"27 users got together to create a straw poll and give feedback"
Nuclear-- it's hard for me to understand how this could be anything but an intentional lie. 27 users did not create the poll-- Rangeley created a poll, and proceed to spam the talk page of people he thought he might agree with him. You guys have been warned about why this was inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Nescio was informed, someone who obviously wouldnt agree. And try to AGF, your accusations are disruptive.--NuclearZer0 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"it was criticized for attempting to reach a consensus through a straw poll"
It was not criticized for that. Strawpolls are used alll the time. It was criticzed because its wording asked people's personal political opinions, rather than asking their opinion on any content dispute. It was similarly widely criticized for the widespread votestacking.--Alecmconroy 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong as you can see from the abstain votes, such as voting is evil etc. The criticism was on the fact that it was a straw poll. The admin who closed the MfD stated that straw polls should not overright discussion, and it did not as discussion continued on talk page. --NuclearZer0 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"so off to the talk page the users who still were not convinced went and discussed and negotiated middle grounds, from that an eventual 25-2 consensus formed."
25-2, eh? Kindly produce the names of users who were not involved in the votestacked poll but who made up the 25-2 "consensus". Similarly, can you produce any time when you could have only known about a grand total of TWO people objecting to the inclusion? I think you're lying by intentionally not counting people just because they didn't list there objection on a specific day/time/place of your own choosing. --Alecmconroy 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For:
Rangeley
zer0faults
Rmt2m
Haizum
KarlXII
Rexmorgan
Looper5920
Staxringold
Ecophreek
Mmx1
Vaqueo100
Lawyer2b
Homagetocatalonia
Karwynn
patsw
James Bond
Chuck
Arkon
Nscheffey
kizzle
Runiteshark
Patman2648
Choess
Morton Devonshire
Edward Sandstig
Against
Nescio
Rkrichbaum
Sorry if my count is off. Anoranza quit Wikipedia mid way through this after they had an Arbcom filed against them. --NuclearZer0 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but where did you get these names from? The only place I see these names lissed, in this order, is from the Wikipedia:WOT poll that was declared invalid multiple times because of the extensive vote-stacking that went on. (not to mention all the other irregularites). I know you have read the statements by the admins explaining why this poll is invalid-- why do you continue to cite it? --Alecmconroy 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I see someone saying its invalid? I seen an admin remark that straw polls should not eclipse discussions, which is when the negotiations started no the talk page. Are you telling me its more valid to make up a list of everyone who has ever reverted without discussion? People talked and came to a middle ground, one of the people you listed as voting in your favor Rkrichbaum, actually changed their mind later, same with kizzle, yet you still want to count their reverting in your favor and not in the manner in which they actually said it was to go. If you are not gonig to discuss this sincerly then I am jsut going to ignore you. PS the spirit of Wikipedia is not to put blind reverts with no discussion ahead of contributing editors and pages of discussions and negotiating to reach a middle ground. --NuclearZer0 18:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The admins, as I know you know, were Xoloz and El_C. See their remarks here and here. --Alecmconroy 18:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure your point? How many of the normal participants on the talk page felt it should not be included there? How many people of your 38 actually participated in discussions on the talk page? Its funny cause you criticize one groups discussion then support blind reverters and oddly enough count people as opposing who are listed in that poll as being for its inclusion. Sounds like cherry picking. If you are trying to establish a moral line, you are failing. The truth is that even now there is a 10-3 majority of people who support its inclusion, with only you and Timeshifter and professor saying i shouldnt be included. Yet you oddly enough call that a concensus. --NuclearZer0 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me keep you on topic here for a moment, because I really want to understand your point. If two admins point out the poll is invalid, that it is the result of votestacking-- why are you still quoting it? I mean-- is it a matter of not understanding why vote-stacking is wrong, not understand that the admins have told you that it is wrong, or just not caring?
Similarly-- I know you know very well that there are way more than two or three users who oppose the disputed text. Way way more. Why do you not count them, but instead try to mislead people into thinking there are only 2-3 people who oppose your actions? Is it a case of you not understanding how wrong this is, or genuinely not caring so long as it will help you accomplish your tendentious editing?
