Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Twrigley

Cabal Mediation
I'm responding to the Send for the Cabal mediation request placed on this page. there is a mass of information on this page, and it will take me some time to work through it all; it might be better if you could bring up the contentious points here so I can see with them directly. my initial suggestion is that we do this voter pamphlet style:


 * 1) create a subsection of this mediation section about a particular issue
 * 2) each participant makes one (reasonably short) position statemtent on the issue.
 * 3) each participant makes one (reasonably short) rebuttal statement to each position statement
 * 4) discussion stops after the rebuttal statement, no matter how offensive, unreasonable, or annoying you find that rebuttal to be

my hope here is to get a clear, concise overview of the problem. the natural tendency in cases like this is for the text to increase geometrically as people argue their points; I'm asking that you all resist that urge. :-)

Hope I can be of help! Ted 03:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

References from obscure and fringe websites (verifiability issue)
Each of the references made from Public Eye website or those associated with Mr. Chip Berlet and company should be backed up with other sources not associated with that website or person due to the obvious bias against this individual shown by that website, Mr. Berlet, and his associates with that site and such orgnazations he associates with, for each inclusion of material thereof. --Northmeister 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been the subject of an arbitration, which tried to sort out the issue of controversial experts, including the matter of LaRouche. see here.
 * Much of my writing on LaRouche has been published in major daily newspapers, magazines, books, and in reports from Political Research Associates (PRA). That some of it may also be posted on the PRA website does not negate that fact. Some of the material posted on the PRA website is documentation provided at the request of Wiki editors who challenged the factual nature of my assertions. I do not run PRA, contrary to what is implied by Northmeister. The PRA website is not a fringe website. Our material is used by major media on a regular basis. LaRouche websites are fringe websites.--Cberlet 18:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And now, North, this section has been deleted again. If you want me to mediate, please contain yourself to the position statement/rebuttal format.  CBerlet, please do not delete other people's posts.  that is my job at the moment; if you do it, that is very much bad faith, and will just serve to piss everyone off.  I'd appreciate it if you'd offer an apology to Northmeister for deleting his text out of turn.  thanks.  :-)  Ted 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am totally confused by what is happening here. I did not delete anything in bad faith. I read the criticisms and comments by Ted to strongly suggest that I delete the entire section as not following instructions, and to write short simple answers to the original statements, which I did. I apologize to anyone I may have offended, including Northmeister. To be blunt, I have found every step of this "mediation" to be confusing and arbitrary to the point where I have no idea what is supposed to be happening and what I am supposed to do. I am very unhappy and frustrated by a process I cannot understand and which appears hamhanded. I have never been impressed by the work of the mediation cabal, and in the past have relied on official procedures. I did not request this, and so far do not see it as constructive.--Cberlet 19:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am attempting to mediate this situation with you, SlimVirgin, Will Beback, and others listed in the mediation page. Each of the mentioned users have been engaged in past disputes with individual users starting much the same way this present dispute has started with minor differences. Two members who sat on the Arbcom case (the official procedures you talk of) had obvious conflicts of interest regarding yourself. They should of recused themselves. Credible evidence was provided of harassment by you, SlimVirgin, Will Beback and others who seem to be linked into a group; with the intention of inflaming editing wars and getting users blocked or banned.  The decisions themselves are used inappropriatly against the wisdom of Mr. Jim Wales. I wish to bring harmony here. I do not wish to ban or block any editors, but free wikipedia for what it is reported to be.  I want the community to know what has happened and is happening presently. Mr. Wales and the Wikimedia Board need to intervene here, to save the credibility of articles here at wikipedia and save the site for freedom of editing so long as sources exist, and when sources are controversial (LaRouche or PRA) then backup outside those sources should be provided for inclusion. Does that not seem legitimate? I apologise for any personal attacks construed or misconstrued by you. I want justice here and free expression in light of the above notions to prevail and the witch-hunt to stop. --Northmeister 19:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please let me be clear about what I'm trying to do here, as mediator. in my experience, the reason why these kinds of diagreements do not resolve themselves is that they become free-flowing, stream of consciousness things — the volume of material that people put out in the argument is too much to keep in mind all at once, and so all effective communication breaks down into limited squabbles about ever-rotating issues.  I'm trying to get everyone to make a few simple statements we can all look at, without volumes of cross-talk, so taht we can have a baseline to work from.  is that ok?


