Talk:Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation/Archive 1

Archive 1

External Links to blogs

Linking to wardchurchill.net would seem to violate http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:External_links, in that it is a blog. Policy discourages links to "blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Since wardchurchill.net is published anonymously, there is no recognized authority. Policy also discourages links to: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." Such stuff abounds at wardchurchill.net. I have also removed the link to pirateballerina, following the same policy.Verklempt 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That is one of the lamest excuses I have yet to encounter. Churchill's web page is one of the only places to go to get his side of the story. You should read the 3 revert rule section and take note of the fact that it is viewed as being a last resort. I think that you should take a long honest look at what you're doing and realize that your behavior borderlines on being disruptive. Read the reasoning behind the fact that one administrator decided to protect the Churchill page because of an inveterate editing warrior . Is he or she talking about you ??

I am willing to take you all the way to arbitration on the matter of the Churchill website. It belongs in the Ward Churchill article . I think that you may be in serious danger of being permanently blocked if you do not cease and desist from edit warring. I am also convinced that you mean well. The very idea of not including the Churchill website in question in the main article is ludicrous. Please think about it. Try being inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Albion moonlight 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for me, but there are substantive issues of policy to be worked out here. I have already outlined them above, and I would ask you to address the policy instead of personal issues. You argue that wardchurchill.net is one of the only places to get Churchill's side. I don't think that is correct. Churchill's side is explicated in this Wikipedia article. Furthermore, the postings on the wc blog are linked on a host of other blogs as well.

The central issue here is whether this particular blog qualifies for a place in the external links section according to Wikipedia policy. Will you address this question?Verklempt 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No. The central issue is your penchant for edit warring. You need to stop it. You are being disruptive. The truth of this is on record in the wikipedia archives. A few days ago you argued that that site was already on the misconduct site. I thought you were arguing in good faith but you proved me wrong. Albion moonlight 02:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago, I had not looked at the Wikipedia policy regarding external links. Now I that have looked at the policy, I see that it proscribes links to blogs except under specific exceptions. Please assume good faith, be civil, don't engage in personal attacks, and do engage in negotiation. Please address the policy issue at hand.Verklempt 03:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've silently been watching this evolve. I haven't seen Albion moonlight be uncivil or engage in personal attacks. He/she assumed good faith until actions showed otherwise. -- Craigtalbert 05:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the policy on external links again and click on the part that says WHAT SHOULD BE LINKED That link is going into the Ward Churchill article. Wikipedian policy dictates that it belongs there !! There is no need for negotiation in this case. Albion moonlight 07:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "official site" phrase? Whoever owns and writes the blog in question has gone to lengths to cover up his or her identity. The blog's ownership and authorship is unknown. What is your evidence that this is Churchill's official site?Verklempt 17:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not need any evidence. The site is going in and that is all there is to it. Your days of being disruptive are coming to an end. Have a nice day. Albion moonlight 01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that this is a collaborative effort. I have asked you to justify the inclusion of this link in terms of Wikipedia policy. Personal attacks are a violation of policy, and they don't substitute for good faith negotiation.Verklempt 01:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed wikipedia is a collaborative effort No one needs your permission to edit any page on wikipedia. I will build consensus as I go . If you edit war with the majority you will lose. Consensus is good. Edit warring is bad. I have already directed you toward wikipedias policy on what should be included but you are apparently unwilling to abide by that policy, In my view that is a show of bad faith. No one should have to prove to you that that is his official site. Albion moonlight 07:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me make certain that I understand your argument for inclusion: The policy advocates including official sites of the article's subject, and you are assuming that this is Churchill's official blog. If it is indeed Churchill's official blog, then that should be easy to demonstrate. But the site itself gives no authorship information. The domain is registered to Domains by Proxy, Inc. In other words, there is no evidence that this is indeed Ward Churchill's official blog. Anyone can still register wardchurchill.info or one of the other open domains and start up their own Churchill page.

It is clear that this blog is operated by a Churchill supporter, because it contains no links to anything critical of Churchill. But if it is operated by Churchill himself, or sanctioned by him, then I have to wonder why is the authorship concealed? One could argue that Churchill has a habit of writing under sock-puppets, and so this would not be inconsistent with his past practices. That's one of the things he's being fired for--citing to a sock puppet without disclosing his own authorship. So I do think it is possible that Churchill is behind this page.

Because of this ambiguity, I don't have a real strong opinion on the inclusion of this page. I think it's a judgment call. But I do think that there is a a significant question of policy to be worked out here. If this is indeed Churchill's own site, then it should be included. If it is not Churchill's own site, then it should not be included, because it violates other elements of the policy.

If your case for inclusion is based on your opinion that this is indeed Churchill's own site, it seems to me that a good faith negotiation would at least involve you trying to offer some evidence or otherwise make a case for that position.

The case against inclusion is twofold:

First, this site meets the definition of a blog, and links to blogs are discouraged by policy except when authored by a recognized authority. Since this blog contains no authorship claims, it cannot meet that exception.

Second, the site contains many factual errors, which I can easily demonstrate if necessary. External links to unreliable sources are also discouraged under policy. The site is clearly not an objective or reliable source. Most of the posts are LTTEs, or closely related to that format.Verklempt 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what Verklempt is claiming is the "definition of a blog". I am certain this argument is opportunistic on his part—he simply does not want material that fails to condemn Churchill, not even via links.

Narrowly the wardchurchill.net site is clearly not a blog in the usual sense. The distinction is not about the particular server software that's used, but about the style and purpose of a website. The Solidarity Network clearly has a particular perspective to push (in support of Churchill), but it aggregates statements by a large number of different academics, some of reasonable repute. This is very different from the ongoing musings of one particular blog author, and even from a blog that might have occasional guest posts. The content of wardchurchill.net is clearly editorial rather than reference/news (as are most links throughout these related WP articles), but an external link shows the existence of the site, it's not a deference to the content of an external site... and that's germane. LotLE×talk 19:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the intro to Wikipedia's article on "Blogs":

A blog (a portmanteau of web log) is a website where entries are written in chronological order and displayed in reverse chronological order. "Blog" can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.

Blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject such as food, politics, or local news; some function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on art (artlog), photographs (photoblog), sketchblog, videos (vlog), music (MP3 blog), or audio (podcasting), and are part of a wider network of social media.

