Request Information

Request made by: Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Wikipedia:WOT

Who's involved?

Zer0faults (talk · contribs)

Rangeley (talk · contribs)

What's going on?

It started with an edit war over Iraq war. The question was whether or not Iraq is part of the War on Terror. After months of discussion with Rangeley and two polls resulting in opposition to his view it still continues.

Results of the previous polls were:

• 16-11 people oppose including a controversial statement in the infobox when asked "Users who think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" Should be used in the Infobox Caption".[1]
• 14-4 people oppose including a controversial statement in the infobox when asked "Users who think the phrase "Part of the War on Terrorism" Should be used in the Infobox Caption".[2]
• 10-3 people stated that WMD was the principal argument to invade Iraq when asked "Users who think the casus belli-(main officially stated reason) of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq Was WMD-(Iraq Disarmament Crisis)."[3]

Nevertheless he restarted the debate by opening a poll. I noticed the way he framed it was not entirely correct so I amended the text and added links to the previous discussions.[4][5][6][7] Oddly enough this was deleted.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Since I was not allowed to comment on the flawed nature of the poll which was moved to talk page and then got deleted[14] I started a RFC. Which interestingly enough was also altered by deletion of reference to the previous polls,[15][16][17] , mention of it was deleted[18] and suddenly the RFC got archived.[19] After repeated deletion of my comments Rangely decided to add a note to the poll and talk page page that the discussion had led to consensus.[20][21] I removed it[22] since 1 apparently you are not supposed to ad comments to the introduction, 2 since I started a RFC it seems odd to claim consensus, 3 reading the page clearly shows that this consensus is not found as many expressed a view opposing his, although not all made an official vote, 4 for the initiator to close the debate is rather bad form. This was not allowed.[23][24] Rangeley's comments were restored and I then added a comment.[25][26] My comment was manipulated.[27]

Since some of my comments were deleted, others manipulated, and I no longer support the page that clearly is not representative of what I originally said I removed my comments.[28] At this point the two editors mentioned refuse my removal of my comments but also refuse to restore the other comments I made and they deleted.[29][30][31] They team up so they can revert my edits while circumventing 3RR, the nature of their campaign can be seen here.[32]

Update: added diffs and details on RFC I started.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

To be clear this is not about the part of WOT debate, this is about the current team up to prohibit restoration of the original comments on the "poll," and the refusal to let me comment on that.

Either restore all deleted comments to that page, or grant me the right to remove my remaining comments. Further I would like Zero to stop stalking me.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

My talk page is fine.

Mediator response

After review of the case notes, the messages, the page itself, and the comments from Nescio quoted below, we have decided that the best course of action is to refer this matter to administrators for review.

To be clear this is not about the part of WOT debate, this is about the current team up to prohibit restoration of the original comments on the "poll," and the refusal to let me comment on that...Either restore all deleted comments to that page, or grant me the right to remove my remaining comments. Further I would like Zero to stop stalking me.

User conduct disputes, specifically ones that require or seek enforcement action, are not within our perview. We cannot make a blanket decision to revert deleted comments at the page in question, nor can we "grant the right to remove" anything from an article or talk page or generally enforce any action taken against undesirable user behavior as we are an informal group of mediators acting for the benefit of the encyclopedia.

The case is remanded to administrators for review. CQJ 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I'd be happy to work with those at hand to work together, rather continue this "war", just bring the discussion to my talk page and we'll work something out, and then if all else fells we'll bring in some sort of authority into it. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 06:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a bit bumpy, but we've managed to agree on something... and some people have already backed down from dispute. CASE CLOSED!!!! MUHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :P --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

Discussion

The problem here is that Nomen did not agree with the survey. Instead of opting not to participate, or simply starting a new section like other users did to cast their vote, he decides to edit the questions and items that survey is addressing. At heart here is that Nomen feels that the US did not goto war to fight terrorists, and so he feels that you cannot call it a war on terrorism if that is the case. [33] I originally thought this was because he simply was not aware of Saddam's funding of the PALF, however it really was that he feels the US had ulterior motives, he refusees to actually state them, though he has hinted at oil etc.

His original argument however avoids the basis of the survey, which is not to judge the pre-war intelligence, but just to state if IRaq began as part of the War on Terror. [34] Nomen feels that it has to be addressed and cannot be ignore, even though it was explained to him that we are not here to justify or pass judgement on any countries actions, just to report facts. This can be seen in some users votes [35] where they say while the intelligence was wrong, its obvious to them that terrorism was a target.

