Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Swatjester/Questions for the candidate

Fallujah Question
I certainly believe you made an error that you won't concede. However, as this is exactly the sort of issue you'll face I'd ask you to look at these diffs on the talk page of Talk:List of massacres: You will see that I added Fallujah and it was immediately reverted twice by an editor and then by a different editor, again twice but this time he removed the entire list with his second revert. My addition was accompanied by a reference - unlike most of the others which were unreferenced yet remained with the 'citation request' tag. Do you think the immediate deletion of the Fallujah text constitutes edit warring (as I do) and that the culprits should be blocked?(Sarah777 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC))
 * 1) (cur) (last)  20:11, November 17, 2007 Knulclunk (Talk | contribs) m (4,096 bytes) (What a crummy source. I'm no fan of this war,but this is silly. At least get the original Guardian article.) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 20:06, November 17, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (195,516 bytes) (→After 1945 - fix) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 20:05, November 17, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (195,516 bytes) (→After 1945 - add massacre) (undo)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 19:57, November 17, 2007 Knulclunk (Talk | contribs) m (195,266 bytes) (Undid revision 172126323 by Sarah777 (talk)) (undo)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 19:53, November 17, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (195,598 bytes) (take it to the talk page; DO NOT engage in edit warring) (undo)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 19:49, November 17, 2007 Michel Tavir (Talk | contribs) m (195,266 bytes) (→Aerial bombardments) (undo)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 19:48, November 17, 2007 Looper5920 (Talk | contribs) (195,266 bytes) (POV back at you...that ref is as biased as they come. No way do those two battles belong on this list.) (undo)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 19:43, November 17, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (195,598 bytes) (pov - discuss on talk page - i provided citations) (undo)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 19:34, November 17, 2007 Looper5920 (Talk | contribs) (195,266 bytes) (→After 1945 - removed Fallujah...it was a battle not a massacre) (undo)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 19:32, November 17, 2007 Sarah777 (Talk | contribs) (195,598 bytes) (→After 1945 - update) (undo)
 * The ref you provided is an extremely biased source, and was unacceptable for inclusion. You violated 3RR and repeatedly inserted text that 3 other people told you was an unacceptable source. The edit warring came from you. Also, your incivility to Looper was unwarranted, especially as he is one of the most prolific and respected contributors to the military history project. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at User talk:Looper5920's attitude to his Talk Page. Thank God he's not an Admin who can abuse his position, eh? He seems to be a great fan of the US army too. So, what exactly is the Wiki-policy on User Talkpages? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC))


 * WP:TALK and WP:USER. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically the way that User Talk pages work, is that if the person doesn't want you to be there, it's harassment for you to continue to irritate them there. They have a large amount of latitude to remove whatever they want from their own talk pages. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record: the List of massacres page history goes on to show that the list appears to have been inadvertently completely deleted in edit #1 above - and self-corrected 20 minutes later as follows: 19:34 (UTC), 17 November 2007 Knulclunk (Talk | contribs) m (195,266 bytes) (oops!).  So whatever is being implied in mentioning the removal of the list is at best incomplete information.   And I don't see how any of this is relevant to Swatjester's candidacy.  Tvoz | talk 11:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether you see it or not it is extremely relevant. Arbcom will adjudicate in cases where assessment of "reliable sources" is at the core; as they are in nearly ALL disputes where POV is being alleged. And his assessment of the relative "rightness" of my edits v Looper's edits seems to me to indicate fairly serious inbuilt (perhaps unconscious) bias - the remarks about the Guardian tend to confirm this view. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Numeracy Question
I have absolutely no idea who Looper is other than he engaged in edit warring and, btw, I didn't violate 3RR. And TWO, not three, editors had a problem with my source. Obviously ability to count isn't a requirement at Arbcom! "The ref you provided is an extremely biased source" - says who (apart from you, obviously)? Members and supporters of the US armed forces?!!! Is the Guardian an "extremely biased source"? If this is an example of the fairness and judgement you'd bring to Arbcom it is a pretty scary thought that you might get elected. But I reckon I'm doing my best for you, given the electorate. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Oh, btw...when you are finished counting I expect a total withdrawal of the "breached 3RR" charge and an apology for your carelessness. (I know you have problems with admitting you are wrong but this time the facts are indisputable). (Sarah777 (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC))