At this point, I don't guess it's any of my business if you don't want to enlightenment as to your thought processes, but I am truly curious about that. I keep hoping that there's some set of words I could say to you that would let you just reply "oh-- okay-- I get it now". Instead, you're going to just find yourself banned and then everyone loses. --Alecmconroy 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cause 2 peoples opinions do not over ride the concensus that was achieved by everyone who participated on that page. As for "way way more people" that I do not count, I do not count people who do not use the talk page. I will not go back 3 years of edit history and claim everyone who reverted is in favor or against, especially since as I pointed out, you were wrong for counting some of them, I am not sure why you do not acknowledge this, perhaps you are just in favor of reverting and not participating in talk. So ask yourself, of the people who have posted on the talk page, how many are actively stating it shouldnt be there? Not who has reverted once over the course of a year, but of the people participating on talk now, who supports you? You keep reverting against the concensus and you will probably find yourself on the losing end fo things on much of that happens on Wikipedia. I welcome you to start a similar page and gather over 40 people and work on a new concensus and guide the discussion and sort out topics and complaints etc, I am sure you won't, its easier for you to file an RfC on a person opposing you then actually work to solve the problem. --NuclearZer0 20:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I find comments like "Instead, you're going to just find yourself banned and then everyone loses" to be rude and obnoxious, so do not address me directly anymore if you cannot refrain from passive agressive wording. --NuclearZer0 20:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for clarifying-- I think I understand where you got the 25-2 number and why you cite it. Let me just double-check-- When you say "Cause 2 peoples opinions do not over ride the concensus that was achieved by everyone who participated on that page"--- by that do you mean that El_C's and Xoloz opinions that the poll was invalid should not, therefore, override the opinions of the 25 people who felt the poll was valid? --Alecmconroy 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a teacher at that school, try again. --NuclearZer0 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hehe-- I don't know what you mean by that. --Alecmconroy 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are having trouble understanding something, just keep reading over it. I am sure you will get it. Sorry if I am not explaining well enough, seems others understand perfectly fine. --NuclearZer0 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well let me rephrase-- by your statement, I'm taking you to mean that you understood the Admin's warnings but chose to disregard their opinions. If you meant something else by that, you should clarify it. --Alecmconroy 21:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning? What are you talking about. Please clarify. --NuclearZer0 21:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I meant was: The two admins informed you that the poll was invalid. You understood their opinion, but felt it was invalid, and continued to cite the poll. --Alecmconroy 21:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how anyone on Wikipedia has the right to tell people their views are invalid. Nor do I see the admins stating that the peoples opinion on that poll were invalid. Seems a misunderstanding admin said the poll does not show concensus, which it doesnt, the opinions on the poll do. Straw polls cannot form concensus by numbers alone, I argued this myself on the Iraq War page, when you digging through my edits did you notice that? I am sure you didn't, much like you didnt notice that I was reverting a sockpuppet either. --NuclearZer0 21:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! :) That one I gotta write down. "the poll does not show concensus, the opinions on the poll do." Zero, you've truly earned that Arbcom finding of fact that said you "failed to negotiate in good faith, engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic". :) --Alecmconroy 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alec, Xoloz commented in the very difs you provided, "the page is still useful -- one chance reference points and arguments made there, as it has been archived -- but claims of "consensus" there are invalid, because there is no way to ensure all interested Wikipedians had notice of the discussion." He did not say that it was invalid - but that it was not in itself a consensus. It can be cited, referenced, and otherwise noted. Discussion continued afterwards, in other areas, and eventually the consensus was reached. I like to think that Wikipedia:WOT greatly helped in getting there, not because of the outcome of the poll, but because of the discussion held within the page. Its where the groundwork for the quotation compromize was set. And as noted on the talk page, when the result was 20-4, if one removed all users in the conservative group, the results would be 18-4 as only 2 had voted at that point. I let people down, even though the actual impact of the votestacking was inconsequential even as far as the majority was concerned, it would forever taint the majority in the poll, as noted by Kizzle. I know you wanted to put together as compelling a case you could against me, but in doing so you really skimmed over nuances and came up with this generalized scenario where the entire poll was declared invalid and everything in it as well. It wasnt, it was simply declared "not the end game" in reaching a consensus. So discussion rolled on, and as I said, it eventually did reach an end game elsewhere.
You have taken on a very hostile tone as of late, I realize that working on this for such a long time can lead to short tempers, but hostility does not lead to a productive outcome. While I most certainly did votestack in June, I did not "votestack" when I contacted people who participated in the last discussion. I did not contact them to get a majority, but instead because they had participated in previous discussion, or had worked in unrelated articles and appeared to me to be objective. You also contacted people who had participated in discussion, yet no accusations were thrown at you.
I dont really see this line of discussion as being a productive one, its more or less a sidetrack of the content dispute which we should be dealing with. While you assured me that this was not personal, it is taking on the apperance of that with the broad accusations being thrown at me and a constant misrepresentation of what I have done. Rather than trying to make a compelling case against me, try and make a compelling case against my arguments in the content dispute. I think we need to be careful about letting personal problems get the better of us. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You majorly misunderstand the outcome if you think the outcome was a strong consensus that the article infobox should include the words "part of the war on terror".
An poll conducted a month earlier seemed to find the opposite conclusion. Consensus can change, but usually not so quickly, which suggests we take a very close look at whether a true consensus emerged.