 * DELETED BY MEDIATOR. Ok guys, I think the point of this is being missed.  I do NOT want this to turn into another long extended argument.  I want you each to submit statements, and each to get a chance to rebutt those statements.  when you keep cross-talking like this you are just going to continue to infuriate each other, and we will get NOwhere. for the moment, please, this is NOT ABOUT who is right and who is wrong.  this is about making clear, simple statements, so that there is some grounds for communication.  I'm beginning to get a very clear sense for the problem here, myself, but that's irrelevent: all that matters is getting YOU guys to see the problem (which is not at all a LaRouche issue).  I am asking you to play by my rules for just a bit, so that we can lay all the cards out on the table. ok?  Ted 04:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * [User:Northmeister|Northmeister]] inserts rebut to Cberlet above here: (delete me! --Cberlet 14:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Illicit editing (NPOV and harassment issue)
''mediator edits added for clarity, in green. please correct, if necessary.'' Editing by the [some] individuals (SlimVirgin, Cberlet, Will Beback (Williamc), Sean_[Black], Phil) [should] be restricted from all sites associated with Lyndon LaRouche, Patrick J. Buchanan, and any organization, person, or historical article (see American System) [that] Mr. Chip Berlet and his PRA or Public Eye Website attacks in public or through publishing. Other individuals associated already on file. They have shown consistent effort to disparage the reputation of said individuals [LaRouche, Buchanan, and etc.], to label new editors immediatly and rashly as LaRouche supporters with no evidence, to edit out material with a reference as "LaRouche" idea, all in a spirit against the open policy of Wikipedia and civil manner. They extract vehement responses because of their harassment and then accuse those individuals of breaking civility rules etc. They may be sockpuppets or associated with Mr. Chip Berlet and his organization known for its ruthless attacks on the Republican Party, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Perot, the Reform Party, Mr. LaRouche, and anyone who wishes to compromise between Right and Left in America per PRA website and writings thereof. Thus, editing by such individuals as above be restricted to non-Buchanan, non-LaRouche, non-American political party's, non-American historical articles. --Northmeister 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My editing is not "iilicit." I do not run PRA. This page is not about the "Republican Party, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Perot, the Reform Party," or anything other than the "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche," a convicted criminal who is widely regarded in reputable published sources as a lunatic, cult leader, and antisemite. This is not an arbitration and thus is not the proper place to demand my editing be restricted. As for harassment, it is Northmeister who has been adding negative material to the entry Chip Berlet.--Cberlet 14:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The material I added myself (see my edits on that page) was perefectly legitimate and sourced. It simple adds a chapter to Mr. Berlet's biography ignored and overlooked. It was added in the same light as Mr. Berlet's additions to the above stated organizations. I am well aware this is not arbitration. My appeal is for reason and sanity. My issue is the witch-hunt going on and the suppression of free speech. I do not wish to restrict any editing, but to simply bring to light the fringe nature of PRA and its associates and how their material is used on wikipedia, this article in question is a perfect example. I noted elsewhere on this discussion page my objections to so much 'smear' and 'negativity' in this article which does not belong, including trying to define Mr. LaRouches motivations. That is best left to Mr. Berlet's books and PRA. Wikipedia should present the fact. Since this is about Mr. LaRouches political views, it should state them and offer links to critics and supporters. It does not need to be another venue for personal attack on Mr. LaRouche. The same goes for Buchanan, Perot, Reform Party, Republican Party and all those PRA, Public Eye, and Mr. Berlet have advocated against outside of wikipedia. Thus, this page needs to be less than it is, more about LaRouches ideas without attacks or material used from Berlet, King and his associates, let there be links outside of wikipedia to PRA where that is already done sufficiently. Let the LaRouche people edit this page without interference from SlimVirgin, Will Beback, Cberlet and associates who have an agenda. These are legitimate points of contention. --Northmeister 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not free advetising space for political figures, it is an encyclopedia, in which critical information, accurate, properly sourced, NPOV, and fair is central to the project of informing readers.--Cberlet 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Section deleted at suggestion of informal mediator--Cberlet 14:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I request that all parties to this dispute refrain from further personal attacks. It is not fair to turn this page into a place to publicly post nasty and vicious personal attacks calling my outside professional integrity into question.--Cberlet 16:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I ask that all sides refrain from personal attacks, argumentative phrases, polemical speech, and in general, avoid using any descriptive category for your opponents that you might reasonably assume they disagree with. Ted 17:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, then, as a sign of good faith, Northmeister would agree to stop adding negative material to the entry on Chip Berlet.--Cberlet 13:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The 'negative' material I added was however legitimate and sourced material in the same light as material Cberlet has added to Patrick Buchanan, Reform Party, LaRouche, Perot among other sites. I have not added material in somewhile and don't intend to in that regard. I wished only to show what NLG is and Mr. Berlet's association and leadership therin for his biography. --Northmeister 15:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, one problem that this conversation is suffering from is context containment. so let's make this explicit:
 * outside activities should not be addressed:it doesn't matter whether the other editor is president of his local I Love/Hate Lyndon LaRouche fan club; he has a perfect right to edit here so long as he is following Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia content can only be evaluated by:
 * the text is actually written within the article
 * the verifiable sources that that writing points too