 * I'm not a fan of the Guardian: I find them to be a biased source in many cases, however a site entitled "remember fallujah" clearly is not an objective fact checked source of information. And please review: Actually three editors reverted you, Mmx1, Looper, and Knulclunk, and you HAVE violated 3RR. However, this page is not intended to be a review of your editing disputes, and as such, I'm about to move this entire section to the talk page. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  02:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't surprise me you aren't a fan of the Guardian...the reverts were for two separate massacres, that's not 3RR. I'm not a fan of lots of MSM sites...doesn't make them unacceptable. (Sarah777 (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC))


 * From WP:3RR:An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  05:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not going to enforce it, I'm just pointing it out. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  05:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * O golly gosh! Didn't know that - but then I don't really do much reverting; nonetheless it raises a question of how ANY unpleasant truths can ever get past the legion of US editors - as a quick glance at that "list of massacres" shows very clearly. And the "Guardian" is a questionable source!!!! - while .org's are unacceptable (even more unacceptable than no source atall atall!) - but I assume the Washington Post and NYT are fine, independent reliable papers who who never spin a line about Iraq or anything like that? Not sure this issue should be sidelined here as the issue of "reliable sources" is at the very core of Wiki's attempt to have "verifiable" material. I think the real attack on Wiki WP:NPV is the manipulation of what sources are "reliable" and which aren't. Do you not think questions about this issue on the "questions to the candidates page" would be very helpful to the community in making up their mind? Certainly your views on the Guardian might be of interest to a clear majority of Editors on this side of the Atlantic. (Sarah777 (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

It seems that this issue has been raised before, see here(Sarah777 (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC))


 * I never said that the Guardian was an unreliable source. We have a standard for what constitutes a reliable source or not. Biased sources however, are much less well defined. I believe that's for the community to decide, i.e. start a discussion on WT:RS if you feel so strongly. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole attempt to make Wiki adopt WP:NPV is complete nonsense if we don't also have neutrality in the selection of reliable sources.
 * That is the key. So of course I feel strongly about it. I can't see how anyone who doesn't feel very strongly about it should really be going for administrative posts. Systematic bias in sources = systematic bias in Wiki, as day follows night. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
 * WP:RS excludes obviously biased sources. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  21:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a novel idea. If you have problems with me as an editor then bring it up with me and stop bothering Swatjester.  I do not know him from a hole in the wall and fail to see how the arguments you and I had over some edits have landed on his plate.  I have responded on the article's talk page.  You should do the same and leave this editor alone.--Looper5920 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looper, in the text you removed from your own page (calling it a "rant"), you specifically told me to 1)stay off your page and 2)you said rather clearly that you "did not want to talk to me". What has happened to change your mind? Sadly, at this stage I don't really want to talk to you anymore as your behavior on the "massacres" article (edit warring) has been noted and condemned by others; though obviously not by Swatjester. As you are not going up for Arbcom, my problems with you are not really of any relevance to the election so I'm not really sure why you are here. I am dealing with Swatjester on matters of critical importance to our project; how we can ensure WP:NPV. The replies thus far don't inspire much confidence, and I would like to continue to explore this issue with the candidate without any third-party interference. Thanks.(Sarah777 (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Well of course I did not note it and condemn it: I'm not active on that article. However, anyone is welcome to ask questions of me, it is not restricted to any one person. As for matters of critical importance, I think you're exaggerating a bit. WP:NPOV is of critical importance, but this particular article is certainly not. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly agree with you on the article! It seems almost a recipe for disputation and I see no point in the name "massacre"; why not just the neutral "killings" which would take the heat out of it? (Sarah777 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
 * I won't disagree with you there. Massacre is definitely a troublesome term, and though I haven't researched it, I'm not aware of any firm definition of it (if there is, I retract.) It's not like other charged words like "decimation" which DO have a clear definition (i.e. 10%). You could propose a move, or do an article RFC, or go to WP:RM, etc. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've done that proposing the less-than-Shakespearean title "List of mass killings". I'm not sure if I got the process exactly right - despite our occasional differences would it be cheeky to ask you to check? Regards (Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
 * It looks complete to me, now you just have to wait until the RM process finishes. Oh, and if it gets contested by someone, keep in mind that incomplete and contested move requests go in the same place, so don't think that someone is saying yours is incomplete. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)