accepted your "offer to discuss with [you] the 'links issue'":

"In light of our dispute, and more than possible expecting renewed dispute by others in the future, I would think that, let's say three references to support a claim is better than one.

In any case, though this is properly an RFC about you and not Nescio, for the sake of assurances, and in substanting my claim of misrepresentation, in answering you appropriate question, I would say that this is a good example of comprimising. Kevin Baas^talk 08:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, thanks for your reply. Nescio's final word on the subject of links was "I still feel reference style is not what we should be discussing at this point" (see entire discussion on talk page). Suffice it to say, I am asking Nescio to talk with me about the quality and quantity of links. It's all well and good that Nescio now offers "3" links as a limit. But, even if that were acceptable (at this point, it's not), it does not address the quality aspect of my link concerns. Indeed, instead of moving forward and actually having a dialog, Nescio made one suggestion and then quit the conversation. While you may think that's a "compromise", I don't. And certainly, it's not an answer to my question to you, which was: "Please show me one edit of mine which he compromised over.". All you did was copy (in part only) some of my current attempt to talk with Nescio. You still have not pointed out even one edit which I have made to Rationales to impeach George W. Bush that Nescio has accepted as a compromise to one he wanted. Rather than prove your point, the example you cite proves just the opposite. Nescio does not dialog and he does not compromise. If I am wrong on this, please prove it by getting Nescio to respond to this:

Nescio, I (Merecat) am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready.

Merecat 19:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio believes, as do I, that provided all the information in there has at least one good citation, things like POV wording, information that should be in but isn't, misrepresentation, or just poor wording, are more pressing issues than the style of the links. Inaccuracies in the text is more important than whether it has too many citations or not. Nescio is more concerned with the body of the text and would like to discuss the body. I believe this is appropriate because that is what people are going to read. I beleive that your focus is petty and so is your insistence, and that it is impeding progress on the article; i.e., it is obstructive. You know how much better the article would be by now if we would have all been working together on improving the content, piece by piece? I also feel that reference style is not what we should be discussing at this point. I hope I have stated the case clearly. Comprimise does not mean always giving in to, even when you strongly disagree, one user who's trying obstinately to direct the article development as well as the discussion. Kevin Baas^talk 20:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Kevin are you answering here for Nescio? How do you even know what Nescio believes? Has he told you? Perhaps he might also want to tell the rest of us. That said, since it seems you talk more to Nescio than he talks to the rest of us, please ask him to respond to this:

Nescio, I (Merecat) am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready.

Merecat 21:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he has told me. He has also told you. I am reiterating and clarifying because I understood him. Kevin Baas^talk 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(see my reply to Kevin on the article talk page - Merecat 21:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Comprimise does not mean always giving in to, even when you strongly disagree, one user who's trying obstinately to direct the article development as well as the discussion.???????

What does that even mean? So what does compromise mean in your world? So is OK for three users (you, Nescio and, to a lesser extent, Ryan) to "obstinately direct the article development as well as the discussion"?

My example of what comprimise does not mean could more aptly be called subservience. It is one-sided, gratuituos (sp?), and perverse. Kevin Baas^talk 21:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

...at least one good citation

Subtle, very subtle. What is your definition of "good"? Mine is a credible source that doesn't push POV or assault the reader with propoganda (left or right). Very few of your sources would qualify.--WilliamThweatt 20:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the accusations and personalization doesn't let up. WilliamThweatt's edit comment for the above edit was '???Kevin you must be suffering from lack of sleep or something...give it a rest already??????'. In case it's not obvious, such comments and accusations serve only to move the dialogue further from consensus. I'm sorry, but that's ~~just appalling~~ not constructive at all.

As far as trying to 'obstinately direct the article development', the only insistence I have is that the presentation of fact needs to accurately reflect the truth, not 'two truths' set in opposition regardless of the veracity of each side's argument. That's not factual accuracy, that's 'obstinately directing the article development'.

If you feel I have excluded valid, corroborated information to blatantly serve a POV, please let me know where and when. I stand by my edits and I have confidence my own POV 'filter' when it comes to distinguishing spin from fact - and always welcome constructive input about how I can better edit.

When there is a difference of opinion between the current content and proposed edits, consensus can best be reached by good faith use of the 'talk' page. The intentions of the editors can be discussed and more acceptable content and cites can be added to the article if a fair and direct dialogue about the issues occurs on 'talk'. At times, Merecat (the subject of this RfC) has refused to participate in 'talk'. That's quite troubling to me, followed by the dubious page moves to gramatically incorrect titles. That being said, I have a lot of problems with the 'Rationales' page - I'm not an editor there because the page really doesn't suit me. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm sure you noticed I purposefully qualified my remarks above with "...and, to a lesser extent, Ryan". I hesitated to lump you in with Nescio and Kevin because I don't consider you to be in the same category of uncompromising obfuscaters (I apologize in advance for my spelling). However I did include you in the section because I can't understand your unequivocal defense of their position; to me it indicates implicit accord.--WilliamThweatt 22:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My support is not unequivocal. However, my very first experience with Merecat was when he moved a popular and controversial article (Plame Affair), to a questionable title (Wilson-Plame Scandal). Merecat never responded to my attempts to understand his rationale. It ultimately required an admin to reverse it. I've not seen that kind of aggressive behavior often - and then, I read this RfC and the complainants are alleging the very same behavior. I felt I had to support it on the basis of my personal experience. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated before you three leave us no choice but to resort to this type of dialogue. Kevin says below that Merecat "has refused to discuss" his disputes. He has done everything short of begging Nescio to discuss his issues, but everytime he does, his arguments are dismissed, not answered, or not even acknowledged. And those tactics have carried over onto this page as well. I might as well go outside and carry on this debate with my dog, I'd get more participatory discussion. When all is said and done here, the fact will remain: you three have created an article full of POV, both very overt and very subtle, and all our attempts to neutralize it are summarily reverted. That is unacceptable and unless you compromise no solution will be reached. (21:52, 14 April 2006 WilliamThweatt)