The site in question clearly fits squarely into the Wikipedia definition of blogs, with no contradictions at all. As such, links to this site need to meet Wikipedia policy on blogs.Verklempt 19:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that wiki's policy on reverting should take precedence over wiki policy on almost every other wiki policy including the one on external links. Please read them again. If and when I or anyone else add that website or any other edits for that matter they should not be reverted. They should be discussed and or reworded in accordance with th::::::e wiki guidelines on reverting. With that said I will refrain from adding that web site until a majority consensus can be reached. If someone else adds it then it become another matter. I share a computer with my twin brother Moses Weintraub. He and I have agreed not to edit or make arguments on the same articles. I am looking to put an end to the warring going on in some of these articles. I am looking at the Leonard Peltier article at the moment. Albion moonlight 17:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I attempted to engage Lulu in negotiation both on this talk page and in my edit comments, with no success until after he was blocked for excessive reverting. Please also note that I ceased to edit after I reached the three-revert limit. I am simply requesting that edits on this page be made to conform to Wikipedia policy.Verklempt 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. Albion moonlight 07:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

IF

If everyone were to adhere to wiki's policy on reverting. No-one would would have to ask anyone to stop being disruptive. Edit wars would cease to exist and harmony would prevail. In general people would feel included instead of excluded. Is that too much to ask of anyone and or everyone ?? Or are we doomed to having to ask administrators make these edits for us ??

I just read the article on personal attacks and discovered that by being plural instead of singular I can avoid hurting anyones feelings. So Please abide by wiki's policy on reverting. Please everyone please....... Albion moonlight 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You too were blocked.

After a battle with anonymous. I saw it on your talk page I also read the history of this talk page and found that lulu made a claim about you that did not seem to make the the The talk page itself. I intend to investigate this matter. at length if need be. Albion moonlight 08:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain who you were talking to. If it was me, you are correct. I was blocked. I think the rules were applied incorrectly in my blocking, but so be it. No big deal. I'm not sure how else to deal with an editor like Lulu who refuses to negotiate and who deals in ad hominem. I would note that no one has yet addressed the substantive issues of policy that I have raised. All of this other stuff is ad hominem distraction.Verklempt 20:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

              I have in fact addressed the issues of policy and so did Lulu . You just didn't like the answers you were given.  Albion moonlight 07:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not true.--Getaway 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Lulu was skeptical that this site is a blog, but he did not offer a definition of a blog. I offered the Wikipedia definition of a blog, which clearly describes this site.

You cited to the Links policy, but you did not specify how this site in question could be excluded from the anti-blog rule in the Links policy. The only way I see around the anti-blog rule in this particular case is if it were WC's official site. But no one has offered any evidence or argument as to why it should be considered WC's official site. That is the substantive issue here that has yet to be addressed.

It seems to me that engaging in behind-the-scenes politicking does not substitute for a reasoned argument from evidence, nor do ad hominem accusations of being "disruptive."Verklempt 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Verklempt. It is fairly clear that both the Pirate and WC Support websites are blogs and as such they are not sources that are approved for Wikipedia. They should both be removed. Also, I agree with Verklempt's comments about Lulu's refusal to discuss and his continued use of ad hominem. Lulu's should discuss the changes and he should stop engaging in ad hominem.--Getaway 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am working behind the scenes to put a stop to the disruption. You can help me by seeking consensus amongst the regular editors of the Ward Churchill page. That would be useful. Albion moonlight 07:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Getaway is a known Sockpuppet

And now he is defending Verklempt's position from out of nowhere but do not fear 2 ADMINISTRATORS are on to him. Eventually he will be barred forever. So be careful there Verklempt .......... Good faith is running very thin these days. Albion moonlight 16:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments like the one above from Albion moonlight are not appropriate for the talk page of the article. It needs to be taken to another page. Albion moonlight, please take all of your incorrect and false and defamatory allegations to other parts of Wikipedia and leave the Ward Churchill misconduct issues talk page for discussion of the article. That is the only appropriate avenue according to Wikipedia policy. I thank you in advance for following the rules.--Getaway 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Item 63 of Getaways tallk page is a good start.

The proof is on record. Start at item 63 then browse around. Also go to my talk page. An administrator names him as a known sockpuppet. As you peruse his talk page think of the similarties between his style of disruption Verklempt's style of disruption. Albion moonlight 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Albion moonlight: The talk page of this article is not the appropriate place for your delusional rantings about me being a sockpuppet or whatever you claim. Take it somewhere else.--Getaway 15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I noticed that you have been talking to various admins to do a check on my status and Verkempt status as sockpuppets. I have also noticed that all of these admins have summarily rejected your belief basis upon your lack of evidence and because no one seems to see this sockpuppet theory except you. Do you also see UFOs??? Please advise.--Getaway 15:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You were Blocked

You have used sock puppet in the past. That is enough with in itsself to draw suspicion. You have also been BLOCKED in your past for refusing to accept consensus. IT IS ON YOUR TALK PAGE. I have not made a formal request to have you checked out but I think others will as the days go by. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE. Your actions have defamed you and followed you to this article. Albion moonlight 16:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this talk page is not the appropriate place for your rambling, dissoriented rants about me. Please take your false and defamatory comments to the appropriate venue. If you have a complaint that you want to make about me then please forward it to an admin or post it in the appropriate forum.--Getaway 21:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

An administrators quote leveled at user Getaway

Good faith is not the issue. The issue is that the evidence was pretty solid that that user and you are the same person. First of all, BballJones has a very sparadic edit history, which is common among sockpuppets. Secondly, several times, he's appeared out of seemingly nowhere after several weeks/months of no edits and reverted to a version you supported. Here is an example of him not editing for 4 days and then returning to revert back to your version of the Fred Phelps article. Here is a case of you reverting to a version by Bball almost word for word. This last time he edited, he appeared immediately after you had been blocked. Here is an edit to the Sam Brownback article by you shortly before you were blocked. Here are 2 edits from Bball just after you were blocked. The summaries are strikingly similar. And we also have this comment concerning Limbaugh on a talk page right after you were blocked. Why would Bball not make any substantial edits for 5 1/2 months (only one edit in that span) and then return to make edits on subjects that you have a major interest in (Limbaugh) or had just made edits to (Brownback)? And we also have the fact that you two seem to have the exact same interests. Both of you have made extensive edits to Condoleezza Rice, Fred Phelps and also topics involving Limbaugh and other conservatives. Plus, we have the thing where Bball was blocked but didn't make any comments saying that he shouldn't be blocked. I've been at this a long time and I know of very few users who have been blocked for conduct issues but then stay silent. Most are upset about being blocked, which is understandable. Nobody wants to be told that they can't do something. But. Silence from this user, which usually indicates a sockpuppet in my experience. And the final evidence that Bball is you is that the last time Bball edited extensively was immediately after you had been blocked on September 15th for a 3RR violation. And again, he hit articles that you had just edited on. Here are edits he made on the 17th compared to those you had made just before you were blocked. Same section of the article. Same POV.

