Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Link to "anybody but iggy" site

It was agreed long ago to include "Opponent site

• Stop Iggy A site established by dissenting Liberals to outline why they disagree with his candidacy."

this,I think. 70.48.207.216 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. If you can cite the archive where consensus was reached, I'll leave it in. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Ignatieff's World" by Denis Smith

No reference is made to the book "Ignatieff's World", which should be required reading. The author is the biographer of Walter Gordon and John Diefenbaker.

http://www.amazon.ca/Ignatieffs-World-Liberal-leader-century/dp/1550289624

Broken Link in "Articles by Ignatieff"

The article explaining Ignatieff's support for the Iraq War in 2003 and "Empire Lite" is available at: http://faculty.washington.edu/nsingh/ignatieff.htm

The following link is not available: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/burden.htm

Somebody please change this.

Deletions?

Who (and why) is deleting the additions I made about his recent "war-crimes" comments vis-a-vis Israel? [unsigned]

I am, because it's already mentioned elsewhere. CJCurrie 03:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if that is the case, but I don't see it. Reverting in the meanwhile. Sorry, I see it now - removed this from 'International', but I did elaborate on his comments in the other section and added the pertinent citation.

Stop Iggy Link

also, please do not delete the link to the "stop iggy" website. After much discussion consensus was to let this 1 link remain. If you insist I will go back in the history to locate that consensus arrived at when the article was under admin. control. 64.229.30.183 14:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do so. I do not believe your claim is correct.

Here it is reference#2. I am quite annoyed you do not assume good faith and also that you insist on pov pushing with your latest edits...plus you do not even bother to sign your comments. Ottawaman 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Mind if include the whole quote? [1]:

• 1; basically that the "controversies"section be put back to this which was arrived at after much discussion and compromise,imo.

• A;that the "controversies" section include Iggy's own comments regarding his time away from Canada in the national self-identity sub-section.
• B; that the Ukrainian controversy be put back as it was a very big deal and still is.

• 2; that the opponent sites subsection be reincluded in External Links since the article offers links to Iggy's campaign offices.Ottawaman 13:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1.a) Since the section already sufficiently deals with critics' concerns about Ignatieff's absence from Canada, and the quote about being a martian outsider is neither a response to those criticisms nor a source of controversy (ie. the media hasn't picked up on this quote either as an admission that Ignatieff is out of touch with Canada, nor as a rebuttal to such claims), I don't think it's necessary to include in an already overlong article.

1.b) This issue has been moved into the Political career section. I think that's appropriate, since it only emerged as a point of controversy in the context of Ignatieff's nomination. If some of the content from the original Ukranian-Canadian section should be reintroduced, it could be added succinctly to the Political career section.

2. I see no reason to exclude the opponents' sites section. If it were put to a vote, I'd vote to include. —Joel Bastedo 15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the above

Could we please put this discussion on hold for a moment, as we haven't got the verification points resolved yet. One thing at a time, or it's going to get back to stalemate. There may be different solutions to the "controversies section" and we need to consider policy as a starting point. Tyrenius 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Ottawaman 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In other words, Tyrenius suggested that this topic be put on hold before any consensus was reached. And you agreed. 67.55.7.195 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from making personal attacks, or assuming bad faith, as you did when you assumed my edits were POV pushing. A look at your edits, for instance, fails to show a single one that is not anti-Ignatieff. 67.55.7.195 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate - this link does not belong here. 67.55.7.195 12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

how come there are no external links to comments on "Ignatieff"?:

There are pro-Iggys who only want the links to Iggy's campaign website on Wikipedia; but that's not npov so That's not going to happen. 70.48.204.244 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Commentaries and Reviews

• Ignatieff's Realm, The Walrus. A thorough overview of Ignatieff's academic work and views. Written by Alex Mazer.
• No more Mr Nice Guy New Humanist, September 21 2005. An op-ed criticism of Ignatieff by Laurie Taylor.
• Ignatieff stands above Grit dwarfs Toronto Sun June 25 2006. Peter Worthington endorsement of Ignatieff.
• Canada asks Ignatieff: Are you one of us? The Daily Telegraph, January 15, 2006. A summary of the critiques that have been levied against Ignatieff.
• But where's the context? Toronto Star, April 9 2006. A meta-analysis of Ignatieff's critics and supporters.
• Getting a read on Michael Ignatieff Toronto Star, May 1 2006. A survey of the issues surrounding him.
• The Trouble with Ignatieff A blog entry by James Laxer which discusses the problems Mr. Ignatieff might face as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
• Dallaire backs Ignatieff to lead Liberals, Ottawa Citizen, July 3, 2006. General Romeo Dallaire on Ignatieff's leadership bid.
• CTV on candidates

I'm somewhat torn on this matter. Several Wikipedia pages permit links critical of the subject, but the sites in question are usually required to have some academic or journalistic credibility -- simply linking to an anti-Ignatieff blog, for instance, would not be allowed.