Finally, Nomen is not mentioning that the location he keeps attempting to put his comments is in the introduction of the poll. Sometimes changing the very basis of the poll. This [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] show Nomen attempting to change exactly what the poll is even addressing. You will also see that he was interpreting the polls he attempts to add in a manner which he felt was favorable. The previous poll were not about if Iraq War and War on Terrorism were linked, they were if the "War on Terror" should be listed in the infobox, or what the main reason for going to war in Iraq was. Many people felt the conflict was in fact linked, howevers since it was debated that it should be left out. This is not the same as stating the two things are not linked as he attempts to say in his summary of the polls. Perhaps all this is from the number of votes against his view building up. When Nomen makes his first edit to the header there is 18 votes for including Iraq as part of the War on Terror, 3 that are neutral and 4 disagreeing, of those, 1 neutral and 1 against, later change their votes with a compromise to agreeing that Iraq is part of the War on Terror. There are more difs I could have supplied, it went on for a long time and was highly disruptive to the debate. However noone reported him for it or anything. This cabal started because he broke 3RR today and I reported him for doing it. I have told him, feel free to add your comments, just not put them in the header.

I would like to point out that a compromise was made to include the interests of two other users, Kizzle and Kevinpuj that lead them to accept the use of quotation marks around the War on Terrorism title. All together there are 27 users in favor and 3 against.

Finally the only comments of Nescios that I removed and did not add back are when he attempted to start a poll inside the ongoing poll, stating that Rangeley was attempting to mislead people. [54] His edits had caused confusion that almost ceased the cooperation we were receiving fro Kizzle that allowed for a middle ground to be reached with him. [55] [56]

I am at my wits end having to wake up just to see Nescio once again removed his comments because from the WP:WOT page and having to tell him over and over, you can comment, just not in the header. Its tiring to go through it day in and day out. I still mean it as well, he can comment, just not in the header, its not appropriate to change the foundation fo the survey after 18-30 people have stated their views, just as inappropriate to turn the page into a pile of gibberish because you don't want your comments on it in some protest.

At what point do you declare consensus when one person will not budge at all, 27-3 vote is a super majority, its almost 90%. The encyclopedia cannot stop adding facts because one user does not like the facts being added, furthermore when pointed out that Saddam funded PALF suicide bombers, his only response is the US has funded terrorists. This vague reply never actually goes against the statement, its almost like a tit for tat situation. When I said, fine then that's what it means, he starts a circle of, well then that means the US cannot designate others terrorists, if it is a terrorist itself. This ignores the fact that it actually did designate IRaq a terrorist state and his problem goes back to justification, something we on Wikipedia are not here to handle. I want to point out that the Cabal is probably not the best place for this discussion as it seems there is an attempt to isolate two very linked things. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for comments being manipulated, perhaps Nescio did not notice but the comment is simply being moved out of the header. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we manipulated no comments. The only time we ever removed something that he added is when he edited the introduction and start of the article - his changes were reverted because they were changing the issue and could probably be considered vandalism as they disrupted discussion, and caused confusion on what we were talking about (as noted above). As for his actual comments, we moved them out of the introduction and placed them in a section for discussion, which is hardly manipulation. Nescio exceeded 3 reverts both today, for which he was blocked, and several days ago [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] on this article, for which he was not blocked. He has done similar things on other related articles, reverting War on Terrorism 7 times [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68], and the War on Terrorism Template 7 times [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. This is just since July 3rd. Neither of these cases of 7 reversions were reported, because I wanted him to simply come back to the discussion and answer a question posed by User:GTBacchus, an admin who has attempted to assist in the consensus building. Since June 29th, Nescio has not participated in the discussion and has left us waiting for him to do so. But in this time, as you can see, he has continued a revert war well into rule breaking all over the place. The only thing that is necessary for Nescio is for him to rejoin discussion, and stop going after me and Zer0faults personally as he has, at one time even calling us the "consensus brothers" [76]. While perhaps a flattering title, this sort of stuff is not remotely constructive, and merely serve as a distraction to the goal of reaching a consensus. Rangeley 22:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"To be clear this is not about the part of WOT debate," so feel free to limit your response to explaining why my comments are no longer on the page.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you keep putting them in the header ... This is exactly the problem, how is it you read all those, and still did not see that yuor comments in the header are not appropriate, nor is changing the poll after 18 people voted. I will be more then happy to see this goto administration if you choose that route, because this is insane that you would ask that question after reading the above. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to the previous debate is altering the poll how? Oh, I understand, by ensuring participants are able to read all relevant information the biased nature of the poll might be obvious and balanced. You are correct, that is exactly what I tried to do.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously saying all you did was add links to the previous polls? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you are unable to resist pestering me yet again, proves you are not interested in any mediation. Stop harassing me and await the procedure or admit you have something against me personally.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment was placed on Zero's talk page after he again stalked me to the article in question and reverted my deletion of comments to the intro.[77][78] All this user does is reverting my edits, no discussion, just blind reverts.[79][80]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I stalked you by reverting your changes to a page on my watchlist, a page you edit in violation of WP:POINT. I participated on that page, where do you get off calling it stalking ... You still did not answer the question. Are you stating you did nothing on the WP:WOT page except add links to the polls? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question please. Are you really stating all you attempted to do was add the links to the previous polls? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio has stated he is withdrawing from mediation. I am kind of not surprised, he also never answered the question above. His statement is here and to show how serious he was about it, I show this edit [81] after mediation began he of course went back to the Wikipedia:WOT page to revert it. I welcome an admin to look into this, its growing more and more frustrating to attempt to talk to this user. As you see above from original statement, he just refuses to answer questions and actually work toward anything. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting, I am not answering. Please do tell, where is your response to removal of my comments. All you have to do is show where on that page my comments are. That should not be so hard to do, since we all know that comments are not supposed to be deleted from a page. Second, you persist in reverting my edits while you yourself are not prohibited to wait and see what this mediation might say. Third, the accusatory tone this user adopts certainly is not helping reduce the anymosity among us.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps if you did not edit the page in question after starting this mediation, there would be none of what you call animosity. I have no problem with you, I just will not let you violate WP:POINT to stage a protest. Its disrupting to the page. Comments made to the header were removed, comments made elsewhere no the page where put in the discussion section. I don't know why I have to show you anything, when you haven't even shown any comments not put in the header to have been deleted, other than the poll you attempted to start inside the WP:WOT poll. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QED, after Zero started the reverts, his partner finishes it.[82] Surely they team up to counter my edits.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some quotes from above that perhaps you missed:

• "Instead of opting not to participate, or simply starting a new section like other users did to cast their vote, he decides to edit the questions and items that survey is addressing."
• "His original arguement however avoids the basis of the survey, which is not to judge the pre-war intelligence, but just to state if IRaq began as part of the War on Terror. Nomen feels that it has to be addressed and cannot be ignore, even though it was explained to him that we are not here to justify or pass judgement on any countries actions, just to report facts."
• Finally, Nomen is not mentioning that the location he keeps attempting to put his comments is in the introduction of the poll. Sometimes changing the very basis of the poll. This show Nomen attempting to change exactly what the poll is even addressing."
• "You will also see that he was interpreting the polls he attempts to add in a manner which he felt was favorable. The previous poll were not about if Iraq War and War on Terrorism were linked, they were if the "War on Terror" should be listed in the infobox, or what the main reason for going to war in Iraq was."
• "When Nomen makes his first edit to the header there is 18 votes ... "
• "I am at my wits end having to wake up just to see Nescio once again removed his comments because from the WP:WOT page and having to tell him over and over, you can comment, just not in the header."
• "Its tiring to go through it day in and day out. I still mean it as well, he can comment, just not in the header, its not appropriate to change the foundation fo the survey after 18-30 people have stated their views, just as inappropriate to turn the page into a pile of gibberish because you don't want your comments on it in some protest."

I am not sure how often I could have stated it. Your comments were removed from the header, because you were attempting to 1) Change the very basis of the poll 2)Summarize surveys in a bias manner 3)Comment in the header after being asked not to numerous times. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, where are my comments!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, file a RFAr, your pleading ignorance is boring me and I rather discuss this with an admin anyway, if in one week you do not start a RFAr or RFC on the issue. I will do it myself. I am tired of these games and you ignoring everything said above to ask a question that is cleary addressed. Your mysterious comments that you havent even shown to be deleted. The one you claim to have been manipulated is simply moved to the bottom of the page if you would care to click "next" in the dif history. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you finally got around to posting some difs however all of them are once again stuff you attempted to add to the header, except one which was moved to the talk page where it currently is ... Are you starting to see Nescio that only comments fo yours placed in the header were actually deleted. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The operative word being deleted. Not moved, relocated or otherwise, no they got deleted.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when you edited the introduction, it was reverted. When you commented, it was moved. Rangeley 16:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, your edit to the introduction mysteriously is allowed. Double standard anybody? Anyway, at the end of the day I made some edits and none of it remains. That is what this is about, other editors deleting, I say it again: deleting, my comments.17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton}