I don't recall saying that Merecat has "refused to discuss". Below I mentioned that he has not, on the talk page, (as far as I can recall), disputed the verifiability of any particular sentence in the article. I mention that because I believe that to be an actionable starting point for addressing citations (and the verifiability or lack thereof of sentences). Kevin Baas^talk 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea that human beings can write an article without POV is of course impossible. The means by which individuals interact and the respect they express for one another defines the outcome. I welcome all edits that are factual, well written and informative. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That is why I called on everybody concerned here to stop the rhetoric, accusations, "should have, would have"s and focus on constructively finding a solution (see Voice of Reason, below). Only myself and Merecat have signed it. Kevin stated he still wants to argue over the "characterization" of the issue. We're just going in circles, I agree that it is impossible to write an article without POV, I have said exactly the samething to Nescio on the Rationale Talk Page. I also stated that no amount of clarifying our "characterization" is going to affect the other's POV. Let's face it, we're not going to change each others minds or opinions. Let's focus on a solution instead of continuing the argument.--WilliamThweatt 22:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your 'voice of reason' proposal basically says 'we'll stop discussing past behavior', and on a User Conduct RfC, that seems counterproductive. I agree the editors should proceed in good faith, agree to discuss the edits before making them on 'talk', etc.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this. A solution is clearly the goal, but before one finds a solution, one first has to find the problem. That's what RFCs are for. It is my belief that problems reside in the realm of process, as do solutions, and Ryan has listed some good solutions. I believe that this RFC is working: we are discovering the problems, and things are working their way to resolution. I don't think this would have been possible if we had put the cart before the horse. Kevin Baas^talk 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I intentionally used the subjective and short word "good". It's certainly important to flesh out exactly what is. And i'm sure that would happen in the particulars as well as the general. What sources need to be depend on the context. If one is attributing a quote from a public interest group or the ABA or what have you, though some people might consider them credible, might consider it POV and might consider it propaganda, it's an attribution. (thou if there are a lot of logical fallacies and misrepresentations in the source, I would, frankly, prefer to wipe my a** with it than see it.) For factual reference, however, the criteria is more strict. Regards my sources, I would say none of them qualify. I would also say that all of them qualify. This is the one case where that doesn't imply a contradiction. Any case, the point was that, provided the information in the article is verifiable and all that, then what needs to be worked on is the content. If merecat disputes the verifiability/whatever of a particular sentence, well then that would be something to discuss. As it stands, he has yet to do that, and that's not what he's doing. Kevin Baas^talk 21:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to go through and list the links you think are superfluous and/or weak, I'm sure editors will find the time to go through and okay many, while possibly stating their case for keeping others. Then you can go ahead and implement this consensus. You can go ahead and start your own thread and improve the article in your own way, but understand that other people have different concerns, and they want to improve the article without being held back by something they see as a low-priority at the time. The article still needs a lot of work in it's content. Kevin Baas^talk 20:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, let's remind ourselves what's going on here: a) I made edits b) Nescio reverted them c) I restored them d) Nescio reverted them again, etc. Kevin, it's you and Nescio who have a problem with my edits. As evidenced by the edit history of the article, at this time, one thing I am editing in regards to is links. Also, no edits I am making have in any way impeded you from also making edits. However, Nescio and you have both reverted my edits, including ones which pertained to my having removed some links. So then, in order to simplify the discussion, I am interested in fully understanding Nescio's issues (since he reverts me the most) with my edits in regards to links. In order to do that, I have asked him to discuss the issues of quality and quantity of links. So far, he has not answered. Frankly, I think it unfair that Nescio (and you) are doing an RFC against me in large measure on the contention that I won't "discuss", but then the both of you turn around and refuse an express invitation to discuss. If at this time I have no other issues with the article other than the links discussion I'd like to have with Nescio, are you saying that I should just go ahead and edit some links with no discussion (since Nescio won't talk)? Or, are you saying that I should not make any edits until such time as Nescio is willing to talk with me about quality and quantity of links? And if you telling me to not edit until Nescio is willing to talk to me about links, how long will that be? To reiterate: As of this exact moment, I have no complaints, questions or concerns about Rationales to impeach George W. Bush other than wanting to discuss the quantity and quality of the links. Therefore, I will ask you Kevin: Yes or No will you agree to discuss the links with me now and if No, when will you? Merecat 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall reverting edits pertaining to removing links - i recall reverting a series of edits which i believe clearly subtracted from the quality of the article. They may have included link removals, but if so that was collateral.