My feeling, at this stage, it that (i) the "Stop Iggy" link is scurrilous and should be removed, and (ii) supporters of the link should be required to make a very compelling case for its inclusion, if it is to remain. CJCurrie 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not fit the definition of a blog and is more like an opposite portrayal of Ignatieff's campaign website. One is flattering and the other critical but their structure is similar. Either remove them both or leave them both. Ottawaman 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that only blogs should be excluded. On another matter, I'll note that the citations from the Valpy article are the worst instances of quote-mining I've seen in some time. CJCurrie 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff's campaign * website, as expected, contains pro-Ignatieff "quote mining" and pov pushing. To be consistent you should be pushing to have that link removed as well, but I do not see you doing that. Ottawaman 13:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We covered this already when Tyrenius was moderating. Using official campaign websites is perfectly acceptable and not considered POV pushing. 67.55.7.195 17:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Ignatieff Hijack

Everyday I come to this page, the more it seems to have been hijacked by the anti-Ignatieff campagin. It seems that anything which is in favour of Ignatieff is taken down soon after it is posted.

Firstly, please add 4 tildes (~) to the end of your comments. It makes them easier to read. Secondly, I removed your edits because they were highly POV and clearly pro-Ignatieff. If you disagree, please discuss your reasons below. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the page has a very Anti-Iggy spin. I am not just referring to your removal. But the Ukrainian Controversy has been settled. He makes no suggestions of sorts if you were to read his book, and the media too has settled this argument. Their is no rebuttal on the torture issue, so it gives people the idea he actually does support torture.

Semi Protection

The consensus was to keep the anti link. Drive-by anons are deleting it, which is vandalism. Others anons are inserting either pro or anti POV junk to the article. I believe this article may need semi protection. Armon 08:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Such alleged consensus does not exist. It never did. If consensus was reached in the past, and I am mistaken, simply reference it. Otherwise, please stop re-insserting. The link is biased and strongly anti-Igantieff. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Armon. It is pov pushing to allow the campaign website and not the counter site,imo. Ottawaman 02:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind including critical views of Ignatieff but I'd prefer weightier ones. That link says very little, nothing of substance and would only be included to prove that some Liberals don't like Ignatieff. But that is a) already plainly obvious and b) not demonstrated by the existence of the site anyway because of the anonymity of the site's creator (it may have been created by a single non-Liberal for all we know). As I said the first time, all this link does is prove that one person who doesn't like Ignatieff can make a webpage. So as I said when we discussed it then, I oppose inclusion of this link to what is essentially just a fancy blog. But I would welcome the inclusion of more literate criticisms of Ignatieff. --JGGardiner 17:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You are dead wrong about the stopiggy movement. They have been at every event in large numbers so their opinion is more useful as they are not paid for their pov as are the people who designed his campaign website. 65.95.149.197 14:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not dead wrong. I said the link demonstrates nothing. I've re-checked and it still doesn't. The group may be otherwise important; if they are, mention them in the article. Links should be included for their content. This one has little exceptional content. Links should not be included to prove a point (although citations can be). Nor is the point of the external links to maintain an equilibrium of "pov". In fact, the opposite is intended. Of the four criteria for standard inclusion, one is an official site. Even though it is owned by the subject it need not be "balanced" with a negative link. I don't think anybody would suggest that all articles require negative links to balance official sites. --JGGardiner 17:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense; who decides what is an "official" site? If NKorea has a slanderous "official site" spreading its pov which we provide a link to; are you saying we could not include a link to a site critical of NKorea created by a group of citizens in N Korea? This is patent nonsense in my view. Ottawaman 12:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