Do you not see the difference between editing the introduction, and placing a note pointing people to a statement on the consensus reached? Rangeley 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see the point of deleting anybody's commentary on a poll page. You can always edit it, or post replies to it, or copy it to the talk page for discussion. If Nescio's upset about his analysis being deleted, isn't the solution to not delete it? How can we be this worked up over a non-binding poll? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem arose, with me atleast, when Kizzle asked if he just voted saying that it was irrefutable that Saddam had ties to terror. My first thought was ofcourse not, it was listed as something that it wasnt addressing. But I noticed that the very section detailing what it was addressing had been edited, along with the introduction. The issue has never been one of us trying to censor Nescio, if he is interested in stating the things his argument, he can (and did) post it in the discussion section. But I wasnt about to let him edit the introduction itself, and simply chose to revert his disruptive edits and then went on to explain to Kizzle that it most certainly was not addressing that, and that it had been edited in by Nescio later on. There is an inherent difference between stating your arguments, and editing what something is about. This is an example of his "analysis," [83], and this was me reverting it: [84]. How could this easilly be transferred? To copy it word for word and place it in the discussion section would still be misleading. Its not like he was just stating his own arguments, he was attempting to change the very nature of the topic itself. So to answer the question, it was definately a big deal because Nescio was attempting to change the assertion for which I was debating for, along with everyone else who supported it. I saw no benefit in allowing this, because I was looking to build a consensus, and it was to the original assertion that people such as you, Kizzle, Haizum, Zer0, etc agreed to (and later it was posted on the Iraq War page as a consensus), not the edited Nescio version. I will assume good faith and say that Nescio truly beleived what he was doing was for the greater good, but I will also go so far as to say his edits were anything but. They were disruptive no matter how you look at it, and, along with the deletion brought up by Hippocrite, were what I saw as two roadblocks, even if unintentionally, to reaching a consensus. Rangeley 23:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what remains at stake in this dispute? Since the poll is non-binding, and the issue that the poll was over isn't going to be decided by numbers, what remains at stake? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the case page itself has been closed, but there is some conversation taking place at my talk page. Descio seems to have withdrew, no doubt from the onslaught of pressure again him/her. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 03:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is clear

1 Rangeley made a poll that stated several incorrect things. I corrected that. I am willing to accept his explanation, but that is no reason to delete. Therefore he should have moved my comments.

2 It is odd to see that I am not allowed to make edits to the introduction but Rangeley mysteriously can add a conclusion.

3 This entire debate can be resolved if Rangeley and his friend restore my comments, feel free to add them to the bottom of the page, and then I will have no problem. However, this is being prohibited by these editors, hence this attempt at finding a solution.

4 They use this dispute to come up with all sorts of grievances, true or false I do not care, which have absolutely nothing to do with the question: why are my comments not on this page? Exactly why discussing with these editors is difficult and why I objected to how the poll was phrased, they have a talent for providing a problem to any solution they present.