It's claimed the was extensive notification of the survey, contacting users in category:Conservative Wikipedians. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it were, that would certainly bias the poll results.
The June straw poll wording did not even make any direct mention of the infobox. Infoboxes, like article titles, are the "Voice of Wikipedia" and therefore must be especially NPOV.
You claim the results of the poll was 25-4-- that's an impressive sounding number, and it gave me pause when I first heard you cite it. A closer inspection reveals that summarized the poll as "25-4" is quite misleading, because there were some 15 or so comments which object to the existence of the poll, and say the poll is irrelevant or inappropriate. These opinions have apparently been ignored and not counted in the "25-4" number-- which is exceptionally misleading, and I would strongly advice you to cite the poll results as "25/4/14" or such in the future.
The June poll does not reveal a consensus about the infobox issue. The infobox issue is not even mentioned in the straw poll. Only half of the voters agreed with the straw poll question, not 5-to-1 as your numbers suggested. If you want to try generate a strong consensus about your specific issue, that's fine. You could also step through the dispute resolution process with Savidan. What you can't do, however, is just add it back repeatedly. --Alecmconroy 06:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--end of Alecmconroy quote--
It is obvious that Nuclear is repeating misinformation in order to justify his continued addition of "war on terrorism" to the infobox. Also see my statement on the RFC about Rangeley. I list many people who have spoken out on the talk page against putting WOT in the infobox. --Timeshifter 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here the thing, Rang. If you were genuinely repentent about the vote-stacking, you wouldn't say "I don't know why you're ignoring the 25-4 result!" If you truly were sorry and vowing to amend your ways, you would have said "Hey Alec! Since your new here, please be aware-- that 25-4 vote was totally invalid. I was vote-stacking on it, and I shouldn't have, but I didn't know-- so please ignore that result and just look that other polls". You didn't. You continued to try to profit from the vote-stacking, despite warnings about it. Doing it again this week, meanwhile, was the last nail in the coffin. --Alecmconroy 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any claims of consensus from the poll were declared invalid, not the poll itself. And as I have clarified with you countless times, I did not votestack this week. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admitting vote-stacking is wrong but continuing to cite the 25-4 results of the votestacking are two inconsistent positions. No word games can save ya from that one. I've heard some goood ones in this debate to be sure. "They disagree that it's part of the conflict, but not that it's part of the campaign." "The admins declared the poll results invalid, but not the poll itslef" and of course "the poll does not show concensus, the opinions on the poll do." But, to my mind at least, these are just wordgames. If you cite a vote-stacked poll to prove a point, you either don't believe it's vote-stacked, don't believe votestacking is against policy, or don't care what is against policy so long as it advances your POV. It's hard for my mind to comprehend any other options. --Alecmconroy 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont appreciate your escalatingly worse attitude towards me, Alec. My statement was a reiteration of Xoloz - any claim of "consensus" from the poll would be deprecated in favor of other methods. I am not contradicting this - I dont beleive anyone should cite the poll as consensus. But they surely can cite the poll, as we must assume good faith about those who voted. To somehow get that someone in a group is incapable of coming to a fair decision is to assume bad faith. My point in citing it to you was to point out that other polls had been held at other points in time. It was not that this was the best poll ever, or the only poll that mattered. Because no poll really matters - consensus is acheived through discussion with reasonable people. What I did last week in inviting uninvolved people and people who participated in the past discussion was not votestacking, or meatpuppeting. When you invited people who had participated in past discussion, you were not votestacking, or meatpuppeting. ~Rangeley (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would all be better off if you just forgot about whatever happened prior to 12/01/06 (to pick an arbitrary date). I see Rangeley's point that even if there was votestacking, 25 people liked the idea of keeping WOT in the infobox, and I see Alec's point that the poll can't count for much because of the circumstances under which it was conducted. Rangeley also has a good point that the subsequent discussion resulting in broad agreement for a compromise on including the "WOT" in quotes in the infobox, but even that is in the past, so my advice is wipe the slate clean, assume the other guy wants to write a good encyclopedia, and start fresh. TheronJ
It is good idea to wipe the slate clean. But it is important to start fresh and with a resolve not to distort the issues in order to make false points. Falsely referencing the June 2006 poll/discussion is an example of what not to do. That discussion was not about whether WOT should be in the infobox. It was mostly about whether the Iraq War was a part of the WOT, etc.. --Timeshifter 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good observation Timeshifter, however it is not quite the whole truth. Frankly, discussion before June was messy, it really didnt get anywhere because the actual issue was so muddied and confused that any semblance of order was non-existent. Hence the very specific nature of the original wording of the poll question, it dealt specifically with whether we could agree it was part of the campaign, and did not, at first, attempt to deal with the infobox, or how to present this information. After a certain point, we all came to agree, as you more or less have with us, that it was a part of the campaign given the language of the authorization. At this point, we started to put together a way of presenting it, and as you will note in some sections of the "WP:WOT" page we actually did begin to address how to represent the information. But again, discussion continued after that area was "archived," and eventually we did reach an agreement using quotes. I dont think its being honest to say that they are unrelated, as if it was not actually part of the WOT, there would be no further talk required. But because it was proven, it put us in a position of saying "Alright, so how do we say this?" This is where we are now, more or less. I agree with Theron that things in the past should probably be left in the past. Rather then dig up difs in attempts to get people in trouble like is being done below, its probably better for all of us that we focus on moving ahead. ~Rangeley (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my replies in the next section. --Timeshifter 06:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polls about "War on Terrorism" (WOT) in the infobox[edit]
No polls show majority support for WOT in the infobox. The votestacked poll did not ask about WOT being in the infobox.