From the linking guidelines: "An article about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to that entity's official site, if there is one." Official sites are an exception to the usual considerations: because they are owned by the subject, readers know that what they say is favourable. In any event, I didn't write the guidelines myself. I also didn't say that we can't include critical sites; in fact above I say that I welcome critical sites. What I said was that official sites need not be balanced with negatives ones. Look at other pages. Most have no negative sites. Even Canadian politicians. The only thing close to negative on Stephen Harper is a page of newspaper cartoons. Same thing with Paul Martin. Jack Layton doesn't have anything negative. I also said that links should be there to provide extra content that readers can use. This link doesn't do that. You say the group is important but I didn't know that from having read their website front to back. The site provides no content and doesn't demonstrate anything about the group, even their existence (of membership). I don't see any reason for inclusion. I accept your point that stopiggy is no more "POV" as the official site but that, like I've said, is granted an exception. --JGGardiner 17:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Locked?

It has been locked in the position of the bias of 1 side in a tame edit "war". Why? I only see a rather tame edit war including ottawa,currie and 2 anons; Please get it unprotected as this is a time sensitive article as an election is underway. 67.71.121.172 16:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-POV Changes

As pointed out above, the link to "The Burden", found at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/burden.htm, does not work. It should be replaced by http://faculty.washington.edu/nsingh/ignatieff.htm

Additionally, there is a duplication error in the second paragraph of the "Writings" section. It currently reads

"A historian by training, he wrote A Just Measure of Pain, a history of prisons during the Industrial Revolution. His biography of Isaiah Berlin, reveals the strong impression the celebrated philosopher made on Ignatieff. The latter work explores social welfare and community, and also shows Berlin's influence. Philosophical writings by Ignatieff include The Needs of Strangers and The Rights Revolution. The latter work explores social welfare and community, and shows Berlin's influence on Ignatieff. These tie closely to Ignatieff's political writings on national self-determination and the imperatives of democratic self-government. Ignatieff has also written extensively on international affairs."

The sentence "The latter work explores social welfare and community, and also show's Berlin's influence" appears twice. The first instance should be removed, as the sentence is clearly referring to The Rights Revolution.

Are there any other changes that should be made, that do not relate to POV? This should not include debate about pro- or anti- edits, nor whether to in/ex-clude certain information; I just want to fix the uncontroversial sections. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I hate to semi-protect a talk page, but recent vandalism leaves me with little choice. CJCurrie 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I hate to fully protect a talk page, but, etc. CJCurrie 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected and reprotected this talk page. I am not Canadian and have no interest in Candian politics. Everyone, please stop using protection of this page as an excuse to make personal attacks on CJCurrie. His protection is no longer active. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What? The protection was done due to vandalism aimed against Ignatieff, not that admin. --Strothra 04:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment about personal attacks directed at CJCurrie was in regard to a varierty of users using CJCurrie's protection of this page as an excuse to attack him in edit summaries on other articles. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. --Strothra 05:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah and CJCurrie; you have both been involved in editing the article for months. If it needs protection it is better protocol to contact one of the many other administrators to review the edits and do the protection. I see no real justification at all for this protection especially as it is protected in a position favourable to CJCurrie's pov. Ottawaman 05:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling, Ottawaman. I've had it with you and your army of sockpuppets. I haven't touched this article or this talk page for months and even when I was involved here, I made a limited amount of edits trying to enforce policy, not content. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks,Sarah, if you continue to make misleading statements justifying why you are the appropriate person to protect the talk page then I feel compelled to dispell your false comments. It only betrays the falseness of your claim to neutrality "I am not Canadian and have no interest in Candian politics" when you resort to calling me a troll or sock puppet in order to deflect attention away from your obviously false self-presentation. Here is your edit history showing a dozen edits by you in this article which you now claim you never had any interest in. However, your deflection does not explain why you feel you must be the administrator who protects this page. Ottawaman 15:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman, I've reviewed your edit history [2] and not found a single one that wasn't critical of Ignatieff. Your loud and repeated heckles to any changes that aren't anti-Ignatieff are boring and transparent. Please stop. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 16:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please address the protection issue rather than engage in adhominum discussions. This article and talk page should not be protected by admins who have been editing it when there are so many admins who have never edited it. Also, it should not be protected at all right now because of some little edit war that CJCurrie was on the losing end of. Ottawaman 00:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah; Your comments are not true on this Ignatieff talk page