 * do not psychologize:trying to establish the over-arching intent of another editor never works. you must simple respond to what they say in this particular article. article-spanning arguments are always POV.  if you find yourself making the same statements in multiple wiki articles, as well as your writing in other venues, and getting in the same fights in multiple places, then you are most assuredly trying to foster a certain opinion.  whether a good opinion or a bad opinion is irrelevant; it doesn't belong here
 * don't blur the boundary between opinion and fact:this is a difficult NPOV issue—saying something repeatedly does not make it true, nor does it make it false, it just makes it tedious. getting someone to listen to you doesn't make you right or wrong, it just makes them willing to listen to you.  if someone has disagreed with you, you are not going to get them to agree with you by cramming the argument down their throat or by pointing to all the other people who do agree with you.  you will only get them to agree with you (if at all) by making clear, simple, logical statements, so they understand your perspective.

communication is different from talk. communication aims at creating consensus. ok? Ted 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ted, can I ask how you became involved as mediator, and whether you're a member of the Mediation Committee? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see now: Mediation Cabal. Ted, speaking only for myself, I'm not sure mediation is appropriate here. Everyone editing this page must do so within the terms of our content policies, particularly V, NOR, and NPOV, and also within the terms of relevant arbcom rulings, particularly the two pertaining to LaRouche editors. There can be no compromise of these policies or rulings, and no consensus by editors on one page to override them. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Judge, executioner, and jury? Is that your position SlimVirgin? Ted, you can see above one of the tactics they use, as SlimVirgin began to use it against you. Automatically they begin to attack a person. --Northmeister 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

SlimV (nicely evocative name, by the way...): my personal opinion (and this is only my personal opinion, but I think it's a useful perspective) is that the rules and policies are there to maintain the quality of the articles and provide some 'quality of life' benefits for the editors. the ArbCom rulings can be used if the situation gets out of hand, but I do not believe ArbCom will (or would even want to) send wiki-cops to enforce it if none of the editors on this page felt the need to apply the ruling.


 * All the regular editors on this page do feel the need to abide by arbcom decisions, I believe. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

in the same vein, if everyone editing here feels that the content is V, NPOV and NOR, then there is no centralized authority to come and say that it's not so.


 * The content has to be in accordance with V, NPOV, and NOR, regardless of what anyone feels. That is non-negotiable, although of course people differ in their interpretation of those policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

if there were, it would actually violate the spirit of wikipedia. You may not like LaRouche, which is fine, but would you really object to some a pro-LaRouche person making additions in a civilized, considerate, and cooperative, NPOV manner?


