Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coren (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 8 January 2008 (This is beyond a simple content dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Raggz

Can someone please keep an eye on User:Raggz? For several months, he's been adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything critical of the United States government — often for patently false reasons. He's received countless warnings, and several editors have gone to great lengths to explain how he's been violating Misplaced Pages's core policies. He either ignores the warnings or apologises and carries on exactly as before.

For example, he's just added a brazen lie into an article about the Iraq war. In response to a Human Rights Watch claim that the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion was "not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention", Raggz states that "the International Criminal Court refuted this claim after an extensive investigation". However, the source he cites (PDF) makes absolutely no mention of the human rights situation in Iraq before the invasion. In fact, the International Criminal Court has never examined this, as it's clearly outside the court's jurisdiction. This is just one example of how Raggz systematically invents stuff and distorts his sources to advance his POV. I've included a few more examples in the collapsible box below. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

When I first began editing WP, controversial topics unfortunately drew my attention because they so clearly violated the WP NPOV and OR policies. The ICC articles drew my interest early, they might have been my first editing projects. I did sometimes and still do violate WP policies, but by error and not intent. When this was correctly brought to my attention by Sideshow Bob Roberts I apologized and changed. When this was incorrectly brought to my attention by Sideshow Bob Roberts I did not apologize and persisted. Sometimes I later discovered that he was correct, sometimes not. Sideshow Bob Roberts is not easy to work with, particularly when his pov-based agenda is denied expression. He knows international law and WP policy better than I do and does not collaberate or help, but uses this as an advantage to advance his pov. I've asked for insight six months back from other editors on a WP page for this, and got one comment and none from him. I suggest reading my comment to Sideshow Bob Roberts on his page last week. More than anything else it will explain my collaberative attitude with Sideshow Bob Roberts.

He cites errors of six months or more back, but not my many useful edits. I could debate his collapsable box material, but why? I should be judged by how I edit now. As for the "brazen lie", he could have simply added his concerns to TALK, and if he was correct (as he too often is) I would have changed it if necessary. I don't know how to source his abusive posts and am not inclined to play his game anyway.

On page 7 (footnotes) of the source cited is the information referenced in regard to Human Rights Watch. On page 3? it states that 250+ claims of human rights violations were recieved and no evidence was found to support these. The ICC does have jurisdiction over ICC members in Iraq, and did investigate the human rights issues with this jurisdiction. It is all in the citation. The US and the UK have conducted joint operations, and if widespread violations of human rights were ocurring, the UK would be involved with these and these would be in the report. You may judge if the inclusion of the UN and ICC sections involve "brazen lies".

I stand by my edits generally. I also stand by my unintended errors, and also my corrections and retractions that were sometimes necessary. Sideshow Bob Roberts is a pov warrior, but a smart one that plays within the rules. As I get experience, as I become a better editor, my participation with controversial articles threatens the few pov warriors camped in a few controversial articles. I knew that editing controversial articles where the pov warriors are camped out would eventually require your review. Human rights and the United States is a better and far more recent editing project, I suggest visiting it to get a sense of my style, strengths, and weaknesses as an editor.

Sideshow Bob Roberts is incorrect to say "adding false information to articles and systematically deleting anything "critical of the United States government". I make errors, and admit to these when corrected. I systematically edit OR and NPOV, sometimes aggressively. The articles that I edit are usually heavily in violation of NPOV guidelines, so I often delete material "critical of the United States government", but only when it is OR or in violation of NPOV. I recently deleted dozens of citations where the citation did not support the text. Most material "critical of the United States government" is of course retained if it meets WP guidelines (in my opinion). A review of the articles I edit will prove this, they are filled with such material "critical of the United States government". The United States government has much that should properly be criticised, but this should be accurate, referenced, and need sustain the NPOV policy. I delete or edit that which is (in my opinion) innaccurate, unreferenced, and does not sustain the NPOV policy. Raggz (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A few quick points:

1. Raggz has repeatedly made false claims about me. His assertion that I'm "on a POV campaign" is flatly untrue, and I encourage other editors to examine my edit history for any evidence of POV-pushing. I've addressed this claim before but he ignored my response and continues to make this claim.