It asked whether WOT existed, and who said it existed, and whether the Iraq War was part of the WOT, etc.. Few people have a problem with all viewpoints on the WOT issue being in the article.
There is a whole section in the article called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" that details all these viewpoints.
So, stop using deceptive methods, Rangeley, to push for WOT being in the infobox.
To say that "But they surely can cite the poll, as we must assume good faith about those who voted." is total deceptive bullshit. Because that votestacked poll was not about the issue at hand. Specifically about WOT being in the infobox. --Timeshifter 08:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to convey facts, no matter how badly ones political affiliation doesnt like them. I do not understand how you can feel that everyone believes the Iraq War was part of the WOT campaign, yet argue we should not represent that fact in the place where all campaigns are represented in all war articles. --NuclearZer0 12:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are again misrepresenting the viewpoints of others. After all this time it must be deliberate. There is no unanimous viewpoint on anything being discussed here so far. You wrote: "everyone believes" ... "all campaigns" ... "all war articles". None of those quoted phrases are true. And you know it. I am copying the relevant section from the Iraq War article, and pasting it in the next talk section below. --Timeshifter 15:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but wars that are aprt of the Cold War are listed as such. all battles are listed as part of campaign X. Its the format. You stated yourself that the straw poll showed that people believed Iraq was part of the WOT by a 25-2 ratio. So I guess I should have said all but 2 people or the super majority of people participating on the poll. My appologies for making my phrasing so dastardly. --NuclearZer0 17:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeshifter, lets try to keep a level head. I dont think that trying to make this personal will get us anywhere. I have never cited a poll as a consensus, and more importantly, I am not now. Stating that we must assume good faith is not deception - and its not just a policy. Frankly, a lot of people look at it as something to have the apperance of doing, but in reality it is a mindset that one must get into. Assuming that people are here to improve Wikipedia is useful in understanding peoples actions. If you come into this with the assumption that I am trying to cause trouble, I could probably understand your seeming anger and it might even justify calling what I said "deceptive bullshit." But I am not here to cause trouble, and I dont beleive you are here to cause trouble either. We didnt get off to the best start - remember you accused me of frequently violating 3RR and I questioned you on it on your talk page, and you kept moving it to the Iraq War talk page. But I think we are both reasonable people who can work together on this. Assume good faith, not just of me but of others. Note that polls are not consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polls are not a substitute for discussion. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alecmconroy has linked to the diffs showing your claims. But let us move on. --Timeshifter 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the statement he linked to stated "I dont understand where you got the idea that a consensus is the result of a straw poll. And I dont understand why you continue to use a May poll and ignore the [poll] which was 25-4 and occured after discussion had occured and not before. The actual consensus was posted here, [15], and was the result of an arduous discussion that lasted from April to July."[16] Again, Timeshifter, lets move on. Dont just say "Lets move on" but maintain disproven claims. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alecmconroy and several others have linked to several diffs showing you making similar deceptive claims. Thank you for bringing up one of them. You wrote: "The actual consensus". There was none. Not concerning putting WOT in the infobox. I can pull up more diffs. So can Alecmconroy. --Timeshifter 21:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really look forward to you providing any dif which backs your first statement. And yes, I did write "The actual consensus," and there was one. And yes, it was concerning putting WOT in the infobox, as well as whether it was a part or not. Here was the statement dealing directly with the infobox:
"Another problem arose in discussion, however, dealing with how to represent this fact in the related articles. Some raised concerns that were we to merely state it as part of the War on Terrorism, it might not be clear to people that it is stating it as part of the specificly defined conflict. To address this, we have come to a compromise in which quotations are used in the infobox, ex. Part of the "War on Terrorism." We beleive that this removes any doubt that it is referring to the specific campaign, described at the article's namespace."