This all adds up to you being the same person as Bball, which is why I blocked both of you. It's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence. I'd suggest not using Bball or any other sockpuppet when you are blocked. Instead, I would suggest following our policies and guidelines. Because it's a slippery slope. The more times you violate policy, the longer the blocks will be and the less of a leash you will get from other users and administrators. And from looking at your edits while preparing this stuff, I can safely say that you need to work better with others on here. I have absolutely no problem with people editing from a certain POV. In a way, our articles would be colorless if we didn't have passionate editing. I'm all for passionate editing as long as the user doing the editing is respectful to others and to our policies. Several times (including twice in the last few weeks), you've crossed that line. It's like with the comments up above. I blocked you for violating 3RR (by most definitions) and for edit warring despite a consensus. Instead of just taking the block, you assumed that I personally disagreed with your views. That's immaterial. I actually have no opinion on what you are trying to insert into the Limbaugh article. I only care about the fact that you violated 3RR despite a consensus. And even if there wasn't a consensus, you still violated 3RR by most definitions. It had nothing to do with WHAT you said. It had to do with the methods you used to say it, if that makes sense.

So. Keep up with the passionate editing. But try to respect the other side's views as much as your own. And try to assume good faith. Just because someone blocks you doesn't mean that they disagree with you. That's not why people get blocked. They get blocked for flouting and violating policy.

Woohookity said that

Albion moonlight 16:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this talk page is not the appropriate place for your rambling, dissoriented rants about me. Please take your false and defamatory comments to the appropriate venue. If you have a complaint that you want to make about me then please forward it to an admin or post it in the appropriate forum.--Getaway 21:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Another administrator said this to Getaway

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even assist you in working out disputes with other editors, but before I can do that you need to give some kind of indication that you acknowledge the problems with your editing habits. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you want to express your political opinions here, at least try to be a little more subtle about it. Edit warring and muckracking are not going to get you very far. Your edits will have a much better chance of surviving if you actually make an effort to edit from a neutral point of view (and tread carefully around WP:BLP). I'm well aware that there are plenty of other editors out there who are pushing POVs (on both sides) and I'm sure it can be frustrating to deal with if you are passionate about an opposing point of view. If you choose your battles carefully, however, and approach things diplomatically, you may find things significantly less frustrating. If, however, you are only interested in pushing your views by any means necessary, Wikipedia would probably be better off without your efforts. Kaldari 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Albion moonlight 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, this talk page is not the appropriate place for your rambling, dissoriented rants about me. Please take your false and defamatory comments to the appropriate venue. If you have a complaint that you want to make about me then please forward it to an admin or post it in the appropriate forum.--Getaway 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No Thanks. Albion moonlight 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This attacking of Getaway on this talk page is totally inappropriate. If you have evidence, file a sock report. Otherwise, put a sock in it, or take it up on Getaway's talk page. - Crockspot 02:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wardchurchill.net/

I hope I don’t sound like a Johnny Come Lately here, but I went to the site and performed a Whois on http://www.wardchurchill.net/, and in both instances the publisher of the site is not identified. As such, it would appear that this does not conform with the policy on external links. If it turns out that WC is the author/owner of the site, than its use in this article, and any other article on or about WC is permitted, but only in these articles. The same cannot be said about www.pirateballerina.com, which cannot be used anyhwere. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the milieu. I think that they both belong. As I have said earlier Wiki's policy on reversion as a last resort seems to take precedence . The policy on external links allows for user discretion. It would therefor be very reasonable to leave them both and to do so in the spirit of neutrality. With that said I do not edit war and I accept consensus. Unfortunately some of the enemies of Ward Churchill seem hell bent on finding ways to keep neutrality and Ward Churchill's side of the story as far out of the picture as possible. Albion moonlight 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems more of a WP:BLP issue. Self published sites, unless published by the subject of the article, are not allowed.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

I personally cant stand WC, I think he is a many things (none of which are very nice), but BLP is one the more recent remedies to stop articles from turning into attack sites, and if I want it respected in other articles, I have to respect it here. Like I said, just giving my $.02, but as a WP:BLP, issue, it seems pretty cut and dry. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you beleive this is about balance, but balance is too subjective, and policies like WP:BLP are a way to level the playing field. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its about balance and community. But I also think its about politics. My own politics are an amalgam of both left and right. The Churchill issue's article violates Wiki BLP and NPOV policy deserves speedy deletion. If I was an admin I would do so without discussion but since I am not I use the Wiki IGNORE ALL RULES policy as my guide and try to let consensus rule the day. I am going to do my best to keep my own politics out of it. I would love to see both Left and Right working as a team on these types of articles..... Albion moonlight 01:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally I don’t endorse the creation of a content WP:FORK like this, but the inclusion of this material into the main article of this information would overwhelm it. I do think that this particular for deals with all the issues in a fair and NPOV manner, and have had a lot of input from users. With that said, BLP is a non negotiable standard, and consensus does not trump it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should get an administrator to speedily delete the external links you find to be in violation of BLP Otherwise it will remain a matter of opinion and consensus will be allowed to rule the day. Consensus changes of course but I did notice that an admin added a site to the Ward Churchill an external link without ado. Mediation and Arbitration are also viable options. I doubt that the arbitration committee will agree with you but.... Albion moonlight 22:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not an arbitration or RfC issue, its a BLP issue. I cited the policy in the hopes that you would remove it yourself. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It should go and so should Malkin's site. --Theblog 01:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed Malkin, the other source on the subject has detailed enough information to not remove any information as far as I can tell. --Theblog 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, TDC is correct, you don't need a consensus to correct rule violations. Read WP:BLP. --Theblog 01:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole article was deleted by admin

Please read this

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack

and perhaps we can save the Ward Churchill article from the same fate Albion moonlight 11:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Albion moonlight's comment above was and is inappropriate. He/she assumes that the Ward Churchill misconduct article was finished forever. That is not the way that Wikipedia works. There was just not enough editors who wanted to throw the whole thing out as Albion moonlight was happy to do. The article lives: Reinstatement of Ward Churchill Misconduct Article, 16:56, 2 August 2007 (Unprotected Ward Churchill misconduct issues: AfD is over), as it should have been all along. The forces of all that is good and wonderful in the world have won out.--Getaway 16:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki Board of Trustees