Who are you trying to fool? You had a lot of involvement with the Ignatieff article and discussion and now protect the talk page with a blatant falsehood stating you are a disinterested party. I've reviewed your and Currie's article control techniques and they are both obvious and transparent; get a blog if you want to be pushing your own POV. Neutralizer 04:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

hmmm; yes Sarah you were editing both the Ignatieff article and its talk page quite a bit for someone uninterested in Canadian politics. Here are about a dozen edits you made. I suggest you find a truly disinterested administrator to protect the article if it needs protecting but I do not see anything there other than a very benign edit war. Also, please explain,Sarah, why you left that misleading edit ("I am not Canadian and have no interest in Candian politics"[3]) on the talk page before you protected it? Teekite 04:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the talk page, yes, trying to remove personal attacks and trolling. My involvement in that page was with regard to dealing with trolling and personal attacks, not content of the articles or any interest in Canadian politics. Oh, and you've been blocked as an obvious sock. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, that is also not true; here was one of your Ignatieff

edits which has nothing at all to do with personal attacks or trolling; it was your opinion about the validity of a source. Ottawaman 05:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's textbook BLP. We've been through this. -Joshuapaquin 15:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, an onslaught of sockpuppet personal attacks on Sarah. She must be doing something right, to warrant such attention. This article was greatly improved through the last round heavy discussion, debate and consensus that was only made possible by protection; this was in stark contrast to months before, when thuggish anonymous editors and sockpuppets would hurl "bias" allegations ("you're a paid organizer!!!") against anyone attempting to bring more balance to content. Sometimes protection and semi-protection is necessary for wiki articles to function properly. -Finnegans wake 16:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the personal attacks by Sarah (calling editors trolls) are the real personal attacks istm; and all of this adhominum argument by her and her supporters fails to address the issues that she stated and tried to perpetuate the false impression that she had not been involved in the article and then she protected it multiple times. Ottawaman 23:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page being protected at all?

And why is the article protected? Ottawaman 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think protection made sense. Our month long debates/discussions and consensus on content (you were heavily involved, if I recall) were being ruined by partisan anti and pro iggy editors. -Finnegans wake 16:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's disturbing that there are no legitimate reasons here for article protection and more disturbing that the protection was obviously done at a point that favours CJCurries's edits and HE was the first one to protect in that position. Ottawaman 23:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am asking why the article is protected right now? Ottawaman 23:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out for the benefit of people reading this page who may be misled by the false propaganda published here and elsewhere, the allegations that CJCurrie has ever protected the Michael Ignatieff article are blatantly false. The following administrators are the only ones who have ever protected or semi-protected this article: User:HOTR, User:Tyrenius, and User:Winhunter. This can be confirmed by viewing the log. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Again Sarah is being misleading with half truths. CJCurrie did protect this talk page which is even worse than protecting the article. Ottawaman 14:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am asking why the article is protected right now? And why is this talk page semi-protected right now? If someone was vandalizing the page, block them. Ottawaman 14:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can't Sarah find an admin who never edited the article to protect it?

That's the big question which continues to be deflected with personal attacks and adhominum comments? Ottawaman 23:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Since the article is currently protected and it seems like some users are itching to make changes, I would suggest that anyone bring up the changes they'd like to see here. That way we can discuss it all and still get some consensus-based work done, even while the article is protected. Hopefully any consensus-changes could all be integrated into the article once it is unprotected. Thanks. --JGGardiner 00:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article's protection be discussed first; is there any justification for it at this point in time? If you wish to discuss "changes" I would like to resolve the issue at the top of this page regarding the opponents to Iggy's external link. Ottawaman 00:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