Here was GTBacchus's rephrase of the entire consensus:
"I'd just like to try to rephrase that and see if I get it right. The US isn't the world arbiter of who is and is not really a terrorist or a sponsor of terrorism. Nevertheless, the US sets up campaigns and whatnot, and it gives them proper names, e.g. "Operation Enduring Freedom", etc. They've named one of their campaigns "The War on Terrorism", and although it is argued that this is a prejudicial misnomer, it is the name they chose. Recognizing that the Iraq War is part of that particular campaign, as classified by those carrying it out, is not really a problem. It's just that the name of the campaign exploits the ambiguity between proper and common nouns to make it appear that any action in the campaign is actually carried out for the purpose of fighting terrorism, defined in whatever way people think of it intuitively. To avoid this prejudicial aspect of the name, we're putting it in quotes, to highlight the fact that it's being used as a proper noun, and that we aren't making any claim as to the appropriateness of the words "War" "on" "Terrorism" to describe what's going on in Iraq.
Meanwhile, the article will be sure to address the controversy over the causes of the war, and their putative relation to terrorism, which is what this naming issue is really about.
Is that just about right? If so, I support the solution described by Rangeley and myself."[17]
To which I replied (if you care for my response) "Yes, that is correct." Again, a consenus is not reached through super majority in a poll, it is reached through discussion. Most people felt that this compromise was a good one, and it did become consensus. Consensuses are not permanant, they can be revisited like we are today in coming up with a new compromise consensus. But this does not take away from the fact that there was a consensus that was reached. You have labeled this "deceptive bullshit" and showed me a very high level of disrespect on this issue. But you must understand what a consensus is, what it is not, and how one is reached. We did reach it then, and we can reach one again now. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continuous deception on your part. You just completely ignored the last section where I quoted Alec about the so-called consensus. You also fail to mention that GTBacchus has since come around somewhat in agreement with me and Alec after my discussion of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Here is a comment from GTBacchus:
You use the example of World War I being called the "War to end all wars". You're right that nobody's trying to "purge all references" to it, but nobody's trying to purge all references to the "War on Terrorism" either. Some people are suggesting that the phrase be presented alongside some explanation of the problematic nature of that name. I'm confident we aren't using "The War to End All Wars" as a purportedly neutral "name" of World War I. We're reporting that it was called that by people at the time. Similarly, we should use a deliberately loaded name such as "War on Terrorism" in the context of reporting that it's a label applied by particular parties. A pair of quotation marks is hardly qualification enough; it still looks as if the encyclopedia is taking the position that the Iraq War is part of an actual war on terrorism.
If Iran had an anti-US operation called "Death to the Great Satan", I'm entirely confident that our own media would give it a different name, which would then be the name Wikipedia would use, per WP:COMMONNAME. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also continue to conflate discussion about WOT being one of the justifications of the Iraq War with subsequent discussion about it being in the infobox. You claim a consensus between a few people who remain in a certain time period while there remains everybody else who still disagree with it being in the infobox, but were not consulted later on. But even they have showed up since then, and many of them have spoken out against it yet again in the last month or two. You wrote also higher up: "After a certain point, we all came to agree, as you more or less have with us, that it was a part of the campaign given the language of the authorization." That is also not true. Especially for me. I have made it clear that I agree with Alec on that particular point. He and I agree with discussion of the "campaign" issue only in the context of the long article section. That is the only way to deal with all the levels of complexity fairly.
It is you who are showing continuous disrespect for other people's viewpoints, and the wikipedia process. And you have yet to reprimand Nuclear for continuing to reinsert the WOT at the top of the infobox. Something you are no longer doing. WOT at the top of the infobox is just a way to conflate the Iraq War with War on Terrorism. Since the War on Terrorism link is placed under Iraq War at the top of the infobox. Combining the 2 in that way violates Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. --Timeshifter 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here was GTBacchus's statement on the issue:
I agree with everyone pointing out that citing numbers from past polls or however we're trying to cite some past consensus is totally irrelevant. The question is whether we present the phrase "War on Terrorism" in a way that meets the standard set at WP:WTA. According to that guideline, the standard we should be applying is that we can't call someone a terrorist in the narrative voice of the encyclopedia, but that the labelling must be clearly attributed, such as, "X said that Y is a terrorist group.with citation" The question is, does the text: Part of the US "War on Terrorism" meet that standard?