I think that the The Wiki Board of Trustees can and may decide to delete all of the Ward Churchill articles. I doubt that they will do so unless Churchill or his lawyer get involved but that could happen in a heart beat. Do you think that Churchill might be interested in helping us edit this page ? Or perhaps some of the people that organize and or respond to his website. http://www.wardchurchill.net/ ? If they do I am sure that good faith will be assumed by everyone. Of course if they are invited are invited they should be asked to edit some of the other articles and become good wikipedians Albion moonlight 09:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! This comment from Albion moonlight is a great example of forum-shopping. Forum-shopping is against Wikipedia policy. See here: Consensus and Forum-shopping]. Please follow the rules of Wikipedia.--Getaway 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

See also: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing

This kid's contrib history shows almost nothing but wikipoliticking, and no constructive editing.Verklempt 21:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

On a narrow point, Verklempt and Getaway are absolutely right. Appealing to the imagined omnipresent and benign Jimbo Wales is a really foolish way to go about discussing article content issues. Jimbo isn't going to intervene on the side of "truth, justice and the American way" (or whatever side) just because an editor feel s/he is right (not even if s/he is right). Aside from lack of inclination, Jimbo has neither the power nor the right to do so. LotLE×talk 22:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't forum shopping at all. This is a case of misreading what I said. I used the word if and I painted a scenario. And asked if you guys thought that Churchill would be interested in helping with this page. I am sincerely sorry that I upset you. But these talk pages are for everyone to read. Maybe someone will read it and run with some of the ideas they may get upon reading my questions. And as for following the wikipedia rules I do. And I wish that you would. You seemed very upset at the idea that you might be forced to quit edit warring and or face adhering to a consensus that you do not agree with. If Lulu is right about Jimbo not having the power to intervene in the event of a Lawsuit or the threat of a lawsuit by Churchill or any one else for that matter I am sure that someone or some small group does. Once again I am sorry if what I had to say upset you. I was merely trying to alert you to the fact that this article could still be in danger of deletion by the boss and or bosses. Your opinions are very important to me but I do think that seeking the help of outsiders such as Churchill himself and or his supporters might be a way of balancing these article's. Assume good faith. Albion moonlight 07:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exceptions

Perhaps you guys forgot to read the entire article on consensus and forum shopping. It does seem important.

• Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for server load or legal issues (copyright, privacy rights, libel), are usually held to have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines).
• Wikipedia:Office Actions on a specific article (such as stubbing or protecting it) are normally considered to be outside the policies of the English Wikipedia.
• Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View or Wikipedia:No original research).
• Foundation Issues lay out the basic principles for all wikimedia projects. These represent a consensus on a very wide scale indeed, among all Wikimedia projects. This means they evolve very slowly.

Albion moonlight 09:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Churchill's ad homenium attack on Professor LaVelle

I have removed Churchill's ad homenium attack on Professor LaVelle. I have removed it several times because it violates BLP. Wikipedia is not a place for personal attacks. However, LotLE×talk and Nandesuka, have both placed the attack back in the article and both have characterized my removal of the personal attack in two very different way. Lulu claims that it is "vandalism" and Nandesuka claims that it is "POV". Removal of comments that violate BLP are neither "vandalism" or "POV-pushing." Churchill does not provide a substantive argument against Professor LaVelle just a name-called routinue and as such it violates BLP and it is NOT encyclopedic.--Getaway 23:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What ad-hominem attack? Nandesuka 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that I partially removed and you reverted goes exactly like the following: Churchill acknowledges elsewhere that LaVelle's work on the Allotment Act has been cited by two scholars; but uses a phrase from Robert Porter, in describing LaVelle's legal interpretation as being designed to "put a happy face on colonialism." Churchill claims of his own citation that he was "as of mid-2001, the most cited ethnic studies scholar in the country". Now, in that sentence there is a part of it that is an ad hominem attack by Churchill where Churchill quotes Porter and calls LaVelle's works as an attempt to "put a happyface on colonalism." This comment does not in anyway assist Churchill in refuting the research misconduct claims against him. The comment does not refute LaVelle's research misconduct charges against Churchill in a substantive way. It is merely a name-calling incident and as such it violates BLP and it is not encyclopedic. There is no reason that Wikipedia should be repeating Churchill's nasty ad hominem attacks. It is not a substantive argument and it is not encyclopedic and it violates BLP and it is off-topic. It needs to be removed from the article. If Churchill has a better counterargument to LaVelle that goes to substantive issues then it should be sourced and placed in the article instead, but at any rate Wikipedia should not repeat ad hominem for the reasons outlined above.--Getaway 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a summary Churchill's defense should be in the article, even if it is weak or comprised of a logical fallacy such as ad hominem. However, it might also be useful to put in a sentence explaining that Churchill has not yet attempted to refute the substance of LaVelle's argument. That way readers will not wrongly assume that the Wikipedia editors have mistakenly summarized the bullshit component of Churchill's defense while leaving out the substantive component.Verklempt 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that in this case it's clearly more appropriate to simply quote the parties in question, and avoid interpretation, since clearly a number of editors in this article have a pretty gigantic axe to grind. Nandesuka 01:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nandesuka and Lulu are right.

First of all neither Churchill or Lavelle are wikipedians and therefor are subject to wikipedia's rules. Secondly of all your concern for BLP is laughable. Nandesuka deleted this article over its being a coatrack and an attack article. You and Getaway should reread wiki policy in general. The whole article could easily be reduced to a stub but you guys wanted to include every bad thing that you could about Churchill. I am with Nandesuka and Lulu on this one. You guys are so angry with Churchill that you are preventing his name from being added to the List of Scholars in the Native American studies article. Perhaps the time has come for you accept that your prejudice is counterproductive to this article and has thus far made it seeminly impossible to comprehendthe heart of Wiki's BLP policy. Albion moonlight 02:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's even more laughable in light of Getaway's recent crusade to include Ernestine Berry's negative comments about Churchill (i.e. about the actual biography subject). Suddenly if Churchill says something negative about someone else (in a way that is germane to the article), BLP suddenly prohibits including Churchill's own comments in his biography. But any other person in the world who says something negative about Churchill absolutely must be in the articles (according to Getaway).