If anyone wants to understand how Sideshow Bob Roberts advances his pov, read International Criminal Court from around 6/1/2007 and read it now. On the plus side, it is a better article in general readability. On the negative side, it has carefully suppressed every criticism of the ICC present on 7/1/07. This pattern and his obvious expertise has caused me to wonder if he works for the ICC, but I am not yet convinced that he does. I cannot know his motivation, but his agenda is clear, to suppress all criticisms of the ICC, and he is quite effective at this task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Raggz (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2. I made a specific accusation that Raggz told a "brazen lie" today. He responded, as usual, by citing a source that has nothing to do with his claim.

3. It's true that I'm mostly citing examples from a few months ago, but a glance at his recent contributions reveals that his behaviour hasn't changed. Of course any admin action should be based on his current behaviour, not past mistakes.

4. "I've asked for insight six months back from other editors on a WP page for this, and got one comment and none from him." - I have no idea what this means.

5. With respect to his most recent message on my talk page, Raggz pretends he wants to collaborate with other users but he conistently ignores editors who disagree with him. On countless occasions, I've written lengthy posts explaining to Raggz how one of his theories is wrong and asking him to cite a source for his claim, only for him to completely ignore me and continue making the false claim. There's just no point trying to engage him in a rational discussion. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From International Criminal Court This is a typical example of me making an error and admitting to this. I suggest visiting Talk, and note the lack of collaberative effort by Sideshow Bob Roberts. He claims that I am incapable of engaging in a "rational discussion". Judge below if this is actually true. Raggz (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Dozens of reliable, published sources explicitly state that judicial authorisation is not required where a situation has been referred by a State Party or the Security Council. See, for example: Christopher Keith Hall: "The Powers and Role of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in the Global Fight against Impunity". Leiden Journal of International Law (2004), 17: 121-139; Michela Miraglia: "The First Decision of the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber". J Int Criminal Justice 2006; 4: 188-195; or Annie Wartanian: "The ICC Prosecutor's Battlefield: Combating Atrocities While Fighting for States' Cooperation. Lessons from the U.N. Tribunals Applied to the Case of Uganda". Georgetown Journal of International Law 36 no4 1289-316 Summ 2005 (which is free to read here). Does anyone object to changing this? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not I. Your legal expertise when engaged, rarely fails to illuminate. Thank you for correcting my error. I didn't follow your explanation fully, but as long as you are certain that the ICC Prosecutor may investigate the Iraq War without referral from a State Party, I'm fine. Raggz 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC) "

=================================

"Hello, you became so heated last time we worked together that I took a break to give you the opportunity to calm down. I've been working on some articles today and expect that you will have comments. This time may we work together collegially and productively? Our past collaborations have improved several articles and we may continue to do this together. So, let me know which, if any edits may be issues for you. Raggz (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)" .

Would it help you both to ask for outside assistance, i.e. mediation or RFC? Nomen Nescio 10:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see what that could possibly achieve. I have no doubt that Raggz would just ignore the outcome, just as he ignores our core policies, ignores user warnings ( ), ignores consensus, and ignores detailed explanations of how his claims are incorrect. I have no doubt that he'll continue to do this until an administrator intervenes. If he's allowed to continue inserting blatantly false claims into articles, our core policies are pretty meaningless. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course I would participate. I would like to become a better editor. There is no doubt that I have a great deal to learn. Some of the errors claimed were in fact real errors. Sideshow Bob Roberts goes through hundreds looking for these, and all too often, they exist.

It would help both of us. There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts but I have not reported him because I believe that banning him would deny WP a talented and insightful editor who has a strong educational background, who holds everyone to peer-reviewed citations, and has a net beneficial impact upon the articles we have collaberated on. If he could learn how to collaberate, he would likely move to the top rank of WP editors, rather than the C- level he presently earns.

If you read what he says (above), it seems unlikely that he will listen to my suggestions about becoming a better editor. He is not here to become a better editor nor to collaborate, he is here to get me expelled. If he really is not a particularly skilled pov warrior, he will accept. I expect that he will decline the offer to become a better and more collaborative editor, because he really is a pov warrior. I hope that I am in error. So Sideshow Bob Roberts, are you an editor or a clandestine pov warrior? Here is your chance to prove me wrong... no pov warrior would ever accept.Raggz (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

=== "Bald Faced Lie" ===

Here is the alleged "Bald Faced Lie": "The Prosecutor denied the many allegations made by hundreds of human rights organizations, and specifically denied those made by Human Rights Watch."