Regards making edits that are disputed, the person who makes the edits, not the person who disputes them, carries the burden of proof., and it is therefore their responsibility to fullfill that burden on the talk page. with things like "this is why i am making the edit.." "this is what i believe was wrong with such and such before...", "this is why i feel this wording is more NPOV...", etc. You have to start the discussion because we don't have that information, which is needed to provide the basis for discussion.

Regards discussing links, bring them to the talk page and state your disputes with them there. You can be concise. I'll read it and respond. I'm sure we'll find enough to agree on. And Nescio has comprimised quantity, so I'm sure we'll be able to trim the links together. In sum, yes, in the specific but not the abstract (because the abstract isn't actionable). Kevin Baas^talk 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Process and proof

Kevin, I will concede your point from (way, way) above that there does, currently seem to be some forward progress being made, although there didn't seem to be at the time. Now that we are engaging in constructive dialogue, I would like to respectfully take issue with your premise immediately above that "the burden of proof" is on the "person who makes the edits". I am curious about that statement on two levels. Firstly, is that statement based on any established Wikipedia guidelines or policies? Secondly, I don't know that that is always the case because we (the collective we, ie. all of us editors) are not editing static articles. The articles are in a state of constant flux and, as such, a section of text (or heading, citation, etc) that, for example, I do not agree belongs in an article, may not have been justifiably placed or may never have been held up to scrutiny in the first place, if I then choose to remove it, the burden of proof then falls on those who originally placed it (or a proxy who feels it should not be removed) to prove that it does, indeed, belong.

Also, in the case of disputed edits (as you pointed out), you said "Regards making edits that are disputed, the person who makes the edits, not the person who disputes them, carries the burden of proof". I would submit to you that there is an equal burden of proof, or a double burden of proof. The person who makes the edit does, indeed, need to explain his edit, but the person who disputes the edit in question, also has the responsibility to explain (or prove, if you will) why the previous version was better and not just say "I don't agree with your edit" and revert.--WilliamThweatt 03:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I already elaborated on this in my comment directly above. The article may be in a state of flux, but "the truth", though not static (otherwise there would not be time), is slower than the article. And "the truth" can only be arrived at through method. (such as the "scientific method") What is in the article at any given time prior to an edit, has, at least tacitly, been accepted as the "consensus" of editors in the past who have encountered it and not changed it. Every made to the page is done against that tacit consensus. But that is not neccessarily an objection. To quote John Dewey:

"Let us admit the case of the conservative. When once one starts thinking, noone can garauntee where we will come out, except that many objects, ends, and institutions, are doomed. Every thinker puts a portion of the world in peril, and noone can wholly predict what will emerge in it's place."

Suffice it to say that Dewey was not a conservative. In any case, the goal of an article is not flux, it is two-fold: 1. to be representative of something else, generally "empirical". 2. To change at approximately the same rate at which the "empirical" changes; to be a slow variable, to be a careful variable, not a random drifting back and forth, but a deliberate product. Insofar as a portion of the world is put in peril, there is a burden of carefullness.

"Truth" is arrived at by encompassing information - encompassing many transient changes into few, less mutable changes. When someone edits an article, they are thereby introducing a new piece of information, which is representative (ideally) of a larger body of logic and information, that the other editors may or may not be aware of. At the same time, the person making the change may not be aware of the same that other editors are aware of. But in any case, the other editors do not know why that change is made, they do not know the motivation for the edit, they do not know that larger body of information which inspires it, and therefore, have no basis upon which to discuss it or even bring it in to perspective (that of the person who makes the edit) - no basis upon which to build a discussion. Ostensibly, the editor has a reason for the change, if that reason is not known, how can any discussion about it be constructive?

I never implied that the other editors should not respond when an editor states their case. That would be absurd. Why, then, would an editor state their case? The "burden of proof" does not refer to proof of the content, but proof of the change of the content; of the edit. Ofcourse, noone can be expected to prove a negative. I am merely saying that the person who makes a change to an article is, for practical purposes, obligated to start a discussion when their change is disputed, not on the basis of policy, but on the basis of information that needs to be communicated to have a productive discussion. How could an editor say to another editor "I don't think your reasons for making that edit are sound.", when they do not even know what those reasons are? I would hope that no wikipedian has that much audacity. Kevin Baas^talk 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, the word you are looking for is onus [1]. Now, regarding duties, each editor has a duty to use an edit summary for each article edit. And each editor has a duty to edit in peace with others. And the premise of the wiki is that anyone can edit at any time. There is no condition of stasis or status quo at any article. Because the wiki is always available to edit, there is no presumption of controversy accompanying edits. Therefore, since there is no presumption of controversy, editors do not have to try to get advance agreement on talk page prior to making edits. Unless... with a review of talk, the edit being made is already under dispute previously. And even with that, a good edit summary can suffice to make the reasons for an edit clear. This is the gist of good-faith editing. On the other hand, reverts are inherently controversial, in that one editor is contradicting - literally: "going against the word" (contra - against dict - word ), of another editor. As I see it, reverts have a higher burdern of advance (and follow up) dialog than edits. Merecat 11:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I never thought it would come to this Merecat, but read the tags at the top of the relevant article talk page. If you still have a problem, your issue is not w/me. and frankly, i don't want to hear about it. Kevin Baas^talk 13:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, if as you say you "don't want to hear about it", then please do more butting out. The less I have to talk to you, the happier my editing at the wiki will be. Merecat 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat must have noticed that when his edits were reverted he also explicitly was asked to explain his edits. To most this would indicate dispute over his contribution. To insist that after a week of edit warring he is not aware of any lack of consensus seems unrealistic to me. Therefore not discussing at that time, and still refusing to find compromise today (see his current sabotage), could hardly be seen as a good faith atitude. Nomen Nescio 12:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, by the premise of the wiki, a fresh non-revert edit is not a contradiction, but a revert clearly is a contradiction and hence, is controversial. If you don't understand this, then that's unfortunate. Merecat 13:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement to Kevin Baas

