User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Disputes

Dispute between Getbackworldrespect and Cecropia (Archive 16)

First of all, I want to mention, as I said earlier, that I don't believe this is the appropriate forum for this discussion, but since GBWR has tried to make the point so many times, I feel the editors here might want to know what the issue is about, and perhaps be a little entertained in the process.

In the days of my misspent youth (to which I will opin that all youth is misspent, by definition) I could happily sit with friends and friendly opponents in a smoking jacket, with a glass of sherry (or Ripple, as the case may be) discussing the Great Issues of the Day, especially the Viet Nam war (I was anti-, but so was most everyone else in my crowd) into the wee hours of the morning. These discussions went on, but not as frequently, and without the smoking jacket and sherry, while I was in the Army, and to similar conclusions. However, eventually I came to two youth-idealism-shattering conclusions: (1) some dedicated partisans will not be convinced or even yield to a single well-argued point, no matter how well you argue it; and (2) every evening we had all solved the Viet Nam war issue to our satifaction but, the next morning, the war was still there, as strong as ever.

The bottom line of that homily is that I enjoy debating enormously, but after a certain point, there are other things to do; one has to eat, sleep, make love to one's wife, help the kids with their homework; work for bread, pay bills and, yes, think about other things, including on Wikipedia. Now GBWR is quite passionate, and I don't fault him for that. But when I went on to other things besides the instant debate, it was quiet for a while, but then he left on a note on my talk page in which he asked whether I was resigning the discussion on the legality of the war in Iraq. To which I responded, essentially, "No I haven't," but right now I will get to the reference he wanted me to look at by-and-by and comment on it, to which I foolishly appended a brief explanation of why I felt the war was legal. Well, GBWR responded to that, and I did reply but, before I had a chance to post my response (q.v.), he was already bringing the war over here.

Now, to the particular issue. GBWR complained about my posting a documented explanation of connections between the most prominent opponents of the Iraq war (France, Germany, Britain) and their connections to Saddam Hussein. This was in response to the two prior paragraphs which read as follows:

Throughout the course of the Iraqi war Bush was often the target of harsh criticism. Both in America and in the rest of the world there were numerous anti-war protests. On February 15, 2003 there were over 10 million people in the streets all over the world. Many of the protesters were vehemently critical of Bush, calling him a "warmonger," an oil-hungry "imperialist," and a "fascist." Critics also claimed that war is not a strategy that works to prevent terror but rather creates more violence and brings misery to whole countries rather than single out the "real culprits." Bush dismissed the protesters as being merely "a focus group". Anti-war protests took place in more than 500 US cities and many cities overseas. There were also rallies in the United States that supported the President's actions in Iraq. (More details at Popular opposition to war on Iraq, Global protests against war on Iraq).

Criticism also came from the governments of many countries, including two members of the United Nations Security Council. During the debate about a possible resolution backing the war, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and Russia Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov garnered applause inside the chamber with their speeches against the war and for further weapons inspections, cf. Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq, The UN Security Council and the Iraq war. Since no resolution could be agreed on, critics who claim that war can only be authorized by the United Nations alleged that the war broke international law.

and the two following paragraphs:

War opponents have contended that the US was invading so that kickbacks could be given to American companies for reconstruction and America could benefit from Iraq's natural resources.

For its part, the US administration soon presented a list of countries called the coalition of the willing, although some chose not to be listed. Only Australia and Great Britain sent troops that participated in the invasion, though other countries have contributed to the occuption. Several other countries, such as Turkey, did not fully support the war and even obstructed it by not granting US troops full access to their ressources. Bush's loudest critic was French President Jacques Chirac who soon set himself up as the leading international voice of opposition to the Bush plan of Iraqi regime change. German Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin made a remark that using a war to detract from domestic problems was a strategy already used by Hitler. These remarks drew strong condemnation from both the United States and Europe; the minister resigned.

Now GWBR's complaint is that he doesn't see how this paragraph was relevant:

Many of the supporters of the war criticized the nations of France, Germany, and Russia for opposing the war because they had financial interests in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq war, France sold some $25bn-worth of weaponry to Iraq before the UN embargo was imposed after the Gulf War. Nicolas Sarkis, of Arab Oil and Gas magazine, said France's state-controlled TotalFinaElf [was] poised to win contracts to drill the largest unexploited oil reserves in the world. [9] On February 14, 2003 (before the war), Iraqi trade minister Mohammad Mehdi Saleh announced that Russia had lost US$60 billion of business due to the United Nations sanctions, but said that despite the loss, substantial new business awaited Russia. He said that Russia and Iraq are negotiating 67 agreements in oil, agriculture, transportation, railways and energy worth more than $40 billion to Russia. [10] Iraq's declaration on its weapon programs submitted to the UN revealed that German companies had been basic commercial partners of Saddam Hussein's regime since 1975. According to these data, 80 German companies cooperated with Iraq till 2001. [11] Русский язык: [12]