Here is the alleged source: "Similarly, following its investigation into events prior to June 2003, Human Rights Watch reported that forces had “engaged in a number of practices that may have violated international humanitarian law” but “evidence did not emerge suggesting that coalition forces committed war crimes.”: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/ihlqna. htm ; the statement was in relation to the HRW report “Off Target”

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/ (Page 7 footnotes)

Raggz's claim that "There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts" is false. Again, I urge admins to review my contributions for any evidence of "reportable misconduct" or POV warring.

His claim that I've suppressed every criticism of the ICC is ridiculous. In fact, most of the criticisms in the article were originally added by me. I did remove the criticism section (which I had originally added) but all the substantial criticisms of the court remain.

You are a good editor and produce quality work. Among your weakness is your strong habit of claiming to know what the "substantial criticisms" are and what they are not. The WP policy does not permit you to be The Editor but one of several editors on these decisions. When a point is offered, a reliable source is cited, collaboration is required to remove it. Your edits have improved the article's readability, but deleting all significant criticisms - especially those by the ICC President himself, have diminished the substance and credibility. The criticism section (which you added) was a mess, and required collaborative effort to improve. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz suggests visiting Talk:International Criminal Court to see my "lack of collaberative effort". Please do. You will note that I have an excellent relationship with all the other editors and I always seek (and achieve) consensus before making any potentially controversial changes to the article. I think it's safe to say that Raggz is the only person who thinks I have problems collaborating.

I agree with you on this point, that you do well with editors who agree with you. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

When Raggz first started editing, my messages to him were polite, patient and detailed. (See the early discussions on his talk page and this archived discussion page). It was only when he pointedly ignored my lengthy comments, persisted in restoring his false claims without addressing my concerns, and started distorting my words and making false claims about me that I became reluctant to engage with him.

You did try Sideshow Bob Roberts, you tried briefly. I was new, had a great deal to learn and your best efforts collapsed very quickly and you then launched into personal attacks. No one at WP may distort your words. Not every editor must always address your concerns, especially when you offer them in a fit of pique. You are not a patient person, and having a new editor editing "your article" was a challenge that you were not up to. You do view articles as "your articles" and you resent other messing around with them (editing them). You are easily frustrated, and soon stop communicating on TALK, for the reasons that you have outlined (above). Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding his "brazen lie" about the ICC and Human Rights Watch, Raggz says I should have raised my concern on the talk page and he would have changed it if necessary. This is simply not true. Past experience shows that Raggz generally ignores concerns that are raised on discussion pages. On the rare occasions when he has admitted that he was wrong, he has never removed any of his false claims.

(Also, note that when I accused Raggz of lying, I was clearly referring to this edit. As usual, his response has nothing to do with this claim.)

I'm disappointed that no admin has commented on this thread yet. If my request for help was inappropriate, can someone please explain why, either here or on my talk page? It's pretty clear to me that Raggz has been systematically violating our core policies to advance a political position. Contrary to his belief, I'm not here to get him "expelled": I just want him to start respecting our core content policies, and I believe administrator intervention is the only way to do this. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Raggz's contributions today. Not only has he deleted large chunks of sourced material as "OR" (like this), but he's adding more false claims.

If you want to revert Battlestar Galactica to crimes against humanity - feel free. I will accept this. Just read TALK (below)

Battlestar Galactica

Wow, I came to this page wondering, "were crimes against humanity ever mentioned in a random episode of Battlestar Galactica?"...and, to my shock, the answer is yes!

Seriously, as great as Misplaced Pages is, things like this sort of reduce its credibility. Thunderbunny 04:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Raggz (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, he says the International Court of Justice "is directed by the Security Council" and he claims that "Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations". This is all complete nonsense and, when challenged, he will never cite a source that agrees with any of this. Nor will he remove it, or allow other editors to do so.