People interested in resolving content disputes should use this page to try to reach a consensus on any content changes. When a consensus is reached, I'll lower the protection. If this talk page is abused again, it will be protected again. Trolling, vandalism, personal attacks and disruption will result in blocks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm more or less happy with the current article and hadn't intended to make any changes myself. I was simply trying to remind everyone that there is more to Wikipedia than single-user edits. We can still get work done while the protection issue is being otherwise resolved. But as Sarah kindly pointed out, the best way to resolve a protection issue is to demonstrate that editors can work together with some civility. So if anybody is interested perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone. Just a friendly reminder. --JGGardiner 09:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, I understand and appreciate your intent, JG. You are spot on about using protection to show editors here can work together civilly and doing so will go a long way to getting the page unprotected. Just to clarify, my comment was a general comment, not directed at you or anyone in particular. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue seems pretty simple to me; if we allow a link to blatant pov pushing from a campaign website then we should allow a link to an opposing grassroots site. why not? Ottawaman 14:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just the way the linking guidelines are. Sites owned by the subjects are exempted from other considerations. So you would be more correct to say that both should be removed than both should stay: if it weren't his campaign site, it might well be reasonable to remove the link. --JGGardiner 18:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just in a general sense; the article as it stands now has agaiun become a puff piece with very little info about the controversies surrounding Ignatieff; controversies which are more weighty than all of the other PR put out by his supporters. Ottawaman 14:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of breaking WP:AGF, I don't think there is a protection "issue". On the one hand, there is a disruptive user with an army of sockpuppets who considers all edits beside his own to be worthy of reversion and derision. On the other hand, there is an admin who has carefully and patiently used page protection to protect article quality, and now winds up accused of bias for having intervened in a blatant BLP case a few months ago. -Joshuapaquin 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should say that, although I'd be very reluctant use a term like "troll", I don't think that every user is being completely constructive here. There are a lot of users on WP who have legitimate concerns but feel that the other users are biased and manipulative because they don't know all of what goes on here. I usually try to show those users the processes and policies and try and guide them along the right path, even if I disagree with their ideas. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar but it is up to each user to decide if they are really here to catch flies. Thanks. --JGGardiner 18:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject, there are several blankings in the article's recent history, all by CJCurrie, that I find dubious and, barring a rational explanation, would expect should be restored.

First blanked passage, from the "Biography" section:

Ignatieff chronicled his mother's physical deterioration from alzheimer's in a way that his father found too graphic and invasive. Ignatieff claimed credit in his writings for looking after her while it was actually his brother George who was the caregiver.[4].

An apparently sourced comment (from a reposting of a Globe and Mail article), and therefore, it seems to me, not in violation of WP:BLP.

Second blanked passage, again from "Biography":

His younger brother,George, also attended and reported that Michael would not allow him to speak to him on campus. [5]

Same reasoning as for the previous passage.

Third blanked passage, from the "The Lesser Evil Approach" section:

In his May 2,2004 Op-ed in the New York Times magazine, Ignatieff wrote; "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."[6]

Once again, sourced, this time from Ignatieff's own writings, and one would presume relevant, given his foray into politics.

Fourth blanked passage, again from "The Lesser Evil Approach":

Some of those views make reference to Ignatieff's statement that; "permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress."[7]

Same reasoning as above.

Looking down the edit history for some rationale as to why these passages were deleted, it seems that CJCurrie's reasons are that the passages are "scurrilous" and "out of context". The first argument is a matter of POV, and therefore invalid. The second justifies putting the comments in context, but not mass-blanking. I am open to further arguments by CJCurrie, but in lieu of this I submit that these particular passages should be restored. Furthermore, it seems that most of the problems with edit warring can be solved by a combination of sprotection and enforcing 3RR on CJCurrie and Ottawaman, and I therefore humbly suggest that the protection be lessened to an sprotect. - Hiddekel 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My concerns relate to the first two quotes. The first is inaccurate (both brothers were involved, according to the source), the second irrelevant and prejudicial. Both were mentioned in passing by Valpy, and highlighted out of proportion here. I reiterate that these were scurrilous inclusions to the article. I am not opposed to returning the latter two quotes, which are more substantive. CJCurrie 00:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hiddekel, just because a quote is "sourced" does not mean it necessarily adds anything to the article, nor does it mean the quote itself actually reflects the author's views in a particular article. The earlier few quotes about Ignatieff's family are, as CJCurrie has pointed out, problematic and prejudicial, and not consistent with Wiki policy on Living Persons. As for the later quotes you're advocating adding, and your arguments in support, are nothing new to this article. They have been exhaustively debated by a number of us regular editors. Check the archives. Over the course of two months, we achieve consensus on the article as a whole (as the archives will demonstrate) and those quotes you're using are, indeed, taken out of context, and do not accurately reflect the actual view of the author in the article. "The Lesser Evil Approach" is discussed in the body of the article, and as you'll note, it also includes information about critics of Ignatieff's views: with one direct quote saying he is an "apologist" for the anti-human rights agenda of Bush and others. Your quotes add nothing new. -- Finnegans wake 14:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hiddekel on every point. ottawaman 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Resolving edit war issues

One method that I think would be effective in resolving these debates would be to tag the article for peer review and remove edit protection. This should bring in an influx of NPOV ideas for improving the article. Protecting the page while a few editors hammer out their differences can take months. See for example Yoshiaki Omura. Antonrojo 12:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of edits from this page