 * Absolutely not, but it's something I have never experienced. If a LaRouchie edited in a "civilized, considerate, and cooperative, NPOV manner," we wouldn't know he was a LaRouchie, and there'd be no problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My efforts as a mediator are geared towards helping everyone involved in this conflict gain some perspective, and towards creating a space in which open communication can exist without it spinning off into protracted arguments. what's happening here, first and formost, is that anytime anyone says anything, someone objects; and after a couple of snappy responses the original point is lost, and all that's left is two people hashing and rehashing their own personal sore spots. I'm trying (in just this little corner of the talk pages) to let people say what they need to say, and get limited feedback, without it spinning off into volumes of bile. I mean, look at Northmeister's response to you... that's just pure anger expressing itself. he's pissed at you: there's no material content to it in this passage, but the emotion is clear as day. In my experience, all it takes is for you to acknowledge that anger, and that he has a right to be angry, and maybe even for you to understand a little why he's angry (though that's not always possible to express), and then even if nothing else on this page changes, the working environment will be a little bit cleaner and nicer for all concerned.


 * With respect, the LaRouche editors come to these pages to cause trouble and to make personal attacks. It has been going on the entire time I've been an editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here about the content—I'm a political scientist; I'm paid not to have opinions on things like this (lol). but I have complete confidence that the group of you can work out a reasonable compromise if I can get you all to take a breather from trying to chew each other's heads off. :-)


 * I appreciate your good intentions, Ted, but (again, speaking only for myself), there can't be any compromising on the content policies, the behavior policies, or arbcom rulings. If Northmeister or any other editor has an issue with an edit, they need only say: "This sentence X is unacceptable because ..." and then refer to a policy or lack of source or whatever. They don't need a mediator for that, because all the editors on this page are people who will listen to reasonable arguments. But POV rants and personal attacks will not be listened to.


 * You might want to bear in mind, just to give you the flavor of the madness, that a former LaRouche editor believed I was sent to edit Wikipedia by the British royal family to protect the Queen and Prince Philip against allegations that they killed Diana. This is the level of nonsense these pages have sometimes witnessed. So I'm sorry, I don't mean to obstruct your efforts, and I wish you well, but I'm afraid I'm not interested in mediation. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

well, SV, all I can say is that mediation has no hope of helping at all if you all don't want to work with the process. that's the nature of the beast. if you want me to withdraw I most certainly will, just say so here; and then Northmeister can move on to the next stage, if he's so inclined.


 * I'm not in a position to ask you to withdraw. All I can say is that I'm not interested in mediation, speaking for myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

please allow me to make a few comments on what you've posted here, however:
 * 1) The content has to be in accordance with V, NPOV, and NOR, regardless of what anyone feels. this statement is dangerously close to saying that the content has to be true, which is against the conventional interpretation of wikipedia policy.


 * No, not close at all. The criterion for entry into WP is verifiability, not truth, as V makes clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

the only litmus test for V, NPOV, and NOR is consensus among interested editors (and the wikipedia community at large) that V, NPOV, and NOR are satisfied.


 * Yes and no. Editors on a given page can't reach consensus that the policies have been satisfied if they clearly have not been. Or rather, of course they can, but the consensus will be of no consequence. V, NOR, and NPOV may not be overridden. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing philosphy with you; just pointing out a pragmatic reality.
 * 1) While your comments on LaRouche supporters are noted (and in fact, I have seen a lot of evidence of that myself, even in the last few posts by Northmeister), I have to tell you that you are making an ugly and unfortunate category error when you make the blanket assertion that LaRouche editors come to these pages to cause trouble and to make personal attacks.  that's pure POV prejudice.  perhaps it's true of many; perhaps it's true of most, but when you imply all as you have here, you are denying the possibility that any LaRouche editor might be capable of being reasonable.  might as well tell them to go sit on the back of the bus, yah?


 * No, I was making specific reference to Northmeister, and to others, because I have witnessed his behavior. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

that being said, you've actually given a good suggestion here, so let's ask Northmeister. N, can you restrict yourself to the following editing behaviors (at least for a short time, till you build trust)? please put your signature below this if you're willing to try, and then we'll ask the other editors to sign if they are willing to give you the chance. Ted 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * work slowly: make only one or two edits, every couple of days, changing only small, clearly defined sections. wikipedia will be around for a long time; there's no great hurry.
 * document: For any change you make, create a section in the talk pages (perhaps under a large heading called "Northmeister's Changes"), containing the following: the insertion/deletion, the reasons you have for inserting/deleting (1 or 2 sentences maximum), and positive verification (1 or 2 sentences maximum) showing external support for your action (do not try to discredit other sources, just verify your own).
 * peaceful pleasantness: refrain from all character hypotheses, all comments on personal qualifications, all long harangues and angry commentary, no matter what people say to or about you, or about what you believe. if necessary, take a day or two before you respond to anything, and then respond simply, clearly, and in as few words as possible.  again, there's no hurry, and no need to respond in the heat of the moment.