If you want me to cite the UN Charter provisions, fine. Why ask me to do this here? If you go to TALK and request this, I will add these. All organs of the UN are directed by the Security Council. If you want to edit this article, why not edit it there and not here? Your comments are to be expected given that you only follow my footsteps and did not carefully read TALK. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And he has twice claimed that Henry Kissinger has been accused of war crimes "by one commentator", which is pretty damn misleading. (See the Henry Kissinger article for an idea of how many "commentators" have accused him of war crimes.)

Why not contribute at TALK then? Henry Kissinger is only "accused of war crimes "by one commentator" by the Article. The reliable citation does not say "many" but one, so I edited the text to match the cite. Just add the Kissinger cites you know about in. It is my personal opinion (read talk) that if this Nobel Laureate is an alleged war criminal, the Article should specify what court is investigating him or has convicted him. If none have done so for allegations made thirty plus years ago and they were never substantiated, relevance is an issue for the allegation supported only by a cite to Christopher Hitchens. After 30 years, this is very old news and irrelevant. This is my opinion, why not contribute yours on the proper page? The Article suggested that Kissinger's recent academic papers were written with the intent to evade war crimes charges somehow, and for this reason were not credible. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to go to Henry Kissinger, fine, go there. Don't tell me to. You are capable of editing in your edits and I won't edit the way you want anyway. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Today's edits were less disruptive than usual, but they reflect a pattern of deleting stuff he doesn't like for spurious reasons and inserting ridiculous claims that he just makes up as he goes along. Surely this is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I edited today as best as I can. I've not changed just because you are still unhappy. QUESTION: Do all organs of the UN (including the ICJ) interpret the UN Charter as the UN Security Council directs? If not, post your source and PROVE me wrong. Don't just make allegations, so just PROVE it. I NEVER delete anything because I don't like it (although I WISH I could sometimes). I made the "ridiculous claim" that the UN Security Council directs all of the organs of the UN. So, disprove my "ridiculous claim", do it now. Here is the chance to prove your point. Raggz (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, it's not my responsibility to disprove your claim, it's your responsibility to cite a source that supports your claim or withdraw it.

You will never find a reliable, published source that supports your claim that the ICJ "is directed by the Security Council" because your claim is blatantly untrue. It's just something you made up. Nor will you find a reliable, published source that supports your claim that "Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations" because this claim is blatantly untrue.

You will never find a reliable, published source that agrees with your claim that the United Nations Security Council's decision to not act in regard to the 2003 invasion "definitively settles" the question of whether the invasion was illegal, because it's a load of nonsense you made up and inserted into various articles. When asked to cite a source, you refused. When other editors tried to remove the claim, you repeatedly restored it.

I've lost count of the number of times I've asked you to cite a source for one of your crazy claims. In every single case, you've either ignored my pleas or demanded that I cite a source to prove you wrong.

I have no idea what Battlestar Galactica has to do with any of this. Are you trying to suggest that, because you deleted one piece of obvious rubbish, all your other deletions are okay? I'm not saying you've never made any positive contributions to Misplaced Pages, but at least half the claims you make here are untrue.

Can I pleeeease get at least one administrator to comment on whether or not it's acceptable for an editor to keep adding false claims like this? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ was created by the UNSC under Article Article 29: "The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions." If you review the United Nations Charter, you will note that it does not mention the ICJ. The ICJ is clearly an organ of the Security Council. When Nicaragua prevailed against the US in the ICJ, the US appealed to the UNSC which declined to hear the appeal. The appeal voided the ICJ judgement. You are on record as opposing all primary sources, such as my quoting of the UN Charter directly. Here is your opportunity to renew your complaint.

WP says in International Court of Justice "Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings, but this is subject to the veto of the Permanent Five. Presently there are twelve cases on the World Court's docket." If I edit this language in, would it work better for you?

Today I aggressively edited Human rights and the United States, and I suggest that review of todays edits would be the perfect example of how my edits enrage you. For weeks we have been debating the theory that the US has committed a single example of a human rights violation in the past decade. It is possible that such have occured (certainly Abu Girab was, but there were also convictions), but the article lacks any reliable source that establishes that any have occured. I'm adhering to the WP policy for an opening summary that it need summarize the body of the article, and that there be consensus for the body. I may be in error, your perspective would be useful.