Kevin, as I have told you at least three times in the last few days, I am interested to discuss the quality and quantity of the links currently in Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. So far, you have declined my request to talk about this. However, I am reminding you that I still want to discuss this with you. If you continue to decline, I will interpret that as consent from you for me to unilaterally edit various links in that article. Please don't skip this opportunity to talk. I am begging, literally begging you - please agree to discuss the quality and quantity of the links with me. Merecat 18:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Kevin Baas^talk 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resonse to WilliamThweatt

"unwillingness to compromise by Nescio." I find this an interesting observation. Could you tell me how to compromise with an editor that refuses to discuss? Nomen Nescio 03:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please, let me know when you are ready. Merecat 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Lord Voldemort

RfC policy only requires that two editors (not necessarily but usually including the filer) certify the RfC within 48 hours of its filing. Requiring two people to file it would be impractical, if not impossible (in theory), since two people can't make the same edits at the same time. Johnleemk | Talk 07:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had just thought that this was older than it actually was. It just seems that in the past people worked together on an RfC and then posted it to the public. I just wasn't sure who else had really been involved and upset enough by Merecat's actions to file an RfC. That's why I had actually asked Kevin if he was planning on being the second certifying editor; Nescio's summary didn't really seem to include anyone else. But thanks anyway for the reminder. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response in general

As to the allegation by Thatcher131 and WilliamThweatt that Merecat's good faith edits are being reverted by me, as partisan and leftwing operative (hyperbole, they did not say that), I object. Furthermore, for some reason editors fails to notice the lack of cooperation by Merecat as can be seen by the absense of discussion on the talk page.

Merecat adds citation tags and I insert the requested source.[2][3]
Alleged improvement of headers. Deletes/alters headers as POV, effectively denying there is such a thing as the Plame affair regarding the outing of an CIA agent.[4][5][6]
Correcting so-called bias.
- Despite an official report sayinfg there are no weapons he insist on "allegedly." or deleting.[7][8]
- Merecat deletes Katrina as argument for impeachment,[9] then deletes reference to the administration saying local authorities are responsible, then the cite to Der Spiegel (among others)that show the administration tried to shift the blame on Katrina is deleted.[10]
- Deletes sources that explain parts of the paragraph but do not explicitly address impeachment.[11][12]
- Inserts claim that Plam's identity was previously know.[13] Although we have a court document stating otherwise, Merecat insists we should accept the right-wing talking point. As an aside: it is interesting to see so much discussion over the use of "left-wing" sites, when here the "right-wing" propaganda machine is used as source. More to the point, when Merecat used evidently biased sources himself I allowed him to use them. Nevertheless, he now objects to me using so-called biased sources. This means that 1 he is using a double standard, 2 I am allowing other voices to balance the perceived POV. This clearly shows I compromise when offered a serious debate.
Complains about accepted wikipedia policy, why?[14]
Although we know this administration has made numerous claims that are incompatible with our current knowledge of events, (WMD in Iraq, AQ and SH, Katrina could not be foreseen, et cetera), saying so is considered partisan.[15] (Regarding Plame: he did say, those involved would be fired, to later change it. He also said he did not know anything of leaks started an investigation and now claims he authorized spreading info. Why did he start the investigation if he himself allowed information to be discussed and it is not classified?)

After having seen all this, editors assert that Merecat is making good faith edits and I only bad faith. He is reasonable, but I am not willing to compromise. Odd! Nomen Nescio 14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not deny that Merecat has contributed to the problem; I endorsed two other outside summaries that suggest both of you need to compromise. Your own statement of the problem was highly one-sided, of course. I keep coming back to the edits on April 12 and 13, and possibly other days, where Merecat made a series of small edits and you reverted them all at once to one of your versions. To insist the he must propose edits on the talk page but you can blanket revert is to imply that one version of the article has a privileged position over another, which is simply not the case in wikipedia (well, hardly ever, and not in the middle of a dispute). It is possible that some of Merecat's edits were more reasonable than others. If, instead of reverting, you had edited over his edits to reintroduce things he left out, or to add your own fact tags, it might have led toward a balanced section that addressed both your concerns. I also think

I also think this RfC was inappropriate, given that Merecat requested mediation. You could also have asked for an article RfC, since the dispute really centers on one article.