 * Yes I certainly agree to all of the above you stated. I was defending NathanDW and Anol on this page from what I exprienced elsewhere as a new editor. My responses to SlimVirgin were a reflection of the distress a new editor will feel by being labeled and having his edits scrutinized for the label itself. I only wish civility here and a stop to what I mentioned above. Ted you have been wonderful here and I support your entire effort. So the answer is yes. I will not edit this page most likely, but wish the same courtesy is applied to NathanDW, Anol and other users and to me on the pages I edit. I can work with anyone willing to give me the benefit of the doubt and who will not automatically jump to conclusions and labels. I have no agenda but accuracy and in this regard to NathanDW and Anol above, fairness. Thanks. --Northmeister 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly support mediation where appropriate, however I'm not sure what it is being mediated here. User:Northmeister hasn't made any edits to the article, and it isn't clear what he is proposing either. The discussion seems to be about general principles rather than specific edits. Unless I know what is being mediated I don't know how to participate. -Will Beback 20:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Will: you can find the original mediation request here, though I suppose you know that, since you added a comment. really, this is less of a content thing; the issue seems to be that Northmeister et al have a perception that they are being suppressed, and whether or not it is true, the perception itself is likely to produce a certain amount of anxiety. Northmeister has agreed to follow the rather stringent guidelines I've laid down to show that his intent is honest... are you willing to allow him to try? I suggest baseball rules (to allow for a learning curve): three violations of the rules he's agreed to, and you can feel free to assume that your original perception of him was correct; four successes (edits to the article that either meet with general acceptance, or at least avoid conflict), and you accept that he is acting in good faith. I'd also ask that you extend this courtesy to other articles (even though I haven't been asked to mediate there), and to Anol and NathanDW if (and only if) they sign their names to the same agreement that Northmeister did. would you be willing to agree to that? Ted 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the above was directed only at Will. In case not, I'd like to note that I do not agree to this. I will approach Northmeister the way I approach any other editor. Edits written in accordance with our content policies and sourced where necessary to reputable publications will be retained; anything else is likely to be reverted, particular the deletion of sourced material. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh...) SV, if you will look at the guidelines I've asked Northmeister to sign, they are a de facto promise that he will behave according to a rather strict version of Wikipidia standards. I've tried to set it up so that (a) it's as easy as possible for you and the other editors to check the validity of his sources, and (b) all of the personal/emotional commentary is eliminated. if in fact your main concern is with Wikipedia policy, then you already agree to allow Northmeister to edit the page under the conditions I've spelled out (because it will be very hard for him to violate Wikipedia policy if he follows the guidelines). if, on the other hand, you have unilaterally decided to revert everything that Northmeister does just because Northmeister does it (because you've got it stuck in your head that he's a disreputable editor), then please state so explicitly here, so that we have all our cards on the table.


 * Ted, you've made 98 edits to articles and you're trying to mediate? Or did you change user accounts or something? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Slim, as I've said several times, this is an informal mediation. if you doubt my ability you can, of course, say explicitly that you reject the offer of mediation; then I will leave and mark this case as closed per your request, with prejudice against you. that will allow Northmeister to move on the the next stage of the process, if he so chooses. I'll freely admit that my inexperience might make me a bit naïve: I happen to believe that anyone who wants to play by the rules ought to be allowed to play. Northmeister has explicitly agreed to play by the rules for the time being, and I'm having a hard time understanding why someone with your long editing experience would object to that. perhaps you could clarify that for me?