I invite you to join this debate, you may know of a reliable source that will establish that a human rights violation has been commited, and if you can, I will welcome your addition. Rather than sulk here, why not just improve this article that could use your expertise, which exceeds my own? Abu Girab would be a good starting point. This is an example of a documented human rights violation that is not yet in the Article. We have an abundance of speculative allegations and a total lack of objective documented examples (like Abu Girab). Can you help? Without your help there is a risk that my edits might violate WP NPOV, with your help this risk is reduced to zero. Raggz (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Today I aggressively edited Human rights and the United States - is anyone paying attention to this? Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, Raggz, and your edits to the aforementioned article removed WP:NPOV, a core, non-negotiable policy. You need to step away from the computer and review the relevant policies and guidelines. This is not a content dispute, but a refusal by User:Raggz to adhere to basic Misplaced Pages policies. —Viriditas | Talk 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As usual, Raggz is just making all this shit up. His claims that "The ICJ was created by the UNSC under Article Article 29" and "If you review the United Nations Charter, you will note that it does not mention the ICJ" are complete nonsense. The ICJ was established by the United Nations charter, not the Security Council. (See the ICJ website and the UN Charter, Chapter 14 of which is titled "The International Court of Justice", funnily enough.) As usual, the source he cites (Article 29 of the UN Charter) does not in any way support his claim (that the ICJ was created by the UN Security Council). This perfectly illustrates how Raggz just makes stuff up and inserts it into articles.

His claims about the Nicaragua case and Article 39 of the UN Charter are also pure fantasy, as anyone with even the most basic understanding of international law will attest. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Raggz's claim that "There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts" is false. Again, I urge admins to review my contributions for any evidence of "reportable misconduct" or POV warring."

Sideshow Bob Roberts, you too are human and you make mistakes like all of us do. On almost every day I interact with editors who commit "many examples of reportable misconduct". I don't report them because they are people trying to make the Article better, as editors we need to tolerate those with different views, and TRY to work with them (and because the Administrators already have a LOT to do). Don't take offense, your errors are less serious than are many I regularly encounter. You are a covert POV Warrior, but because you generally play by the rules (when challenged) I have never reported you. Look at the positive here, after challenge on key issues the International Criminal Court article is GREATLY better due to our interaction. Look at what is was last May, and now? So we bumped into each other a dozen time during the process, it worked to make the article better. Raggz (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda campaign by User:Raggz

This situation is out of control and needs to stop. User:Raggz refuses to adhere to WP:NPOV and has begun removing all instances of it in every article he edits. —Viriditas | Talk 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What sort of administrative action do you have in mind? MastCell 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is your issue?

"Let me be specific: which speculative allegations do you find in the article (lead/body/etc) that are not supported by a WP:RS? —Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"It has a powerful and often independent judiciary and a constitution that attempts in many areas to enforce separation of powers to prevent tyranny." Raggz (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)"

..."often independent judiciary" implies that the judiciary is sometimes not indepedent, a NPOV violation (in my opinion). There is no supporting reliable source within the article that suggests that the judiciary is ever not independent, making this a OR violation. Did you offer a reliable source when you reverted it to suggest that the US judiciary is not sometimes independent? No Viriditas, you did not. Raggz (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue Viriditas has raised, I believe, specifically has to do with the massive amounts of text Raggz deleted, citing WP:OR as the reason for deletion: , , , , , , , and so forth. Raggz continually claims that he has the consensus of other editors to make these edits. Nevertheless, this material was arrived at through the usual editorial process, imperfect though it may be. Furthermore nowhere does any other editor (besides Raggz) actually seem to endorse a massive deletion of any kind. Finally, even when attempting to engage in discussion in the talk pages, Raggz frequently asks POINTy leading questions, and to misrepresent assertions made by other editors in the same page. (See for instance the above attempt to minimize Viriditas' concern by deliberately misrepresenting it.) Raggz also repeatedly misrepresents Misplaced Pages policy, such as WP:OR and WP:CONSENSUS, to reach similar bizarre conclusions and self-serving ends. I, and I see other editors as well, find this behavior highly disruptive and tendentious. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are raising a very hefty charge against another user as Propaganda. Cannot you be a little more specific before levying liable on someone? Is he pro USA or against? Is he pro Humanrights or against? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Numerous pro-US edits attempting to remove, or minimize, entire sections of material critical of the US. In addition to some of the diffs above, see the edit history of Human rights and the United States. It is littered with removal of material, as well as coloring things in a non-NPOV pro-US manner. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not for or against the USA, but in favor of improving this encyclopedia article. The NPOV violations are entirely about an anti-US bias. This means that most edits correct this. The article should focus upon PROVEN human rights violations and not focus UNPROVEN allegations. Consider what I said (above}.