I'm inclined to think it does not, that the quotation marks do not create sufficient distance from the narrative voice, and this is compounded by its location at the very top of the page, far from any text explaining precisely who is labelling whom as what. That said, I'm willing to agree with moving the text lower in the infobox, labelling it clearly as the campaign under which the war was authored, and providing citation that it was in fact authored under a campaign of that name, as Rangeley has suggested, and helpfully created a custom infobox. Perhaps in six months, we'll talk about it again and come to a different compromise, but that seems to be a reasonable one for now. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the stance that I have taken as well. And honestly, Timeshifter, I will take your unwillingness to provide a link as you not having any. I wont play this game any more where you make a wild claim, and when questioned on it, tell me to look above as if I was some cognitively impaired editor who would have missed it. I looked, its not there. I have never claimed that a poll was a consensus - period. I have never claimed that Wikipedia:WOT was a consenus, period. I have said that the discussion held after it resulted in a consensus. When you told GT there wasnt one, he responded curtly with "I was there, thanks." I have quoted the actual consensus at that time, which is now being revisited.
Further, we have provided you with the exact language of the authorization which did so under the campaign. How can you rationalize your beleif that it was not authorized under the campaign? ~Rangeley (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every time anybody objectively looks at the so-called consensus, it is found not to be true. I will remove the word "bullshit" from my official statement. I was not calling you "bullshit." Wikipedia allows us to comment on content, not the contributor. But in order to lower tensions, I withdraw that word. I don't call all my enemies "terrorists" either. If you catch my drift. Or my nation's enemies. --Timeshifter 06:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you cited the poll as if it were valid, when you knew it was biased. Nuclear cited it a half dozen times in your presence and you never corrected him-- "Oh no, Nuclear-- maybe you haven't heard: I voted-stacked that poll, so of course the numbers are all messed up-- it wasn't really 25-2. Besides, didn't you see the 14 people voted that the poll was invalid". If you were genuinely trying to comply with the spirit of the rules, you'd be working hard to end all the citation of the poll-- not citing it yourself. Combine that with the bad wording of the poll that asked about politicla POV rather than a content dispute. Combine that with the ignoring the 14 people who voted against the whole idea of the poll. Then add in the 75 reverts, plus the solicitations of the people you thought would agree with you this week-- it's hard for me to reach any other conclusion other than soapboxing. That's how my thinking runs, anyway. --Alecmconroy 20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alec, is there something that you want Rangeley to do, specifically, in order for you to be willing to work with him to try to resolve this issue? Thanks, TheronJ 20:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the content issue is, to my mind, very separate from the behavior issue. On the content issue-- I don't think there are any major barriers to progress. I also can "live with" pretty much any solution to the content issue, even a solution which I personally disagree with, so long as I have confidence in the process with generated the resolution.
The reason I've acted so aggressively in this particular instance is that it seemed like a few highly-energized tendentious editors were succeeding in biasing the process, allowing their extra zeal to, in essence, outweigh the opinions of outhers. We had one editor with an arbcom case and multiple blocks against him for exactly this kind of behavior who had shown a willingness to push the limit of the rules as far as possible. We have another editor whose personally reverts god-only-knows how many different editors on this same exact sentence. The dispute had been going on for a year. Barring a strong consensus developing after all that time for exactly the solution that Nuclear and Rangeley wanted, it seemed to me like the dispute would go on indefinitely until their behavior were stopped.
So anyway-- "what is this RFC for?" It's preventative. Hopefully, he'll realize that 75 reverts is enough for any one person and that aggressive canvasing is frowned upon, and move on to other modes of interaction. Alternatively, he may not learn from this, may resume edit-warring/soapboxing on this or some other page, in which case, it will be all the easier for the next person who has a dispute with him to demonstrate that he has a tendency towards such behaviors. Either way, I've done "my job" as relates to the dispute and have done my part in helping end his behavior-- either by "getting through" to him or by making it easier for someone else to stop him in the future. --Alecmconroy 11:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The war in Iraq is often seen as a major part of the U.S.-led War on Terrorism. President Bush, members of the Bush Administration, and congressional leaders have stated that Iraq is "the central front in the War on Terror."[1][2] In 2002, the US Congress passed a resolution authorizing military force against Iraq which cited the US's determination to "prosecute the war on terrorism". [3] In 2006, the US House of Representatives reiterated the belief that Iraq was part of the War on Terror by passing a resolution saying that "the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror"[4]
A March 2003 poll found that among those Americas who supported going to war against Iraq, fully 70% felt that the war would have a long-term effect of decreasing terrorism.[5] Similarly, in a poll taken in April 2003-- just one month after the start of the invasion, 77% of Americans agreed that the Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism. [6]
Conversely, many in the United States view the Iraq War as a separate engagement which is not part of the War on Terror. Many notable individuals, such as the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, have expressed the opinion that Iraq is not part of the War on Terrorism. [7][8] A December 2006 poll of the US military found troops evenly split on whether or not the Iraq War was part of the War on Terror.[9] According to a January 2007 poll, 57% of Americans feel that the Iraq War is not part of the War on Terror.[10] A 2006 poll found that only 9% of Americans felt the war in Iraq was helping to decrease terrorism.[11]
The Bush Administration had initially argued that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda, and that his overthrow would lead to democratization in the Middle East, decreasing terrorism overall.[citation needed] The alleged ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda were never confirmed, however, and numerous reports of intelligence agencies investigating the matter -- including several reports of the CIA, the U.S. State Department, the FBI, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the investigations of foreign intelligence agencies -- concluded that no evidence had been found supporting an operational connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. The New York Times commented in September 2006 on the conclusions of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."