 * Ok Ted, I've said this several times but I'll say it once more. I am rejecting the offer of mediation and will treat Northmeister the same way I treat any other editor. If his edits improve the page (even arguably) and conform with our policies, I will leave it. If not, I will revert. Thank you for your time. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm asking you to take an explicit stand, one way or the other. I think a fair compromise has been offered, and I am working under the assumption that any reasonable person would agree to it. you can (a) disagree with me and suggest something fairer (which I would welcome), (b) disagree and reject any such effort (which would sadden me, but I'd survive), or (c) agree and accept it, so long as Northmeister complies on his end. you can choose in words, or you can choose through your actions, as you choose—I don't mind either way—but sooner or later you're going to have to make an explicit choice. might as well be up-front about it.

And yes, I have been called "infuriatingly reasonable" in the past, and I do know why. my apologies. Ted 00:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

<-I have been informed in the past that refusing an informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal has no prejudicial outcome in formal Wikipedia process. I wish this matter to be cleared up before anything else. I feel like I am being blackmailed into participating here.--Cberlet 00:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone may refuse informal mediation without prejudice, especially when it's being conducted like this. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

ah, sorry, I let disciplinary jargon slip into the text; that phrase means something very specific and different in my field. you're quite correct, the outcome and process of this have no impact on any formal wikipedia process; none whatsoever. however, I will note the reason why mediation was refused in the case log, and I will comment on why I think it failed, and Northmeister is certainly within his rights to present that as evidence at a formal mediation or arbitration (and the formal mediators and arbitrators are completely within their rights to ignore it, as they choose). I'm a nobody, with no power and no authority beyond my capacity to write a sentence or two in a case file. my apologies for being unclear.

that being said, I do understand why you feel blackmailed. I am intentionally constructing a situation which forces you to declare explicitly whether Northmeister (a) is allowed to post under restrictions which keep him within Wikipedia guidelines, or (b) is designated a persona non grata regardless of how well he behaves. that is an uncomfortable decision for you to make, I know, because it pits your personal preferences against your objective sense of justice; however, it's a decision you need to make, otherwise this article will continue to be mired in conflict. So long as Northmeister (et al) cannot distinguish whether your opposition to their posts has objective or subjective roots, they will continue to assume the latter and will keep causing you headaches. I'm simply trying to put all the cards on the table so everyone can take the correct action (whatever that might be) to reach a resolution.

and no, I'm not asking you to like my methods. I'll tell you, though... I started with a communicative approach (which got absolutely nowhere), then I switched to a social contract approach (which got somewhere with Northmeister, but not with you guys), now I'm on to an appeal to pure Kantian ethics. I have other approaches I can use, if you like... just say the word. but I can only work with what you give me. Ted 00:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as they follow NPOV, are accurate, fair, cite to published sources, and follow other Wiki guidelines, I don't care if an editor is an outright neonazi. It is not an uncomfortable decision for me here on Wiki. --Cberlet 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ted, your behavior is turning into trolling, in my view. Please make your notes in your log and stop this. Article talk pages are for discussing article content, not individual editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries, SV, per your request I'm leaving. you can see the final disposition of the case (for what little it's worth) here. No hard feelings, I hope. :-)

Yikes
First of all, the colors (!) certainly brighten this place up. Second, I can't quite see what's going on here: There's no current dispute about the neutrality/verifiability et al. about the article that I can see, though several people seem to think that there is. I don't quite know what to say, really, other than:
 * Please stop mentioning people's names. It's not about us, it's about the article. Every time you start a sentence with "SlimVirgin ..." you are almost certainly being off topic. Please talk about the article, not the contributors, etc.

But in any case, I hope this discussion leads to something.--Sean Black <sup style="color:#FC0FC0;">(talk) 02:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Out of chaos comes order, out of darkness comes light. ...or so one hopes...  ;-)  I'll point you to the original mediation request here.  Northmeister feels that he, Anol, and NathanDW are being harrassed and excluded without due cause, here and across multiple other pages.  Not my place to give an opinion on that, given the circumstances; I'm just trying to find a mechanism whereby he and the others can demonstrate good faith, and earn at least a small amount of trust from editors who have good reason not to trust, from their past experiences.


 * and thank you; you are quite right about not mentioning people's names. and I'm glad you like the color...  shall we add  some red, and make it really christmasy? Ted 06:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)