Finally, the article has no business at all in Wikipedia as far as I 'm concerned. Is it any wonder you're arguing over left vs right sources? You didn't ask, but this is what I would do if I was King of Wikipedia. First, delete Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Second, heavily edit Movement to impeach George W. Bush to include only impeachment talk made by people who were considered notable before Bush was elected (elected officeholders, major syndicated columnists etc; no bloggers or employees of liberal foundations because they could be acting as fronts for liberal elected officials who should speak for themselves if they mean it). I would list their complaints and back them up with citations to the complaint but make no effort to establish the truth of the allegation, other than to link to a wikipedia article if the event has one. Until there are actual articles of impeachment, any attempt to determine whether a particular anti-Bush allegation could support impeachment is original research conducted by partisan POV pushers, either off-wiki and reported here; or on-wiki, but POV and OR nonetheless. Thatcher131 15:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict while revising my comments Thatcher131 15:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

- Your observation that I should not have reverted his edits too is correct. However, it fails to explain why I have to respect Merecat's position, while he can continue disrespecting mine. It takes two to tango. Furthermore, as I said elsewhere, IMHO it is the editor that wants to change who has to substantiate. In your logic I must show Merecat why his deletions should be corrected back into the original. If you check the logs this would have meant, deleting the GC aand restoring it after I presented sources, deleting Katrina and restoring after I present sources, et cetera. What I mean is, if Merecat simply asks for corroboration of claims in steade of brutally deleting them, the edit process would be much improved. In any case this RFC would not have been started.
- Thank you for that response, but implementing your idea -deleting all POV articles- would also mean you want to get rid of religion related articles. By definition religion is a POV. Also Intelligent Design is not based upon fact, so delete the article. Don't use a double standard.
- As to OR, I think it defies logic to call citing statements by notable columnists and organisations original research.
- It was Merecat that pending that mediation process returned and again started the disputed edits. I initially retracted the RFC. It was only after seeing that Merecat, despite my accepting the mediation offer, continued the disputed edits I started this RFC. Do not make it look like it is me that is unreasonable. Mediation means refrain and await the process.
- In general I respect your view on the article, however that in no way answers my objections I voiced above. Even if your comment is true, that still does not negate the rebuttal I offerd in this paragraph. More to the point, it suggests your comments here are influenced by your opninion on the article, and not on Merecat's actions, which is the topic of discussion. Nomen Nescio 15:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  - Perhaps I did not find the right diffs, but on April 9 at 13:46 (UTC) Merecat says he would like to go to mediation with you and asks him to reply on his talk page. You were the first person to edit the article after that. Is he supposed to remain silent waiting for you to agree to mediation (which by the way I can not find evidence that you did, either on his talk page or at RfM)?16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

copied discussion on article to relevant talk page) Nomen Nescio 17:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect to at least some of the edits to which I am referring, he did substantiate in the edit summary. And I never said you must show Merecat why his deletions should be corrected back into the original. That implies the "original" (which is really version 268 or something) has special preference over version 272. Let's suppose someone makes 8 small edits. 2 are good, 2 are acceptable, 2 make you unhappy but you can (barely) live with them, and 2 are really bad. My suggestion is to fix the last 2 and wait on the rest. See if someone else has an opinion. (This brings up another issue; by reverting each others edits so quickly, you don't give a chance for someone else to make a contribution that might be acceptable to both.) Right now there is a slow-motion revert war on Killian documents over what the introductory paragraph should say. I have an opinion, but I am keeping out of it for now because neither of the versions being offered is so far out of my comfort zone that I feel I have to jump in. The issue of whether Plame was known as a CIA agent before the leak is a good case in point. Fitz has said no in his court documents, but he has a vested interest in saying so for the benefit of his case, and there are reporters on record as saying it was common knowledge. (I speculate that Plame was an anonymous CIA source for one or more reporters covering WMD issues going back to before the war). Instead of reverting every time Merecat adds "allegedly", just leave it alone for a day or so and see if someone else jumps in with a correction or a citation. You're both in too much of a rush. If you implemented a 24 hour cooling off period before editing each other, you might find that some third parties would have useful things to say, or you might find after sleeping on it that a weasel word here or there is not a big deal in the long run. If you still wanted to undo it, it would still be there. And even if you adopted a waiting period and he did not, it would greatly contribute to civility (at the very least, it would give other editors a chance to revert or rewrite them so it wouldn't look like you all the time).Thatcher131 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Voice of Reason

As unaccustomed I am to playing this role, I feel, gentleman, that we are getting nowhere here. While I personally feel like giving Thatcher a standing ovation for his arguments above, it would do no good. I am calling on everyone involved here to stop making accusations, stop claiming "he did this so you should have done that" and stop re-citing arguments from from the talk pages about this "scandal" or that "affair". Nescio, Kevin and Ryan, I vow now to stop doing so, if you will do likewise, and instead, focus only on how we are going to resolve this. I call on all involved to do the same. Instead of stating, re-stating (and re-re-stating) the same problems over and over, let's focus on suggesting a solution, otherwise we are just going to go in circles indefinately.

I realize this holds no official weight other than the weight of our word (or honorable intentions), but please, any who agree with this call, on all sides of the issue, please sign below to indicate your intention to constructively resolve this situation.--WilliamThweatt 17:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

--WilliamThweatt 17:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
--Merecat 19:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(please keep arguments and debate below this line Merecat 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

The problem lies in your characterization of the issue. And that is what is constantly being torn at. One cannot resolve an issue that is not candidly understood. Kevin Baas^talk 20:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] @ 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - Merecat is still waiting for Nescio's response

Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

See my thoughts at the applicable talk page. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mine too Merecat 19:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] from thewolfstar

What is the problem with you people?