... "Abu Girab would be a good starting point. This is an example of a documented human rights violation that is not yet in the Article. We have an abundance of speculative allegations and a total lack of objective documented examples (like Abu Girab). ... Raggz (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit is an exceptionally concientious editor who participates in TALK, and strives for consensus. I feel this input should be weighed at twice the combined weight of the preceeding comments from editors who engage in reportable violations themselves. She has corrected my on one WP policy, and I have abided by her correction. We just disagree. She seems to feel that a reliable source for a speculative allegation of a human rights violation is a good basis for a section that claims a human rights violation. This article is (in my opinion) a collection of speculative assertions about human rights, and Silly rabbit and I disagree about this. She resists my claim that without reliable sources that move beyond speculative allegations, the Article may not move beyond speculative allegations. We have debated this at length. In particular she has resisted correction of one of the major flaws of this article, the lack of articulation of what is and what is not a "human right". I am an advocate for defining in each section specifically what human rights were denied, and how the determination was reached.

She is correct about the other editors, they share a common pov and my participation brings a divergent pov into this mix. The process would have significantly less controvery if I were not involved, but the NPOV policy would also greatly suffer. Raggz (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what you believe or what your position is on any issue. I'm here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not use Misplaced Pages as a battleground for a select POV. You joined Misplaced Pages at 06:27, 24 December 2006 and you have had a year to learn how to edit. The discussions on your talk page indicate that your behavior has not changed. Page protection and a user RFC aren't going to solve the problem, but that's where we seem to be headed. I would like administrators to be aware of the problem and to monitor the situation. To quote User:Nickhh on dealing with Raggz: "I simply find it too frustrating, as it would appear do several other editors who have come across your often bizarre, inaccurate, unsourced or irrelevant insertions and deletions to articles. When these are pointed out to you, you respond with a combination of irrelevant queries on talk pages going down the same tangent you started off on (or a repetition of questions which have already been answered), combined with promises to correct any mistakes, and apparently sincere requests for help with editing. You then just carry on as before. Sorry to be so hard about this, but as a very occasional editor, I've got better things to do with my time than fill up Misplaced Pages talk pages." —Viriditas | Talk 05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas correctly asserts that I will continue as before, because I am proud of my WP edits that have helped bring NPOV to this and other articles. I have made mistakes and likely will again, and as always, I will learn from these. If corrected here, I will accept such correction, and perhaps even cease editing. I do not believe that I am a "problem". I believe that there is a problem, the article has a serious NPOV problems. Viriditas, if you don't have time to use TALK, perhaps you need reduce your editing burden to a more manageable level?

I have asked you repeatedly to offer one reliable citation from the article that documents that even one human rights violation actually occured. You will not do this, why? Why is it an error to keep asking an important question that you will not answer?