I do not think that I ask to much. Nevertheless, this page is filled with ad hominems and not one serious attempt to find a compromise. Hence my comment that this is futile, However, I also said that if anybody had advise as to how we can get passed this I am open to suggestrion. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We told you like 8 times or more already, you can add your comments to the bottom, if you do not that is your problem, telling someone to look through your difs, of which what you are adding changes sometimes, then add it for you is childish. Just add it yourself like you have been told you are more then welcome to do. Just stop adding stuff to the introduction or starting polls inside polls. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told you 9999999 times that even if that were true, you did not move them to the bottom but deleted my comments. Deleting is different from moving my friend. Second, you still have not explained why I cannot add to the introduction but you and your buddy apparently can.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, if you are looking to restore stuff like this, [85], no. You are not allowed to edit the nature of the discussion. Do you honestly equate my posting of a note at the top, as the maker of the topic, and your editing of the topic itself? Rangeley 12:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poll as you made it was about a factual statement. It turned out you meant to say it was about the concept WOT and not a semantical interpretation. That was not evident from how you set up the question. Second, again, even if we accept your explanation, that still does not warrant deletion but should have resulted in relocating my comments. Among other things my comment on you deleting comments was also deleted. All I am asking is to restore the deleted comments, just put them at the bottom of the page. Why is that prohibitd? Third, you claiming I misrepresented the reference to the previous poll would normally lead to asking me to correct what was wrong, which was that I should have made more clear the debates were about including into the infobox. As you know the description I used for the RFC is correct, proving that a minor correction was possible but was prohibited in favour of deleting what was without doubt a better description than yours.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what you mean by the first part. My argument, from the beginning, has been that the USA is waging a campaign against who they see as terrorists and state sponsors of terror. The things they do under this campaign are factually included in this campaign. As GTBacchus said before, its like the "No Child Left Behind" campaign. The campaign is trying to raise school standards, and the things they do under this campaign are factually included in this campaign. Whether or not a child is left behind, and whether or not it really is against terrorists doesnt effect our recognition of the things carried out under a specific campaign. "War on Terrorism" is a noun, it is the title of the campaign for which the USA is waging. Under this campaign they have done various things, including go to Afghanistan, and Iraq. This is a fact. Its not debatable. As for your second point, you manipulated the introduction [86] and I reverted to it. They were not comments, they were edits to the statement I made... why would I move them? If you wanted to complain, you were welcome to, but not by vandalizing the opening statement. Rangeley 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is about deleting comments, while you should have moved them. So, what should be done is restoration of those comments, or allow me removal of the remaining and manipulated comments. Second, there is no dispute over mentioning in the article that the US considers Iraq part of their WOT. Feel free to include that with the criticism on that position (isn't that exactly what you have been told in the previous debates I was not allowed to mention?). However, writing a paragraph explaining Bush has declared WOT, and as such also decided Iraq is part of that, not only needs to mention the other views on that, it also is not carte blanche to include a statement in an infobox. The fact we agree it is a Bush invention, does not mean that a statement without any nuance should be part of an infobox where it most certainly will be read as Iraq was invaded because SH was behind 9-11, instead of Iraq is included as part of a rhetorical or US proclaimed WOT.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, I am done talking about your manipulation of the introduction. I have said what I said, and I stand by my actions in regards to this. You have said elsewhere that we have all made mistakes, and I agree. Its inevitable that you will make a mistake over a course of 2 months of debate. I will even admit the mistakes I made. It was a mistake to spam invites to the discussion. It was a mistake to get involved in personal feuds of any sort, yes including this. You undoubtedly have made mistakes, and I would not expect anyone to hold you to them, especially yourself. The real issue here is that you are saying that just because Bush says the Iraq War was begun to fight terrorism, that doesnt mean it was. I agree. This is the basis of your argument, no? Further, you are afraid that simply stating "Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism" could mislead people into thinking it is against terrorists, something you disagree with clearly. I understand this view, but where does this leave us? It is still a fact that it is part of the US led campaign, this isnt disputable, it isnt debatable. So we are left with two things, the possibility of people misunderstanding the meaning, and the fact that we are supposed to represent facts as an encyclopedia. Kizzle, who originally opposed stating it was part due to the same reason as you, brought up an interesting compromise that seemed to reach a happy medium between the possibility of being misleading, and representing facts. He proposed that we use quotes around the "War on Terrorism," in this manner, to make it clear that it is a noun, or a name. The "War on Terrorism" article is also linked to, in this manner, so that people can see what this campaign is exactly. While at first I opposed using quotes, I realized that a compromise would be necessary, and by doing so many more people agreed to including it, among them GTBracchus and the above stated Kizzle. I still beleive this to be a reasonable compromise that gives something to both parties - it makes it clear it is a noun, and it makes it clear that it is part of it. This is to what the consensus addressed, perhaps it wasnt clear when we made it. Rangeley 18:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from ny talk pageNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC) I noticed you added some links to some edits pertaining to the moving of your comments to the talk page. [87] They are still there, what exactly are you objecting to? Someone moved all of the discussion section to the talk page, as it was getting too large. You then copied part of it (though not my last response) from the talk page and placed it back, I reverted that because it was indeed on the talk page. I don't understand how you could consider this something worth complaining about, am I missing something? Rangeley 14:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment on the case I brought to the cabal, what exactly needs to be done? More specifically, do I need to do something? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't have that answer. I'm simply a neutral guide to ease things along smoothly, what is done with the article is completly up to the editors. You decide what is disputed, and I mediate. Does that help? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 07:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is about others deleting/manipulating my comments and subsequently my removal of the remaining comments because they no longer are representative of what I said. Then they prohibit me from commenting on that. All I want is somebody to look into the matter and tell us whether editors can delete my comments or not. If you would like to do that you are very welcome. The details can be found in the case I filed.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware... no one can edit anyone's comments without permission, but I need to hear every side of the story, so I'll wait for other people to participate before saying anything. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 09:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both have responded, yet failed to explain why my comments are no longer present on that page. At this point Zero is making me his pet personal campaign and is reverting my edits, not only to this page, so I think I withdraw, unless you have some advise. This is no longer funny when clearly this user is not repecting me and apparently can do so without any problems.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio has withdrawn from mediation unfortunately. I don't know how serious he was since while mediation was going on he decided to edit the page [88], then of course when his change is reverted he uses that as his excuse to no longer participate in mediation. This user also says his question of why his comments were reverted was never answered. I offer the following quotes that he must have missed when reading mine and Rangeley's replies:

• "Instead of opting not to participate, or simply starting a new section like other users did to cast their vote, he decides to edit the questions and items that survey is addressing."
• "His original arguement however avoids the basis of the survey, which is not to judge the pre-war intelligence, but just to state if IRaq began as part of the War on Terror. Nomen feels that it has to be addressed and cannot be ignore, even though it was explained to him that we are not here to justify or pass judgement on any countries actions, just to report facts."
• Finally, Nomen is not mentioning that the location he keeps attempting to put his comments is in the introduction of the poll. Sometimes changing the very basis of the poll. This show Nomen attempting to change exactly what the poll is even addressing."
• "You will also see that he was interpreting the polls he attempts to add in a manner which he felt was favorable. The previous poll were not about if Iraq War and War on Terrorism were linked, they were if the "War on Terror" should be listed in the infobox, or what the main reason for going to war in Iraq was."
• "When Nomen makes his first edit to the header there is 18 votes ... "
• "I am at my wits end having to wake up just to see Nescio once again removed his comments because from the WP:WOT page and having to tell him over and over, you can comment, just not in the header."
• "Its tiring to go through it day in and day out. I still mean it as well, he can comment, just not in the header, its not appropriate to change the foundation fo the survey after 18-30 people have stated their views, just as inappropriate to turn the page into a pile of gibberish because you don't want your comments on it in some protest."

I am not sure how often I could have stated it. Your comments were removed from the header, because you were attempting to 1) Change the very basis of the poll 2)Summarize surveys in a bias manner 3)Comment in the header after being asked not to numerous times. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio claimed this edit was manipulating his comments: [89]. Moving a comment to an appropriate place, in a section for discussion, is not manipulation. When he edited the introduction, his edits were reverted because they caused confusion amongst people about what the topic was addressing - especially as he edited the introduction after many had voted. When he placed comments in the introduction, they were moved, as shown by the above link. He then proceeded to remove his own comments in protest, violating WP:Point. People have responded to his comments, and his removing them can only cause more disruption. He was blocked a few days ago for exceeding 3 reverts, and several days before he exceeded 3 reverts [90] [91] [92] [93]

[94] and was not reported. He reverted countless other times without exceeding, as evidenced by the history, and has been reverted by several other people who visited the page. Rangeley 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Prophet, any dispute resolution suggestions you have might be very helpful. As I understand this dispute:

1. Many editors had been arguing about whether the infobox for the Iraq war should state that the war was part of the larger conflict known as the "war on terror." During the course of that dispute, several straw polls were created.
2. Nomen edited the introduction to the most recent poll, created by Rangley, to include summaries of the previous polls. An edit war started, with Zer0 and Rangley repeatedly deleting Nomen's amendment and Nomen repeatedly adding it. (At at least one point, Zer0 moved Nomen's edits to the bottom of the page,[95] but most of the time, the editors just reverted each other.)
3. Ultimately, Nomen became so frustrated by Z/R's refusal to let him edit the introduction that he deleted all of his comments. Z/R then began reverting those deletions, arguing that the talk page discussion was difficult or impossible to read with one side's conversation removed.

It seems to me that there are two problems. First, the editors have a policy dispute. Zer0 and Rangely argue (1) that Nomen wasn't permitted to edit the introduction to a poll created by Rangley, and (2) that they were entitled to revert Nomen's attempts to remove his other comments in order to preserve talk page continuity. Nomen argues (1) that he should have been permitted to edit the introduction and (2) that in any event, he should be permitted to delete his own comments.

Second, there is a personal dispute. AFAICT, there's enough bad blood between the parties, from whatever source, that it's hard for them to give things a clean start.