I honestly thought that even a committed partisan would understand why this was relevant, even if he disagreed with every word of it. The four paragraphs detail positions of national opponents to the war. When certain nations set themselves up as chief critics of an action, including claims that America motivation was oil and construction contracts and even an accusation by a high German official comparing Bush to Hitler as using war to divert attention from domestic issues (curious assertion, since it was Mussolini who was best remembered for using war in this manner) it's relevant to examine the critic's own interests. Or as I learned in beginning Business Law: "Someone who seeks redress in a Court of Equity must come into it with clean hands.

Thanks for your patience, all. Cecropia 17:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all it is arbitrary to single out three countries when their criticism is joined by so many others: The Vatican, Venezuela, Syria, Jordan, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Belarus, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Indonesia, the African League, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Lebanon, Cuba, China, Palestine, Vietnam, just to name a few. The population in all polled European countries was opposed to the war when it started, including UK and the Eastern countries, with overwhelming majorities in coalition partners Spain and Italy. But you try to put the focus on financial connections that are absolutely no surprising. Germany has been world export champion in many years, France and Russia are also members of the G8 and play a big role as creditors in almost all countries with a lot of foreign debt. The most cynical part of the game is that you entirely suppress information on US connections to Iraq. The US was also one of Iraq's five biggest creditors.

I agree that parts of the rest of the entry do not belong into an encyclopedia, with all due respect to German Ministers and without respect to people who scream around "fascist" rather than show their concerns and their protest in a fruitful way. But the solution is not to add more nonsense, just try to improve on what is already there. In twenty years, no one will remember Hertha Däubler-Gmelin, the fact that some called Bush a fascist or how many firms from which country cooperated with Iraq before a particular date. What will be remembered is that GWBush launched a war for dubious reasons, breaking international law. That is all what is needed in an encyclopedia entry, although until there is a final analysis you may add that some in the Bush administration still claim not to have acted illegally. Richard Perle is more honest. This whole discussion would NEVER make it into a decent encyclopedia because it has no relevance to GWB, only here at wikipedia, where every idiot can fool around. That is no offense to the idea of wikipedia, there are people around who take care of such entries, and in some cases it even works. We only need to make sure that people like you do not get extra rights to spread their propaganda. My advice, if you want to become an admin focus on topics you do not feel so hot about. Get-back-world-respect 21:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

GBWR, I've given this a heading that is truly neutral. And frankly, Cecropia has done many good things here, while I have no idea who you are. You may think this is all about Cecropia, but I have never encountered your editing, and my impressions of it having seen it just now are that it is partisan and biased (I may be wrong, of course -- I haven't had the benefit of seeing hundreds of contributions, and so am dealing with a non-representative sample). I suggest editing here for a while longer and earning your own "respect" via your contributions before assuming that everyone will take your objections as valid. After all, simply having edited a few articles does not necessarily mean someone is a good judge of what Wikipedia is and isn't looking for in an admin -- as you rightly note, idiots and good caretakers alike can work here. Only a track record can establish which kind of person an editor is choosing to be. Establish a good one, and you'll find more sympathetic ears. At that point, if Cecropia has badly misused admin powers, you will be in an excellent position to join the voices calling for the revocation of those powers. Jwrosenzweig 21:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do not think one needs to be known or have a lot of experience with anything before one has the right to point out that someone misbehaved. I did so with a link to prove it and if you have any arguments to justify what he did I am interested in them. Get-back-world-respect 23:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

True, you can point out misbehavior (see below for a more detailed explanation of my point). As for arguments, actually, I find Cecropia's argument above in this section generally reasonable. Behaviorally, one instance of trouble is usually not enough to cause serious concern if the editor has been otherwise reliable. Most of us have slips and troubles. It's when there seems to be a pattern developing that we get concerned. I haven't seen that your comments are indicative of a pattern of behavior, but rather they seem to be motivated by your anger with Cecropia's disagreeing with you over that paragraph. I personally think the paragraph could be balanced a little, but that leaving it in as-is is far better than cutting it. I'm just trying to explain to you why people aren't getting outraged -- editors often get in disagreements with other editors here (especially when many editors, as your own username suggests, are here primarily because of their committment to a cause or movement of some kind). It's the editors who are constantly and consistently getting into arguments and then behaving badly that we worry. Cecropia doesn't seem to have done this. That's all I'm saying. Jwrosenzweig 23:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I wrote when explaining my vote, the paragraph is only one particularly obvious example of Cecropia's pattern of behaviour: spinning the GWBush entry into a propaganda site, trying to downplay all criticism. Get-back-world-respect 23:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed your and Cecropia's contribs to the GWB article in the last week+ and I have to say, Cecropia does seem to have a bias, but it is a fairly minor one, and not detrimental to the article, IMO. Your bias seems slightly more visible and is less helpful, I think. You two do balance each other fairly well, and I do not feel Cecropia has acted wrongly....in fact, I think he should continue generally to operate as he has been to help keep the article in balance. And I personally don't care for GWB and won't be voting for him in 2004. That's all I really have to say. Jwrosenzweig 23:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The difference is: I am not running for adminship until I can keep my bias out of my edits, which will most unlikely happen before November. Get-back-world-respect 00:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Double Standard (Archive 30)