Have you all gone mad?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia community not a place to hang each other in. Maybe some of you would like to start up a firing squad, stand Merecat against the wall, and fill him full of bullet holes.

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Maybe you should all go and get wrapped up in a warm cosy blanket, have a nice cup a tea, and watch some television or read a book.

Give me a break. This whole inasane scene on Wikipedia is getting boring.

Maggiethewolfstar 04:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

ps Check yourselves out.

I think you mean "asinine", maggie. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia community, and as such, is held to high standards of conduct among its co-contributors. Kevin Baas^talk 13:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, actually Kevin, I meant insane. But asinine would fit the bill nicely as would inane, fatuous, mindless, vacuous and just plain dumb. You said Wikipedia is an encyclopedia community, and as such, is held to high standards of conduct among its co-contributors.

So what's your excuse, Kevin? thewolfstar 07:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I am monitoring your comments which are directed at Maggie. If you continue to taunt her, it will not accrue to your benefit. Merecat 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the threat, Merecat. Next time I "taunt" somebody, I'll let you know. Kevin Baas^talk 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I have to laugh, your interpretation of the word "threat" is, I feel, asinine -and that is proper usage! Merecat 13:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm guessing you won't like my interpretation of "taunt". Kevin Baas^talk 14:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's refrain from this gentlemen. Only post comments pertaining to Merecat's actions please. Nomen Nescio 14:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flowers

Here are some lovely flowers for you.

Let's try to reduce the animosity on this page just a bit, take a breath, have a cup of tea, and stop to smell the flowers. Have a lovely Spring Saturday. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

...for those of us living in the northern hemisphere (per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Seasons). :-) -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Spring, or Autumn... whatever your hemisphere :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

if you, merecat, had not illegally and without cause deleted information in the first place, then it wouldn't look funny because i had to repost it out of the history.

Whats really going on here is merecat is trying to delete or get rid of information that dooms his argument. Willing to lie, willing to delete, and willing to play head games. I think that is proof enough of serious failure to act in good faith.

I'm not going to put my comments where you, the dictator, decide you want them. Quit deleting my comments illegally. Did i mention, quit deleting my comments illegally? Is there something hard for you to understand about not deleting my comments illegally? Is there some problem you have with whose mess this really is, considering that the reason the information is messed up is because you deleted my comments illegally? Prometheuspan 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =my complaints=

merecat has now simply vanished some of my comments on the talk page. Isn't that against the rules?

Merecats argument on the rationale to impeach article is irrational and holds no water. Reading under the lines as near as i can tell the primary premise of the primary argument is that "Alternet" isn't a neutral information resource. Thats patently irrelevant, because the article is only recording the rationale to impeach as it exists; this is a historical report of the factual rationales to impeach created by large groups of people. (Which is how we beat the "soap box" clause; to wit; if this was a single individuals pet project only, it would be noise.)

This article should be a factual and historical fact based report on the topic of the rationales generated by a group of people for impeachment. One place that group of people has made the argument for imeachment is Alternet. Alternet is Factually a biased site, but in this case that is irrelevant; this is a factual article about a factual movement and their factual reasoning as they have factually reasoned. Alternet is a member of the group of internet communities which the article is about.

Further analysis of the conversation leads me personally to find merecat guilty of sufficient noise to label as no longer operating under the principle of good faith. Thats a logic analysis based on the qualities of his argument. I would like to request that this person recuse themselves from this article and that level headed and lucid republicans be ushered over to help with the neutrality-ification. Thanks for having this interesting way of doing things around here, its my first time doing this, so, let me know if it needs work. Prometheuspan 20:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As of right now, i have spotted no less than 5 occasions where merecat has illegally deleted comments made by me or another person. I assume that merecat gets away with this because it is done with impugnity. Obviously, if merecat can pick and choose which parts of the conversation remain intact, merecat can also make the conversation slant pretty quick to merecats side. I request imediate disciplinary action be taken regarding the underhanded deletion of comments by other users on a discussion page. Prometheuspan 22:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan, please read the edit summary for this edit. The enormous quantity and loose formatting of your comments from today regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, would do better at a sub page. I've made one for you here: Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/ppan. If you move your material from today to that page, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Merecat 23:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The material belongs on the talk page for everyone to see and discuss, Merecat. Kevin Baas^talk 00:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, the volume and disorganized state of that material cries out for a sub page. Merecat 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] illegally deleted comments

a partial list of times that merecat deleted my comments. I will continue to search the list when i have the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49984262&oldid=49984034 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49982136&oldid=49981936 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49662384&oldid=49643309 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49662499&oldid=49643309 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49471755&oldid=49471520 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49515967&oldid=49515502

Prometheuspan 03:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

if you, merecat, had not illegally and without cause deleted information in the first place, then it wouldn't look funny because i had to repost it out of the history.