All three editors have been great contributors, and I'd hate to see them leave frustrated over this encounter. If you have any ideas how they can resolve their disputes, I think that would be great. Thanks, TheronJ 14:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason Nescio is withdrawing from mediation because he feels under attack by all these claiss, and I honestly can't blame him. All are very good points, but let's direct our attention back to the original problem, rather than focusing on any one paticular editor. I think if everyone eases the pressure off Nescio, he'll be more willing to participate. So let's forget all of that, and work on settling the problem that started it all. Shall we? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess everyone will be happy to drop it, although I'm a bit mystified. As to the underlying issue, there appears to be a fairly strong consensus to list the Iraq War as part of the "War on Terror" as long as the WOT is in quotes. That would probably have resolved the issue, except that Nomen filed the RFM. If Nomen's happy dropping the issue, I suspect everyone else is as well. Thanks again, TheronJ 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the actual case itself was closed by another mediator... and the issue seems to be dieing off a little bit. Should anything pop back up, let me know and I'll be happy to help. I guess we'll call it closed for now. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 21:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that the major issue with Nescio's edits in the introduction section was here: [96]. He was altering the very nature of the poll and discussion, after people had voted. I noticed this when kizzle, who had just (through discussion) voted for its inclusion, and then said something to the effect of "Wait, I just voted that Saddam irrefutably had ties to terror?" At first I thought this was silly as it most certainly wasnt anything being voted on, but then I noticed the intro had been edited. I reverted it, and explained to kizzle that it most certainly was not what the poll was addressing. After this, as Theron said, he continued to revert my reversions and alter the nature of the poll/discussion. The rest is as stated, he eventually gave up on that, removed his comments in protest for being unable to edit the introduction, and that brings us to today. Rangeley 23:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is clear:

• Rangeley made a poll that stated several incorrect things in an attempt to get a controversial statement included in an infobox. I corrected that. I am willing to accept his explanation that this should have been inserted elsewhere, but that is no reason to delete. Therefore he should have moved my comments.
• It is odd to see that I am not allowed to make edits to the introduction but Rangeley mysteriously can add a conclusion.
• This entire debate can be resolved if Rangeley and his friend restore my comments, feel free to add them to the bottom of the page, and then I will have no problem. However, this is being prohibited by these editors.
• They use this dispute to come up with all sorts of grievances, true or false I do not care, which have absolutely nothing to do with the question: why are my comments not on this page? Exactly why discussing with these editors is difficult and why I objected to how the poll was phrased, they have a talent for providing a problem to any solution they present.

Concluding, I have no objection to mediation, as long as it is limited to the dispute at hand, that is: why were my comments deleted? Since Zer-Rang failed to explain that, made accusatory and irrelevant comments and then continued their edit war prohibiting me from commenting on the censoring of the page in question I voiced my doubts. Nevertheless, I did say that I am open to any suggestion/advise that can solve this silly dispute. In other words can my comments be restored, or am I allowed to withdraw the remaining comments?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Nice and slow again .... because you were editing the basis of the poll. You ignoring the explanation will not change it. I refuse to have to tell you this again. From here on out when you ask this question of why they were deleted. I will simply ignore you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to explain how mentioning the previous debates is altering the poll.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The polls were already linked to. You added commentary that was misleading about the nature of the previous polls, and it was reverted, along with your edits to the topic itself [97]. Rangeley 12:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that you added this to the top of the poll:

That it has been established beyong dispute that Iraq was involved in inrternational terrorism.