I did the same thing with Silly rabbit. I kept asking what specific human right does health insurance policy in the US deny, and she would never answer this important question. I asked her again and again. Finally she named a UN treaty. I then asked Silly rabbit for a reliable source that (1) the US or (2)UN judiciary decision confirmed the allegation. I asked Silly rabbit for this repeatedly, because this is a critical question. Silly rabbit then said that human rights should not be limited by legalities and I responded fine, just offer a reliable source for support. The very existence of a debate within the US over health care proves that this debate has not yet been settled. When we have a reliable source that establishes that an actual human right to universal health care actually exists, then we should add a claim for this. Silly rabbit and I went round and round the tree. This in my view, is merely part of the consensus process. There is no rule against repeating the key unanswered questions. I suggest that the key unanswered questions need be repeated until they are answered. Raggz (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that my disability has had an impact here. I retired after a traumatic brain injury in 2005. I doubt this has any effect, although my memory suffered, I do not percieve any impact. IF this is the case, my disability should not be an excuse, I should then be banned anyway. Context is important, Administrators might better sort through this long section knowing this. If it comes to banning, I'm fine with it. WP is but one of many ways to contribute. The article would then resume its former equilibium. Is this really a good thing? I think not. Raggz (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You say you have made mistakes and that you have learned from them. However, looking at your talk page, you seem to be making the same mistakes. As I explained to you on your talk page and on the article page, I do not need to answer questions about your edits, especially a question that has nothing to do the topic we are discussing. I am sorry that you have a TBI, and if you need help with anything, Wikipedians are always around to help out, but it might be a good time for you to take a break and figure out what you love to write about most, and just focus on that one thing. —Viriditas | Talk 07:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The most important issue is the poor condition of the Article. Do you recognize that the Article is filled with serious violations of NPOV and OR? Why not include examples where the US has been proven to have denied human rights (like Abu Girab) and only focus on alleged examples like circumcision? Visit capitalism, does every unsupported allegation ever written about capitalism appear in that article, or just the serious issues? Would capitalism be improved if the article was written to advocate another system? Some editors would prefer this.

You can help me. When I discover an Article like this one with entrenched editors who resist this shift in Consensus, how may I then best help them with their angst? Take yourself as an example, you are so convinced of your own pov that you have to this very moment refused to provide reliable sources for any of your claims. How may I best help persons like yourself to understand that OR applies to you as well as me? How may I more gently persuade people like yourself who are too busy to engage in TALK or strive for consensus? I don't know how to edit articles like this one without upsetting people like yourself, or to get negative input on my user page. My question is sincere. Raggz (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand...

I'm at a loss to understand the lack of administrator interest in this. I made some very serious allegations about Raggz's behaviour, which I backed up with plenty of diffs. He hasn't refuted any of these charges. Instead, he has responded by telling a bunch of outright lies about me (for example, that I'm a "clandestine pov warrior", "There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts", and his bizarre suggestion that I work for the International Criminal Court). He hasn't cited a single shred of evidence for any of this, and my contribution history reveals it to be patently false.

Meanwhile, he continues to add false claims to Misplaced Pages. Many of his lies will likely remain in place permanently, because there are so many of them and because he invariably revert-wars when other editors attempt to correct them. Stuff like this misleads our readers and seriously damages Misplaced Pages's credibility.

MastCell asks what sort of administrative action we have in mind. My understanding is that editors who persistently insert patently false claims into articles should be blocked. Am I wrong in this understanding, or do you still not believe that Raggz has been persistently inventing crazy claims and inserting them into articles? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like this misleads our readers and seriously damages Misplaced Pages's credibility." Editors are permitted to add relevant material that denies your pov. They then need add supporting reliable sources when they do this. I really am unable to understand your issue here, would you mind explaining exactly what the issue here is? I presently believe that you believe that your pov is TRUTH?

Do you deny that the ICC Prosecutor's report is a reliable source in regard to human rights violations? Do you claim that I misapplied it, if so, how? I don't follow your logic. HRW made an unsupported allegation in 2004, in 2006 an ICC investigation denied this claim (with qualifiers) and on the footnotes of page 7 specifically cited HRW when denying these. Why shouldn't the ICC Prosecutor's report be included? In fact, since the 2006 report dismissed the 2004 HRW allegation, the 2004 allegation should be deleted because it was not supported by an ICC investigation? I will do this edit if left at liberty to do so.

Your unwillingness to answer the question above leads me to believe that you are a pov warrior, but of course I cannot know what motivates you. If you don't act like a pov warrior, I won't call you one. Even if you were one, you needn't be one now. Please answer the question? Raggz (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that were Raggz to be blocked, Misplaced Pages would be better off and Raggz could easily find another forum for their slant on history? I would suggest a cooling off period by blocking Raggz for 3 months. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I very much dislike intervening in content disputes as a rule, but after reviewing the contributions from Raggz, I cannot help but agree that he has waded deep into tendentious editing and is currently a net liability to the project. I will give him a stern warning to stay away from the topic entirely. — Coren  21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)