[12][13]
However, al-Qaeda leaders have seen the Iraq war as a boon to their recruiting and operational efforts, providing both evidence to jihadists worldwide that America is at war with Islam, and the training ground for a new generation of jihadists to practice attacks on American forces. In October 2003, Osama bin Laden announced: "Be glad of the good news: America is mired in the swamps of the Tigris and Euphrates. Bush is, through Iraq and its oil, easy prey. Here is he now, thank God, in an embarrassing situation and here is America today being ruined before the eyes of the whole world."[14] Al-Qaeda commander Seif al-Adl gloated about the war in Iraq, indicating, "The Americans took the bait and fell into our trap."[15] A letter thought to be from al-Qaeda leader Atiyah Abd al-Rahman found in Iraq among the rubble where al-Zarqawi was killed and released by the U.S. military in October 2006, indicated that al-Qaeda perceived the war as beneficial to its goals: "The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness ... indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest."[16]
In the years since the war began, a consensus has developed among intelligence experts that the Iraq war has increased terrorism. Counterterrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna frequently referred to the invasion of Iraq as a "fatal mistake"[17] that had greatly increased terrorism in the Middle East. London's conservative International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded in 2004 that the occupation of Iraq had become "a potent global recruitment pretext" for jihadists and that the invasion "galvanized" al-Qaeda and "perversely inspired insurgent violence" there.[18] The U.S. National Intelligence Council concluded in a January 2005 report that the war in Iraq had become a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists; David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, indicated that the report concluded that the war in Iraq provided terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills... There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries." The Council's Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, "At the moment, Iraq is a magnet for international terrorist activity."[19] And the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, which outlined the considered judgment of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, held that "The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."[20]
I don't think you understand the problems very well. There is no problem with discussing the WOT in the article. There is a already a long section in the Iraq War article. I pasted it in the above section.
There is no problem with using the phrase, War on Terrorism. It is the title of the aforementioned section.
The actual problems are two-fold. Misrepresentation of past polls and discussion. And putting WOT in the infobox in the narrative tone of wikipedia. In violation of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism and WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was clear that I was discussing the use of "war on terror" in the Iraq War infobox. (I do use the word "infobox" seven times in my statement). Can you point to a part of my statement that wasn't clear on that issue? I would love to clarify.
With regard to the "actual problems," Alec's statement in the RFC identifies two problems: "Edit-warring" and Vote-stacking. I gave my opinion in response to the statements and diff in those sections, plus some additional opinions. If you think that Alec misrepresented the problems, you probably should have worked with him to correct the statement before endorsing the RFC.
As to the poll, my strong advice is to let it go. No one has shown me a diff of Rangeley misrepresenting a poll, and the accusation is standing in the way of resolution.
As to words to avoid, IMHO, "War on Terror" is appropriate in this specific case, because:
It is the common term for the military campaign and there is no other adequate term for the military campaign;
In contrast, the guideline you cite, Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism, (a) does not discourage use of the term "Terror" but only states that there is "significant debate" about the term; and (b) specifically states that all sides to the debate believe that it is acceptable to use the term when the party using the term is identified, which is consistent with Rangeley's compromise proposal to place Bush administration "War on Terror" campaign in the infobox.
Thanks! TheronJ 17:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reread Alecmconroy's RFC. He has many diffs and links for what you are talking about.
When claiming the Iraq War is part of a campaign in the infobox quotes and a link for the WOT are not enough to meet the wikipedia guideline. The wikipedia guideline says this:
Not encyclopedic:
X is a terrorist group.
Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.
The USA or Bush or old Congressional resolutions (before the war and before the insurgency!) make statements that the Iraq War is part of the "War on Terrorism". Putting it in the Iraq War infobox as a "campaign" means that all opponents of the USA in this war are being called terrorists. That has to be put in more context. That is in the "not encyclopedic" list. --Timeshifter 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear admits being part of a sock puppet ring[edit]
Quote from the second par:
"Someone asked for an honest confession so I will give it, I started to get emails from a certain person (no names) starting months ago when I first turned my opinions and was friends with a mutual buddy named rex. Rex was a sock puppet master, but I agreed with their opinions and views. We kind of built a group that would have some pull, everything here on Wikipedia works by consensus, which really just means larger number. So if you can move your "consensus" around to different articles and AfDs, you had a portal right to edit as you please. This went on for a while, me and 2 others always voting the same, I honestly did not even notice a third person who always voted in line with Morton, till today I have not seen them vote differently from Morton ever, makes you wonder ... Anyway they would later go on to denying emailing me and we would play a game of "who dun it", I mean, how o my did he ever get my name ... rofl." Full log HereMarshalbannana 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um no it says rex was a sockpuppet master and I agreed with their views (politically), geez you try so hard and fail so badly. --NuclearZer0 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Nuclear, you also admitted to helping out the sock puppet ring. See this diff:
"Rex was a sock puppet master, but I agreed with their opinions and views. We kind of built a group that would have some pull, ..."