[edit] slanted and biased and false representation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WilliamThweatt

"Thank you for your well reasoned defense of my editing methods. I've tried, as best as I can, to address my concerns at a few articles with those fellows. In my assessment, Nescio is the hardest to deal with, Kevin next and Ryan 3rd. However, at various times, each of them have directed harsh commentary towards me and/or have been otherwise very difficult to dialog with. Frankly, I am surprised at the grab-bag of invective they are now heaping at me. I do not intend to respond in kind. So, whether officially rebuked by these proceedings or not, I'll resume my editing efforts, chastened, but unbroken - and more careful about whom to expect honest dialog from. Merecat 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)"

This appears on a talk page. The person being dishonest and not editing in good faith is merecat. Merecat is now pursuing a "come help me" effort by posting on user talk pages to people merecat figures will be sympathetic. This skews the overall reality meter. Should i go find anybody i can to agree with my side? No, Because anybody i could go whip up would be unfamiliar with the problem, and likely to just repeat whatever bias i propaganded at them; just like whats going on here with merecat. Prometheuspan 02:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] response to ad hominems and straw man

"What is the problem with you people?

Have you all gone mad?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia community not a place to hang each other in. Maybe some of you would like to start up a firing squad, stand Merecat against the wall, and fill him full of bullet holes."

Merecat is lying, making illegal deletions, making assorted ad hominem and straw man attacks, is using policy to game the system, is not editing in good faith, is being an obstructionist, is being a pov pusher, and is cheating and gaming the system.

Merecat deserves wholly to be banned permanently from wikipedia, based solely on actions taken only against me personally.

Thats not to even begin to talk about the assorted ways that merecat has been abusive to nescio. Prometheuspan 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan, thank you for your candor. It's always refreshing to hear exactly what people think and in this case, you are no exception. Merecat 20:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Why, thank you merecat, I am nothing if not completely and totally honest. In fact, an interesting side point, I have asperger syndrome, and dishonesty is sort of like nearly incomprehensible to me. Thats why I had to study formal logic, so that I could operate in the real world and make sense of situations most people had better understanding of the subtlties of. My disability has turned into my advantage. I am personally obviously transparent, but can cogently spot dishonesty and manipulation much better than most people can now. Part of this is my exagerated level of outside the box perspective. The best part is that i have schema and knowledge to directly understand and communicate regarding lies and manipulations which most people don't. I have perspective, I have insight, and, I have depth tools. So, in some ways, its good to be me.

)

Prometheuspan concerning your "honesty and transparency" people might be interested in going here and seeing how you lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#trying_to_save_Wikipedia please see Prometheuspan's response to my plea for help to Jimbo Wales. If people follow the links I provided after Prometheuspan's accusation, I will be easy to see what he is up to. (His lies and false accusations concern both Merecat and myself. Also, please take into consideration, the fact that many involved in this rfc and in my interactions in an editing war, have been aware of my website and know that I am not a conservative. It's obvious that Merecat isn't either. Thanks, thewolfstar 23:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tbeatty (talk · contribs)

The following statement needs correction: "It has been my experience that two of the three endorsers are interested only establishing a certain POV." Contrary to what you allege, nobody is against mentioning any kind of POV. There is no attempt at presenting only onesided information. This RFC is about Merecat deleting sourced material, in stead of balancing it with other information. To suggest otherwise shows your lack of understanding of why this RFC is started and it also is a blatant misrepresentation of what actually happened. Nomen Nescio 01:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's no way to win friends and influence people Nescio - asking for comment, then insulting some of those who comment. Merecat 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Correcting misleading statements is not an insult. Your entire problem, as evidenced on the rationale, plamegate, et cetera pages, is that for some strange reason you think that mentioning certain criticism is equal to "attack," or "partisan politics." Sometimes, people are making observations without the intent of insulting or hurting people. To paraphrase, "insult is in the eye of the beholder." By your logic no comment would be possible, because there is always somebody that feels offended by uncomfortable facts (i.e. the earth is flat, there are alien abductions, we did not go to the moon, Bush was right when he said SH did not let the inspectors in, Intelligent Design is science despite what scientists say).

Having said that, thank you for your advise and trying to help me. Nomen Nescio 12:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to you, the RfC is for "asserting things, adding tags, deleting contents." My guess is that after Merecat asserts things, you and the other complainants delete it. After he adds tags you delete them. And after he deletes content, you add it. On the other side, after you assert things, Merecat deletes it. After he tags things, you delete it. And after he adds content, you delete it. If that's not a POV disagreement, I don't know what is.

And while you believe that there is no attempt to push a POV, that has not been my experience. I am not sure how you can comment rationally on my experience. That's not to say the complainants don't accept sourced material (after questioning the source and the presentation). But they also don't look for balance. Their agenda is to push anti-Bush material. --Tbeatty 15:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You clearly are not citing facts. Had you looked at the edits, not only the edit summaries, you would not have made this utterly incorrect allegation. I do not have the time to provide the relevant diffs, but this is what actually happened:

When Merecat added cite tags to sentences, I looked for and inserted the sources.
When Merecat assert things (i.e. WMD were found) and he shows me sources for it I accept that.
When Merecat deletes material that is well-sourced(!!!!) indeed I revert him.
I never asserted things that are not backed up by sources, contrary to what Merecat did.
You saying otherwise is not compatible with the truth, please review the edits and your comment.