Which is potentially misleading. I could see why you they would want to remove it. Moving it to the bottom of the page, however, may be the best solution. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 19:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poll wasn't about deciding if Iraq was part of international terrorism, it was deciding if the Iraq War is part of the U.S. sponsored "War on Terrorism". Two very different concepts. The fact that your comment misinterprets the poll altogether, is why it is so misleading, and then finally removed by fellow editors. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 19:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that exactly explains my edits. You are correct in saying what the poll says it is about. However, that was not what Rangeley intended. The poll describes previous discussions but conveniently he fails to explain they were about including the statement part of the War on Terror in the infobox. This was not what Rangeley asked in the poll, but after claiming consensus he immediately inserted that statement in the infobox. This shows that his poll was a clever way to get the statement in an infobox, contrary to previous debate, and was not about whether the US considers Iraq part of WOT. Therefore my pointing out that he misrepresented the previous debates (differing results while they all turned out to oppose him) and trying to object to his subtle way of rephrasing the dispute to nevertheless get the statement included in the infobox is more than warranted IMHO. If you read the previous discussions you will find that nobody objected to including Iraq in a WOT as defined by Bush. More to the point, the response was that part of WOT might lead to confusion and stated by the US as part of WOT would alleviate concerns of people misunderstanding what was meant. To say otherwise in his poll Rangeley is more than misleading -and if that really is what the poll is about it surprises me since nobody opposed that suggestion, making a poll about something that nobody disputes rather odd- and I thought that it would be reasonable the alter what evidently was a misleading premise. Still, I agree it was not very smart of me, making it reasonable to move these comments. Interestingly they were not moved but deleted.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is facts go on Wikipedia, heavily criticized or not. Facts are facts regardless of how uneasy they make people. The poll showed that Iraq War is part of the War on Terror, no matter if terrorists were in Iraq. The problem with the previous polls and the reasons they never asked anyone for input is because they kept talking only about the infobox, they made the issue smaller then it was so garner votes on the fence. The fact that you would interpret those polls that are strictly about the infobox, to mean people are saying its false that the two items are linked only supports my position. The larger issue was taken and stripped away of all personal opinions, political ideology etc. The question was simply, was this war started as part of the WOT. Its odd that noone has simply asked this question before, but its been asked and answered by over 30 votes, 90% saying it is. Its almost as misleading as asking someone if they are for terminating a pregnancy in its early stages if it will kill the mother through complications, then stating those who were for that are for abortion in general. The question before were framed too small to attract swing votes instead of simply ask the factual question. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, let me emphasise this is not about doing that debate. All I want is restoration of my comments or removal of the remaining. As to your recent response, this proves my point. Nobody denies Bush considers Iraq part of WOT, exactly why people in this poll agreed to that suggestion, just as in the previous polls. However, that is not the same as including part of WOT in an infobox, those are two seperate debates and you repeatedly claim they are the same. Otherwise I do not understand why you keep inserting that statement in the infobox.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the Bush Administration defines what is and isn't the War on Terrorism, because the war itself is defined by the administration. The two questions (Does Bush consider it the War on Terrorism, and is the Iraq War part of the War on Terrorism) are, essentially, the same question. Bush defines the War on Terrorism and what it is, as he himself created the term.The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That still is a not the same as including a statement in an infobox. Beyond that, the statement WOT is what Bush says it is, is of course debatable. 1 It opens up the possibility of abuse of power by the administration, since everything can be considered part of WOT as long as Bush says so (i.e. prohibiting newspapers from writing critical stories, spying on anti-war groups. et cetera) 2 it is hard to understand where this war is being fought and who the enemy is, since terrorism is a highly ambiguous term, unless we refer to point 1 in which Bush decides where and who we are fighting, 3 WOT is a predominantly fictional concept, since much of it is based upon fantasy. The actual threat terrorism poses to society is dwarfed by the threat of domestic violence, car accidents, hunger, heart attacks, killings during wars (Iraq!), malaria, cholera. Looking at the epidemiological data you are more likely to die from these than from a terrorist attack, although Bush is telling us otherwise.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well... going back to the issue at hand, I think we could make a compromise to include your comments in a different location. Hmmm? --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that at all, as long as its not the header/introduction. When offered this Nescio told me I had to find out what was deleted and add it back. If he provides the difs as I told him, I would be happy with that, however his comments changed as they were removed, so I couldnt not possibly discern which he wants put back in the comments section. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... that sounded like a compromise... anything left for me to mediate? ^_^ -The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Finally my comments get restored. Of course, those responsible for deleting them will have to go through the edit history and find them. To ask me to provide diffs is unusual, since 1 I did not remove the comments, 2 then I could just as well restore it myself.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why your comments arent there, cause you dont even know what they were. Have a good day Nomen, you provide the difs I will gladly restore what you feel was removed. If you cant provide difs perhaps that shows nothing was removed that should have stood. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to more mediation, this user clearly has a grudge against me and is now removing my comments from his talk page calling it vandalism. Maybe you would like to look into the hostile behaviour against me.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up and dont post on the talk page anymore. You keep agitating the situation then crying "woe is me, I am so persecuted." Its old now Nescio. Provide some difs here or you are wasting my time yet again. Make sure non are contradicting the others as I am not going to edit them in anyway. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this user is not interested in compromise since he refuses to restore the deleted edits unless I do his work in finding them. Even the diffs in the cabal page are apparently too difficult to find. Thank you for cooperating and I ask again, could you help in the current lack of neutral behaviour?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will use those edits, and if 2 overlap I will pick which I like more then, since you do not want to. Thank you Crayon man. Thank you Nomen, expect to see your edits by the end of the day. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Faults, please refrain from dickery and incivility on my talk page. I'm afraid your mean psuedo-insults will not get anything anywhere. I don't like nastiness smudging my pretty talk page. Thanks! ^_^ --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so... if everyone thinks it's alright, you can go ahead and restore all the comments to Wikipedia:WOT. No use bickering about the lack-of-diffs and other such miniscule details. Come on, that's just silly. :D At Wikipedia, everyone is supposed to work together, so if something as small as lack of page diffs is enough to spark a conflict, I fear what the future holds. Hehe. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments have been added back to the bottom of the page. I am glad this is all over and appreciate your attempts at resolution. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]