Here is a hint: WP:BLP applies (at least principally, unless there's a coatrack involved) to the biography subject. If someone were to create a biography of John P. Lavelle (which would absolutely be a good thing, as I've been saying for more than two years), it would indeed be entirely inappropriate to let Churchill's criticisms make up the whole article (or really, the criticism is by Robert Porter, but the same point applies). I really don't know anything about Lavelle to try to write his bio, but these editors who apparently worship the ground he walks on must surely know something about him besides a couple negative comments they quote him on for this article! (I.e. the "wannabe" rant that actually has nothing to do with this article topic, and only exists to find another diss of Churchill). LotLE×talk 04:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lulu, your attempts to make my different points of view on the Berry comments and the Porter/Churchill comments is based upon specious logic. It is comparing apples to oranges. Berry's comment is relevant and not a violation of BLP because Berry was in the room when Churchill made his lame attempt to become a member of a tribe with whom he has no ancestry. She was in charge of committee hearing. Churchill's stealing of Porter's comment is/was a merely a out and out personal attack on LaVelle. It brings no light on the subject at hand. It is not based upon facts or figures, just pure Churchillian hatred. If the comment serves any purpose it is to demonstrate how Churchill personally attacks REAL Indians all of the time and how he has built his whole career on the backs of real Indians, by personally attacking them and dragging them down into the crap with him. Here's a hint for you, Lulu, please provide an explanation on how this comment is substantive and how it is not a personal attack. You haven't done that. All you have done is compare one of my comments to another one of my comments. That is typical Lulu red herring tactics. You do not want to discuss the substantive issue that I have raised. You do not want to discuss whether the comment is a personal attack or not. You do not want to discuss whether the comment provides substantive support for Churchill's work/against's LaVelle's claims. You do not want to deal with the underlying issues, just one more attack on Getaway's integrity (typical Lulu/Churchill argument tactics). Now, those types of arguments might just work with new, young Wikipedian editors (or admins that believe they are fighting back "POV"), but they don't hold any water for me. Instead of going back and digging up previous arguments that I have made (oranges) and comparing them to this particular argument (apples) why don't you focus on how Churchill's comment is NOT a personal attack? Also, why don't you explain one more time why, even if it is a personal attack, it doesn't matter that it is a personal attack because the article is not about LaVelle? Under you logic (or lack thereof) it is ok to personally attack other living human being (especially if they are Indian) as long as Ward Churchill is one doing the attacking and as long as the personal attack is buried in the bottom of an article not about the person getting attacked. That is you thought process in a nutshell. Yes, it is pretty ludicrous. Now, why don't you focus on the substance of my argument instead of personally attacking me and dragging over admin's who are sympathetic to your point of view.--Getaway 12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reasonable construction of English wherein the Churchill quote at issue is an ad hominem attack. Your claiming that it is doesn't make it so. "Lavelle wets his bed every night" or "Lavelle is a jerk" are both ad hominem attacks. "Lavelle's arguments put a happy face on colonialism." is a criticism (albeit a tart one) of Lavelle's argument. Your opposition to this quote's inclusion is transparently based on your agenda to discredit the subject of the article. Nandesuka 12:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't know if I have an "agenda" that would assume that you know what my motives are and what deep dark secrets that I have. You don't have this ability and the fact that you assume this about me violates the terms of Wikipedian "good faith". You as an admin should know this and you should practice this--based upon your recent comments you have a difficult time following this rule. Also, you know that Churchill's comment has absolutely no substance to it. Basically, you are arguing that Churchill's argument has substance because he is basically stating that LaVelle's argument stinks like poo poo. How enlightening is that??? Is is a substantive argument? No. Is it designed to merely discredit LaVelle? Yes. Does it meet the standards of Wikipedia to be included in Wikipedia? No. Set aside the BLP argument for a second. Does the argument even deserve inclusion because of its complete lack of substance? It does not deserve enclusion for that reason alone. Since you are an admin, I would expect better from you than to violate "good faith" and to basically make your counterarguments to mine based upon name calling yourself. An example of this behavior is your previous statement that I am engaging in "POV" pushing, etc. Try to live up to your title of admin. Violating "good faith" and accusing anyone that does not agree with you as a POV pusher is not good form or etiquette. Your comments do not live out the Wikipedian ideal.--Getaway 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Getaway is actually a good editor when he is emotionally distanced from the subject he is dealing with. His work on the JDL article was a good example of that. He certainly seems capable of neutrality........Albion moonlight 06:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity in misconduct article??

Shouldn't be here at all - i will take it out. --maxrspct ping me 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Churchill's false claims to having Cherokee ancestry and being enrolled in the Keetowah tribe were part of CU's initial misconduct investigation. This is all well-sourced, and it's been in the article for two years. If you take it out of the misconduct child, then we will have to put it in the main article, because ethnic fraud is a major part of Churchill's public identity.Verklempt (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It can get a small mention here. Keep your own unfounded opinion to yourself.. it doesn't have a place in wikipedia articles. Lulu may tolerate your ridiculous beyond-coatracking POV essay in this child article (coz its better than in the main??) but i won't! --maxrspct ping me 10:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please present your rationale for deleting most of the ethnicity section.Verklempt (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just given it. If you want to add information on this.. which is not really identifiable as a significant debate - start a new child article. Tacking this constructed editorial on to this one which covers the misconduct issues and investigation seems deliberately misleading and makes the article inaccurate. --maxrspct ping me 16:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Churchill's ethnicity was part of CU's misconduct investigation, and so the issue is clearly on-topic. This section has been in the article for two years. It is well-sourced to major newspapers and other reliable sources. I would ask you to give specific examples of the sentences that you have a problem with, instead of deleting the entire section.Verklempt (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of the ethnicity section should be moved back to the main page. It’s notable information that’s central to the Churchill story. But it was moved to this page without any consensus or good reason. Now that it’s on a sub-page, Churchill disciples are deleting the link from the main page or deleting the information itself. Moving this section back to the main page will make the information more conspicuous and give it more protection from vandals. Steve8675309 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be on the main page.--InaMaka (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do merge back any information that is missing from the main page (much of it is already there). But it will be work, as this section is in pretty bad shape: repetition, lack of organization, overuse of quotations, tertiary sources, broken links that can't be fixed because there's not enough detail of what they were. Kanguole (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kanguole is, obviously, exactly correct. A few vandals want to turn all discussion of Churchill into a coatrack for their editorial expression of hatred for him. Obviously, this is an overwhelming violation of many WP guidelines, especially WP:BLP. Any such abuse of WP will be immediately reverted, and vandalism like this reported. LotLE×talk 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This argument that this article is a violation of BLP has been around for many, many years and Lulu has been stating this argument the whole time. It has never been true and it is not true now. Also, the only vandalism involved here is the attempt to blank out a whole section lock, stock and barrel.--InaMaka (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have dumped this mass of rambling and poorly referenced text into the main article (with which it overlaps) without cleaning it up and merging. You have reverted unrelated changes in the process. That is vandalism. Kanguole (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is also the little matter than "InaMaka" is a new account that happens to mostly edit this article, and is intimately familiar with the history of edits on this page. It certainly screams out "sockpuppet" to any non-vandal observer. There are two, maybe three, candidates for whose sockpuppet it is, but it certainly seems implausible that some brand new editor stumbled across this article, and studied years of edits (and managed to mischaracterize them in exactly the same way as have a couple of those long-time WP:BLP violators). LotLE×talk 09:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem accusations against individual editors are unproductive and irrelevant to the issue at hand.Verklempt (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Inamaka is obviously correct. Here is the relevant passage from WP:BLP: "Criticism Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack

The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral, in particular, header structure for regions or subsections should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Celarly this article meets the standards set by WP:BLP. The individuals involved in blanking this material have not pointed to a single sentence that is in contradiction of WP:BLP, nor have thye attempted to explain how and why any sentence violates WP:BLP.Verklempt (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why no good faith discussion?

Why do people keep deleting a major portion of this article without first attempting to negotiate a compromise, or even bothering to detail their complaints with the disputed section? Why do they fill their edit comments with personal attacks? Surely such behavior is inconsistent with Wikipedia culture and policy, not to mention common courtesy. It is also an unproductive approach to improving the article. I request once again that the deleters first attempt to justify their position on the Talk page, and attempt to engage in collegial, good faith negotiation. Is that too much to ask?Verklempt (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As you are very well aware, I very carefully trimmed the section to include only the parts relevant to the actual article topic, leaving out the soapboxing that has no relevance to the actual article (but which Verklempt and a couple others want to add, solely to editorialize on their dislike of the bio subject).

I made these edits in a number of steps, with accurate changelog comments on the reason for each change, and following extensive discussion on this talk page. The constant addition of an irrelevant, poorly written, and editorializing huge rambling digression is pure bad faith... and you perfectly well know that!

FWIW, I actually concur—slightly contrary to Maxrespt's edits—that there is some relevance to including a minimal and factual description of the ethnicity matter. Even though that was never part of the actual misconduct investigation, it was considered (and rejected) as something that could be encompassed therein. So discrete mention is reasonable (if not really required).LotLE×talk 18:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always said it could have a mention which is what the cutdown version is! But other version gives undue weight and is POV essaying --maxrspct ping me 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And yet the deleted portion is nearly all sourced to a variety of mainstream news sources. This demonstrates that the questions over Churchill's ethnicity are a significant aspect of his public identity. Combine that with the fact that his ethnic ID has been a public issue since 1993, and that the tribe he claims membership in rejects his claim, and you have a lot of ground that needs covering. Given the airtight sourcing of this section, what are your grounds for complaining of POV?Verklempt (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Selection is an essential part of editing. The problem with the material that Lulu removed, in pieces, giving justifications for each removal, and that you have been restoring, as a block, wholesale, is that it isn't directly on point with the purpose of this article as set out in the lede. When material that isn't directly relevant to the article starts making its way in just because it paints the subject in a negative light, that raises a BLP issue.

Essentially, your use of the phrase "combine that with" should be setting off red lights in the minds of every editor reading this talk page. Nandesuka (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to set aside your previous deletion of this entire article. If I understand your argument correctly now, you are saying that the ethnicity section is off-topic? I disagree with that. However, one compromise solution might be to retain a brief discussion of the ethnicity issue in this article, and then start another child article to discuss the ethnicity part in more detail. What you think of this proposal?Verklempt (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy if Verklempt dumps his long "Why I hate Churchill" rant into a separately-titled article, and leaves it out of this article, where it is completely off-topic. I doubt such a rant would survive the subsequent AfD discussion, but that would be a clean way to reach consensus. If the body of previously uninvolved WP editors thought that side article was worth having, fine with me... if they think it is merely a soapbox, that decision can likewise be final. LotLE×talk 22:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you really considered AfD final, then you would not be deleting the material from this article that was approved by AfD already. Also, please stop the false accusations of sock-puppetry. Your incessant ad hominem reveals your character in ways you probably don't intend.Verklempt (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(de-indenting) AfD determines the validity of a subject. It does not grant a halo of untouchability to materiel in a given article. Nandesuka (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to guess what point Verklempt even imagined himself to be making (if any). I guess it was the error than Nandesuka suggest: confusing the notability of a general topic (which this article meets) with the perfection of the exact version of the article that existed at the time of an AfD discussion (I didn't even remember this article being under AfD, but I guess it might have been). Obviously, on the real WP, articles are meant to improve over time (as this one has in the consensus version).