As to the POV-pushing. You will find that nobody will object to any rebuttal. What you call POV is insisting on presenting information and not deleting it. POV is achieved by countering allegations with other information. That is not what is happening, this article is being censored of what is seen as anti-Bush information. Wkipedia should present information and not delete things that might be uncomfortable to anybody. If that were the case we could delete the criticism on Intelligent Design, articles on atheism. They all are "anti"-something. Nomen Nescio 15:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

POV can mean a lot of things. Wikipedia is not a collection of factoids. Sourced factoids may not be encyclopedic. They may not present the subject in a fair way. They may not be balanced in size, content or tone. NPOV is NOT acheived by countering allegations with other information. NPOV is part of the entire article and how it is presented. --Tbeatty 21:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. See my user page for an explanation of my philsophical position regarding neutral presentation. Kevin Baas^talk 21:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you disagree as I listed most everything you talk about. "proportional representation", "significance", "relevance", "factual accuracy" are necessary ocmponents (each are necessary, not just one). I disagree with your assertion that "adding" information is the only way to rebut true arguments from a POV stance. Certainly "Bill Clinton was never convicted of beating his wife" is a true statement. It should be deleted, however and not rebutted with "He was never charged with a crime" or "No witnesses ever came forward." --Tbeatty 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how omitting facts from an article makes it more NPOV. Nomen Nescio 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy on NPOV. An easy one to point out is "undue weight". I am sure that someone could write pages about choking on pretzels but that would be "undue weight" in GWB's biography even if every statement were true and sourced. It would be a POV fork to create reference page out of it as well. --Tbeatty 23:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have cited Wikipedia policy enough to know the current article is not extremely POV. You are using "undue" in a selective and erroneous manner. Every rationale is succinctly explained and then it is said who thinks it warrants impeachment. This is not equal to "undue weight." You are correct in saying that there is not enough information countering this. Exactly my point: add a rebuttal.

Nomen Nescio 09:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say "extremely POV" is the rationale for not having undue weight. "Every rationale" fails to grasp the extremely small percentage of both lawmakers and citizens who belive impeachment is warranted. Like I said, fully cited "undue weight" is still undue weight. It doesn't need a rebuttal as that would only increase the size of a topic that isn't worthy of being mentioned. "Nescio stopped beating his wife." Rebut or delete?--Tbeatty 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merecat and Sholom disagree

(pasted here from project page at Nescio's and Kevin Baas's insistance)

I reluctantly agree with csloat above. Moving the Plame affair page without discussing it first caused havok for a while. Then came NOPV tags and disrputive editing on the Katherine Harris article. (Some of these complaints were justified, some were not, but the manner in which they were done were not). Then, he jumped into the Russ Feingold and simply massively cut -- again with no prior discussion. After the section was restored, he defaced the article with the insertion of dozen's of {{fact}}'s. The fact that he did not do that to paragraphs laudatory to candidates he presumably supports (e.g., Mel Martinez), shows a bias and inconsistent application. A number of 3RR problems. Disruptive edits and uncivil language at Template:Abramoff. Quite a record in a short time.

As clsoat wrote: "I don't know if any of this is worth a conduct RfC, but I do think there are sufficient questions about Merecat's conduct that he should at least be taking a closer look at WP policies and his actions." More civility and more discussion would go a long way. I'm not sure how to achieve that -- Sholom 13:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who disagree with this summary:

Merecat 13:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC) - Sholom, perhaps by staying on topic, we could achieve "more civility and more discussion"... This RfC is supposed to be about editing concerns between Nescio and myself at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. But some, who follow me around the wiki complaining, have turned it into a grab-bag of piled-on gripes. If this is your idea of "civility", then I suggest you consider that one will "catch more flies with honey than vinegar". Is this how you reward me for dialoging with you on my talk page this morning? You complain about me here, when I don't agree with you there? Thanks "Sholom" and peace to you too.

Can somebody move this to talk page? And please, remind Merecat of "All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page."

Nomen Nescio 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, are you so obesessed with "winning" here that you again simply have to butt in over and over again? Give it a rest will you. If disagreement with a View is not "related to an endorsement", then nothing is. Merecat 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember your objection to this edit? Strangely enough the same situation now results in a different conclusion. Double standard?

Nomen Nescio 15:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, frankly I must say this: You are are being obtuse. The link you added just now, which I fully expected you would, is to an edit which you interjected into the middle of my reply to the RfC you initiated. In fact, your intejection was so intrusive and clumsy, that it truncated the date "13 April 2006 (UTC)" from my response to you! The format of this page allowed you carte blanche to say what you want at the beginning. Indeed, I was the very first person to post to this RfC and you deleted my comments as being in your section by mistake. After we got that sorted out, your section has been your section and your comments your comments. But interestingly enough, it seems that you simply cannot stand the idea that I might disagree with you anywhere and simply have to go on and on interjecting arguments to every point I raise everywhere. As I see it, this is the precise reason our dialog at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush broke down and it's the same reason that this section is now turning in to a squabble. Nescio, you might get away with droning on and on and bullying others, but you won't easily prevail in that with me. Please butt out; my disagreement in this section was with Sholom and you had no business butting in. Merecat 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(end RFC page paste)

[edit] Merecat is Rex071404

FYI - Merecat, the editor about whom this RfC is based, has been shown to be a likely sockpuppet of User:Rex071404. I've informed editors who I thought would welcome the news and not see it as spamming, but haven't taken that liberty with editors I know less well - in any case, I thought the editors of this RfC should know. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Either a Rex sock, or an impostor

Libation071404 (talk · contribs)