I am back after a 10 day block. I see Sarah removed an edit to the people here about my being blocked and also about why there may be several contributors using the same ISP; (sympatico.ca is the largest ISP in Toronto). That notifying edit was not put by me but by an infrequent contributor whom Sarah also then assumed was a sockpuppet and then blocked. The accusation that Methodology is a sockpuppet of mine is false so I think those edits should obviously be returned to this page but I wanted to see if there is a consensus to do so. Not sure if anyone here cares but Methodology's contribution history certainly doesn't look like that of a sockpuppet to me. ottawaman 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You had a 7 day block [8]. Please stop misrepresenting facts. It would be in your best interest to use this talk page to focus on this article instead of personality issues. As for Methodology, of course it's a sock. All that account has been used for is to complain about administrators and with an amazingly stellar knowledge of Wiki for someone with only 8 edits (3 of which are to their own talk page) over 11 months. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think our policy is not to remove edits of other users and you have no proof Methodology is a sockpuppet. Your deduction as to his/her editing skill is just your pov and besides he/she could have been editing on other wikis. I just would like to find out if others feel these 2 edits should be returned. I think they provide important information to counteract the definitive accusations on this page by Sarah that some of the editors to this page are/have been trolls and sockpuppets. By throwing the troll and sockpuppet labels around and then blocking the accused, the content and history of these pages has been affected,it seems to me. So, hopefully others will voice an opinion as to whether or not to allow you to unilaterally decide that those 2 edits should be erased from this page. ottawaman 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the article talk page is for talking about the article. If you have a specific problem with another user, please discuss it elsewhere. --Guinnog 07:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If Sarah were to remove your comment above and I were to say it should be returned as part of this article discussion would it make sense for someone to say "No, the article talk page is for talking about the article. If you have a specific problem with another user, please discuss it elsewhere."? The strawman argument that this is a personal dispute which does not effect the article is not reasonable. By analogy, if a librarian is removing books from a library which others feel should not be removed, the question of whether those particular books should be returned is something which can be addressed independently of any disagreement over the behaviour of the librarian. At least that's the way it seems to me. ottawaman 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

November 2006 Request for Comment

An RfC has been arranged. An RfC on article content is for helping to develop consensus or for gaining an outside perspective to help settle a deadlocked disagreement or make a better decision. This topic section has been set up to deal with the removal of Methodology's edits from this page. ottawaman 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User misconduct RfC filed

Regarding Sarah Ewart's actions with this article and its contributors. [9] ottawaman 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

re: locking this page

This is ridiculous, being locked because of an extremely trivial and childish dispute between a couple parties. This is developing current event article that needs editing, and quickly. Rizla 04:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the notice above. SarahEwart is locking this article as well as the Liberal Leadership article. You may wish to state your opinion at the RfC; CLICK HERE ottawaman 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is I semi-protected this TALK page. As Ottowaman well knows, another administrator protected the article, although I did protect Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_convention. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Sarah did fully lock up this page at one point. ottawaman 13:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman, please stop. There are now 3 editors, who, according to your loud and annoying protests, are conspiring to add an Pro-Ignatieff spin. If anyone is responsible for this lock, it is you and you and your sockpuppets. You do not even attempt to maintain the veneer of neutrality, and criticize everyone who doesn't agree with your heavily biased edits. This is the last time I'll be responding to your posts, because I do not like to feed trolls. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's semi-protection, Ottawaman and it's of this talk page, not the article, as I said above. Please check the log and you'll see that I have only ever semi-protected this talk page. If it were full protection, it would say "edit=sysop:move=sysop" [10] Stop peddling misinformation. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman has quit (and also is blocked)

So if he was the only reason the article is protected and this page semi-protected I suggest someone unprotect them; otoh, it appears noone has much interest in this topic anyway so maybe it doesn't matter anymore. Canuckster 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's nice to know, except that I think that Ottawaman is, in fact, you. -Joshuapaquin 04:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a mute point because I have also quit wikipedia; I just thought some of you might want to open the article up to editing since there is no longer any conflict. Canuckster 12:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Otoh, since the article is in the exact puff piece state that Iggy's employees want it to be in; there is likely no incentive by them nor their pals to free the article from protection; shame on your collective despotism. This is my last Wikipedia edit; good bye. Canuckster 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)