I appreciate this honesty on your talk page. But it hurts wikipedia by breaking the spirit of WP:NPOV. And it is unnecessary since NPOV allows your sourced viewpoints to go on wikipedia pages. Along with my sourced info. And everyone else's sourced info. There is little need to fight if one follows the wikipedia guidelines. Because all significant sourced viewpoints are allowed. That way the reader decides what to believe, or how to synthesize all the info. --Timeshifter 18:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also your enthusiasm is causing you to read incorrectly, the people who "kinda built a group" included a certain person whos real name I cannot say, and their buddy that I mention I met through them. This is why you shouldnt read into things, periods exist for a reason. Who said anything about NPOV anyway? a roaming concensus is a concensus admins have already ruled on this, since we AGF on why they voted edited a certain way. Next please, its been almost a day since I had a silyl accusation hurled at me. --NuclearZer0 19:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YOu missed alot, but I do not edit along the lines of those people, its debateable if I ever did since none of them admit to it. In the end you are not going to be able to skip the discussion by making more silly accusations. I was not a sockpuppet, nor ever stated I worked with sockpuppets etc. I stated a group of people with the same ideology moved to numerous pages to maek concensus, an admin has already stated this is ok btw. So any new arguements other then the failed WTA one? and the failed Naming Conventions one? You keep arguing the same shot down points over and over, please something new. --NuclearZer0 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People can read the diff link and decide for themselves:
Still avoiding the points, now a smear campaign, o joy, feels like I am running for office. Are you a veteran for truth? --NuclearZer0 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who was the admin who told you that it was okay to use sockpuppets or to work with someone you knew was using sockpuppets. Sockpuppets are strictly forbidden-- working with them would certainly be editing in bad faith. Either you're lying and no admin ever told you any such thing, or else some admin needs to be desysoped. Guess which possibility my money would be on? --Alecmconroy 12:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you learn to read let me know, I am done repeating myself because you do not know the function of a period in a sentence. Rex was a sock ... i agreed with rex politcally ... I worked with MD and TB and neither of them are socks. Get over it, you fail. --NuclearZer0 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never "worked with you" in any way. --Tbeatty 05:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: socks are not "strictly forbidden", though these do sound as if they were indeed abusive. Certain uses of socks are legitimate. Derex 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above, then again considering our history I am sure you wont bother. --NuclearZer0 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have very little history, and you have brought me such amusement lately that I've gladly re-read. What has the "above" to do with my statement? My "these" means the socks of others to which you refer; I figure you know well enough what you meant to say. Derex 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you brought me much amusement when you attempted to put templates on MONGO's page. There is no cabal *waves hands in a mysterious way* --NuclearZer0 19:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got me confused with User:Kralizec!. I only pointed out Tbeatty's hypcrisy in the matter.[18][19][20]. Cheers, Derex 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did? I must have missed have missed it. Tbeatty 05:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a standard option for a military infobox. That being the code for "Casus belli". Then I added the wikipedia pages covering it. This way people can decide for themselves the rationales, larger campaigns, reasons, etc. for the war. Here is the diff:
More pages can be linked. This way it is a true navigational link to several relevant pages, without favoring any of them. Since it is a coalition that participated on one side of the conflict, it is important to link to a page that covers their rationales also.
From the template how-to page:
"Many of the parameters can be omitted if desired; the choice of which parameters are appropriate for a particular conflict is left to the discretion of the article editors." --Timeshifter 18:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So back on topic, since all the stuff above is about 3 seconds from being deleted since its off topic, god I love that rule. No more Iraq War content nonsense, since that isnt why the RfC was made right? Any sections made after this point not related to this RfC, which is conduct based against Rangeley will be removed, please argue the merits of your issue on the Iraq War talk page. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, this was started because Alecmconroy says that Rangeley's actions are "well beyond the realm of acceptable behavior", but it has turned into yet another board for the discussion of content issues. In the absence of constructive discussion about behaviour, it doesn't seem that this "RfC" should remain open any longer. TewfikTalk 08:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of discussion about behavior in this RFC and its talk page. The behavior can not be discussed in isolation from the content. --Timeshifter 10:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]