(Contradicts: Itself)

Are RfA candidates criticized for things that Admins do all the time? - Two case examples

The "SlimVirgin" Edit War

(Note: The writer of this post thinks that SlimVirgin was not at fault in this example, but many others harshly criticised and reverted her; FuelWagon has alleged that three (3) editors quit on count of her, but that may be coincidence that Neuroscientist, Duckecho, and ghost all quit at that time for other reasons.)

As a side note, while I think SlimVirgin was not at fault in the edit war above, my points were two-fold: She was never scrutinized like an RfA applicant would have been; Secondly: Here, in the page protect logs, SlimVirgin made these spicy comments about me, thinking I would never see them:

10:28, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin unprotected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts (I'm hoping Gordon has gone to bed)
09:46, 17 September 2005 SlimVirgin protected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts (temporary protection against GordonWatts)

Hmm...--GordonWatts 20:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Then, after those questionable remarks, Admins at the talk page of my RfA would not let me post my comments to it, making excuses that my comments were not relevant to my RfA, but general: True, they were "general" in nature, but they were also specific concerns I had about my own RfA, and they should have not prevented me from posting them, but now they are here: Questionable actions abound re my RfA.--GordonWatts 20:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The recent Main_Page Edit War between at least seven Admins & Bureaucrats

Comments: Can someone say "Revert War?"

User:SlimVirgin, while innocent in this writers eyes, still made a good number of users quite angry, and generated Talk:Terri_Schiavo/archive30#Suggestion_for_SlimVirgin complaints and also a Wikipedia_talk:Request_for_comment/SlimVirgin plus a lot of heat.
The front page revert war shown above involved at least seven (7) Admins and Bureaucrats and almost certainly one or two of them were in the wrong, since all competing "versions" could not necessarily be right; Further, even if they were all reasonable, why couldn't that talk it out on the talk page first?
The admins and bureaucrats involved may not have done anything other than be human, but are they worthy of Adminship and Bureaucratship?
Here, we have User:Allen3 (Revision as of 16:00, 13 September 2005)] telling me in my recent RfA application that my four reverts were out of order when I had the authority or permission to do them in three cases, and the fourth, if I were wrong, was a misunderstanding, based on the fact that Nichalp said that I had the right to have a FA-candidate.
In this diff, Andrevan, an Admin, posts a question to the page after it was locked, and I could not answer it there: He criticized me for getting "sysop" and "admin" mixed up; They mean the same thing. It is true that I made a human error, but he does not criticize Admins and Bureaucrats for much more serious and questionable actions.
Claim: I was the subject of a double standard: These users contradicted themselves when in my RfA application, they nit picked at me for what were possibly minor violations (nothing serious and no revert war on my part, unless I was actually justified). Even if I were not qualified to be an admin based on this behavior, why are other admins, and even bureaucrats (supposedly held to even higher standards) allowed to do this without so much as a peep from these RfA voters? Are RfA candidates, such as Mr. Watts, being held to higher standards than actual Admins and Bureaucrats?

One Possible Answer: "But [Adminship] is not a job. They are just powers. Originally, they were conceived as powers withheld, which you would be granted if you kept your nose reasonably clean. Now people are opposed because they don't vote on deletions, because they have made enemies, because they aren't "trusted" (but not "trusted" not to delete pages, "trusted" in a sense defined by whoever is using that as their reason), because you once bickered with somebody over something stupid, because someone once called you a troll and his mates piled on. Gordon should be an admin if it's no big deal. He wouldn't do any harm with it. He just blathers and tries to push his POV. If that was a crime, we'd be locking up half the editorship. Grace Note 02:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)" (Taken from Jimbo's talk page; Emphasis added for clarity.) [1]

Conclusion: If Admins & Bureaucrats were treated the same as RfA candidates, we'd be de-Adminning about half of them.

Conversely: If RfA candidates were treated like Admins and Bureaucrats demand that they be treated, then most of them would not have to face such nit-picking over relatively minor details.