I really do think the spin-off Verklempt suggests is the right approach. Clearly the long digression on "everyone who ever said Churchill ain't a (real) Indian" is irrelevant to this article. But maybe there is a way to find a title and intro that makes it a relevant WP topic. My guess is in the negative, but I am actually quite genuinely not categorically against the idea, if the right title and improved composition can be found. I'd probably vote "delete" on such an AfD, but if Verklempt makes the case he claims to exist (and does the composition work for the new article), a majority of uninvolved WP editors might vote "keep". LotLE×talk 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bing bong - its so glaringly obvious with this guy. It runs thru all of his arguments.--maxrspct ping me 17:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(1)This dispute is not about anyone's "addition" to the article. It is over your deletion of a section that has been here for a very long time. (2)This article has never been limited to only the misconduct investigated by CU. It has always included other misconduct as well, as it should. Thus the issue of what CU did or did not investigate is irrelevant. (3) Because the issue of Churchill's dubious ethnic claims has been a major component of his public persona for more than a decade, it is very relevant to include on this page. You are the editor who created this child and moved the issue here in the first place. (4) The disputed passage does not constitute "editorializing" just because you disagree with it. The passage is very well sourced to numerous mainstream newspaper articles. (5) I am requesting that you negotiate each individual sentence on this Talk page before deleting it, giving your rationale, and citing relevant Wikipedia policy. It should be clear to you by now that your edit comments do not suffice to convince many editors. You need to do some good faith negotiations. (6) Your constant resort to the ad hominem fallacy is not at all productive or civil. I assume you learned about elementary argumentation when you took your PhD in philosophy?Verklempt (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My rationale for reverting back to Lulus edit is that the additions were spurious and tendentious. It took the return of Nandesuka to spark this latest series of re-deletions. The time has come to bring on the dispute resolution process. That way the whole community will be able to help end a dispute that has gone on for way too long. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Which additions? Most of that material has been there for several years in one form or another, and it is nearly all sourced to mainstream newspapers. There really is no case to be made for taking it out, which is probably why the deleters have not even tried to present a rational argument on the talk page. Also note that the deleters are the same editors who tried and failed to get this entire article deleted through the AfD process. Having failed in that route, killing it piece by piece is the alternative strategy. That will fail too.Verklempt (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are partly correct. Nandesuka speedily deleted it as a coatrack and eventually it was pushed over to an Rfd. When that failed Nandesuka Started to revert some of the more spurious edits put there by either you or one of your partners who strongly dislike Ward Churchill. Then Nandesuka left the article for a while. Anyway there is a strong case for taking it out but you are refusing to listen. So I am strongly suggesting that we head toward the direction of seeking mediation. Are you willing to do this and accept what the mediator has to Say ? We may have to initiate a few Rfcs before the mediation committee agrees to hear us but that is how dispute resolution works.: Albion moonlight (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is a strong case to be made for deletion, then someone should take the time to make that case on this talk page. You are incorrect to say that I "refuse to listen". I have asked repeatedly for a deleter to specify the offending sentences, and to explain how and why they violate WP:BLP, as claimed. No one has even bothered to try to make the case. Instead, we get more ad hominem, such as you are indulging in. This is not good faith negotiation. The deleters have made no attempt to negotiate whatsoever.Verklempt (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't "compromise" over violations of WP:BLP. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No one has yet specified any BLP violations. Waving your hands and shouting "BLP" does not constitute an argument. Which sentences violate BLP, and how? Try to make your case, and see if you can convince other editors that you are correct. That is the essence of Wikipedia culture, and of good faith negotiation.Verklempt (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you afraid of the dispute resolution process Mr Verklempt ? Some of us have learned that it is waste of time trying to discuss things with you. Your requests for discussion are all too often little more than an excuse to be disruptive by refusing to get the point. You can be blocked indefinitely for that kind of behavior. So please be reasonable and agree to participate in the dispute resolution process. : Albion moonlight (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith negotiation is the starting point of dispute resolution. But instead of making a rational argument, you are engaging in a personal attack. If there is a violation of BLP, why won't someone say exactly what the violation is?Verklempt (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Obvious consensus

At this point it is overwhelmingly clear that the consensus of editors is that an appropriately brief and topic-targeted discussion of the ethnicity issue is worth including, but that a rambling digression on "people who don't like Churchill" is inappropriate. Mere citation does not make a soapbox editorial topical.

The only editor opposing this consensus is Verklempt (sometimes as his sockpuppet InaMaka). I'm not claiming that my earlier edits for conciseness, clarity and relevance are "the best of all possible phrases", but clearly what I've done is a lot closer to what the article should actually include than is the editorial rant Verklempt continually inserts. LotLE×talk 03:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Verklempt. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. Lulu, do not make false accusations. I agree with Verklempt's edits though--which violates your theory that there is consensus.--InaMaka (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of having a sock puppet is your idead of good faith? Accusing people of "vandalism" because they disagree with your mass deltion is good faith? Complaining of BLP violations without saying what they are is your idea of good faith? Getting yourself blocked for five reverts in one day is your idea of good faith? Misrepresenting "consensus" by claiming that I am the only editor who disagrees with you is good faith? I cannot help but notice that the deleters here are the same editors who tried to get the entire article deleted, and are now carving away at it without bothering to enter good faith negotiation.Verklempt (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lulu is just assuming good faith by being bold. The rest of us are assuming good faith as well. No one requires your permission to edit it. : Albion moonlight (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good faith negotiation

Nandesuka has alleged BLP violation, and reverted numerous times. What, specifically, are the BLP violations in this article? They cannot be negotiated or repaired until you explain your objection. To me, the disputed material appears to be impeccably sourced and on-topic.Verklempt (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article lede specifies "The Ward Churchill misconduct issues involve accusations of misconduct against Ward Churchill and an investigation by the University of Colorado at Boulder where he was a professor". The material that you keep trying to re-insert into the article does not relate to the topic of the article, and furthermore is voluminous enough that it tends to overwhelm the article. WP:BLP indicates:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. [emphasis added]

You're fond of observing that the material you want to re-insert meets the "completely sourced" part of this standard. Unfortunately, it does not meet the latter two, in my opinion. Nandesuka (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken on the facts of the case. First, the article's topic is not limited only to misconduct investigated by the university, by the lede or any other authority. Second, even if that were the case, the University has investigated complaints of ethnic fraud by Churchil on two occasions. Thus the disputed material is clearly on-topic. As for your POV complaint, that should be addressed by negotiating a rewording for NPOV, instead of simply deleting the passage altogether. Such is the essence of good faith negotiation.Verklempt (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the article's context is set by the lede. That's what a lede is for. Limiting the scope of the article to what is set out in the lede isn't a matter of "authority," it's a matter of good writing and editing. Second, if you are honestly trying to argue that the scope of this article is "any misconduct by Ward Churchill, ever," then I think you are quite mistaken. Nandesuka (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is your complaint, it is easily fixed by rewriting the lead to make clear that the article's scope includes misconduct external to CU's investigation. I think it already says that, but we can clarify, Furthermore, regardless of how you interpret the present lede, CU did investigate ethnicity, twice. And so we are back to square one--given that the disputed material is on-topic where is the BLP violation?Verklempt (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that the scope of this article is, or should be "any misconduct by Ward Churchill, ever?" If not, what are you proposing that the scope of this article actually is? Nandesuka (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the scope of this article should be "misconduct by Churchill that is relevant to his public persona." This includes any misconduct significantly reported in mainstream sources. Because the implications that Churchill abused his wives are not a significant part of his public persona, and not well-substantiated, they do not belong here. But Churchill's ethnic controversy certainly is a major part of his public persona, and has been extensively addressed in mainstream media, including two separate genealogical investigations by major newspapers, and numerous other mentions as well. I do not see the logic in excluding the ethnic controversy from this article. It is on-topic, well-sourced, part of his pubic identity, and thus in line with BLP.Verklempt (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP/N

Please note this article has been raised on WP:BLP/N#Ward Churchill misconduct issues. I've more fully explained my edits there. Wikidemo (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyperionsteel

It seems rather obvious that Verklempts deletion of the section added by Hyperionsteel was unnecessary and motivated by something other than neutrality. I therefor strongly encourage Hyperionsteel to read this talk page and consider re-adding that section and taking the matter all the way through the dispute process if necessary.; Albion moonlight (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reinserted my contributions into the article. I hardly feel that it constitutes a "radical change." If Verklempts feels that the information is inaccurate or misrepresented, that please explain why. Otherwise, I believe my section is relevant to this article. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

I think the additions by Hyperionsteel fit well in this article. I had taken them out of the general bio, where I think they are a digression, but this is exactly where the topic makes sense. The tone of the additions could probably be tightened up a little bit (I'll work on that when I get the chance), but all the content seems well cited. Given that the investigation is a public and political event, opinions on the event by highly notable 3rd parties is definitely germane to understanding its social context (including those who supported Churchill, along with those who oppose/condemn him who are already well covered in the article). LotLE×talk 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the big problem with the addition of this section: It opens us up to a POV war of third-party opinions that have little to do with the facts of the case. The quotes in the new section all take one side on the politics of the issue. To achieve balance, more quotes will need to be added that address the other side of the politics of the issue. We have spent three years attempting to achieve a balance in this article, by deleting as much of the political posturing as possible. Let's not go back down that road again. The Churchill articles in Wikipedia already make clear that some people think Churchill was persecuted for political reasons. Piling on more quotes saying the same thing again and again does not improve the article whatsoever.Verklempt (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why I added this section

For the record, I find Churchill's views very offensive and I think the fact that he received tenure on a fast track without the proper education (i.e. a PhD) raises questions about how universities are giving out appointments. I'm not trying to glorify Churchill. I'm trying to point out that there are people who support him despite his views on the United States, his reported plagiarism, his improper behaviour, and his obtaining tenure without the proper credentials. While I don't agree them, I still respect their right to their own opinions. Anyway, I've tried to keep the quotes short and to the point. However, if you feel they need to be further summarized or provided with greater context, I welcome any edits.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

I've added three more citations from notable sources but I don't plan to add anymore for the time being - otherwise, the section will get too large (I certain don't want this section to become a list of every single person who supported Churchill). I plan to add another section to list some notable criticisms of Churchill. I welcome any comments or concerns.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

Created section detailing opposition to Churchill

I've added a section that prvoides details of notable criticisms of Churchill. I welcome any comments.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

I applaud you for your efforts thus far and I urge you and others to read the time line of the misconduct investigation here, I too am quite critical of Churchill's particular brand of polemics, but I think that the article would benefit from the addition of material that explains his side of the whole sordid affair. So please feel free to have a look see and see if you can find any inspiration in the contents of that website. Albion moonlight (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The website you suggested is a blog. I'm not sure if that qualifies as a source by wikipedia standards. Also, I've previously added a section that details some of Churchill's most notable supporters.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

Tightening up the Reactions Section

A long list of quotes is bad writing, and discouraged in Wikipedia. Furthermore, the selection of quotes to include will rarely meet NPOV. My version is shorter, easier to read, summarizes all of the various positions, and retains all of the citations added by Hyperionsteel. If readers are interested in more detail, they merely have to follow the citations to see the quotes in context.Verklempt (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think your version is to tightened up and doesn't provide a proper overview of the sharp divide over this issue by notable people across the United States. I feel my verison properly displays how varied the responses were to this issue. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

What exactly is missing from my version? I specified the four categories of reaction. What do you think I left out that should be included? Feel free to improve on it. It's just a first draft, but it's still way better than a long list of undigested quotes.Verklempt (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have the individual comments from the specific people who made them clearly stated in the article. Anyway, I'm not going to edit war over this. If anyone has any comments on this issue, please respond so a consensus can be achieved.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

How many quotes would there be in your ideal version? By what criteria would you decide which commentators are worthy of inclusion? Good writing is not simply a compilation of quotes. We can do better.Verklempt (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've previously stated that I don't plan to post every single praise or condemnation of Churchill. On the contrary, my goal was only to post a few quotes from notable people, such as George Pataki, Bill Owens, Noam Chomsky etc. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

None of those individuals has any expertise in the disputed research. Wouldn't it be better to quote the relevant experts instead? Why quote someone who knows nothing about the topic? What does that add to the article?Verklempt (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It adds a lot to the article. Your objections are absurd. To say that any of those people know nothing about the topic is blatantly erroneous. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Which ones have published scholarly works on the disputes in question? I would bet that none of them would meet the WP:RS standard here. If they did, they'd already be cited. Why not quote Paris Hilton while we're at it? She's more notable than any of them. I am still waiting for someone to present the criteria for selecting some quotes and not others. Hand-waving is not good enough. Let's see some evidence.Verklempt (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to adding Paris Hiltons thoughts on this matter to the article even though it is likely that she knows a lot less about it than the persons that are already listed. Do feel free to add her name if you like. If you do you may want to supply some references that show that she had anything to say about that whole mess whatsoever. The ones that are quoted did. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The point that Verklempt misses in his comments here is that the "reactions" aren't really about the scholarly facts, but rather about the procedure and politics of the investigation. Noam Chomsky may not know anything much about Native American history (though he does know quite a lot about a lot of things, so it's not wholly irrelevant), but he knows a great deal about the history of politically-motivated prosecutions in the 20th-21st C. The investigation is itself a public event that various people have opinions on, it's not only "was Churchill factually correct or incorrect on blah, blah". If anything, the politics of the investigation taking place are even more notable than the specific claims Churchill made (or whethever he copied material, etc). LotLE×talk 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's stipulate that the quotes are not about the scholarly facts. There are still issues to resolve: (1) How many quotes are needed? (2) By what criteria should we select the quotes to be included? (3) What makes a long list of quotes better than a summary of the various positions?Verklempt (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No lets stipulate that we will make no iron clad rules pursuant to how many quotes are to be allowed. lets continue to scrutinize all edits on acase by case basis. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Albion moonlight that general quotas or advanced rules about the right number of quotes are misguided. Moreover, there's not any single criterion by which a quote is useful or non-useful in this section. That said, while I think the added sections are notable and encyclopedic, I think they really could use some trimming and greater conciseness. Verklempt is right that summary is preferable to quotes wherever possible. That's one of those "I've been meaning to get around to" things on my list... but certainly someone else doing that would be great. LotLE×talk 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means go ahead and trim them Lulu. I prefer summary over quotation too. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Then why did you revert my summary?Verklempt (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it was biased and failed to provide a proper overview of the sharp divide over this issue by notable people. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased and failed how? Be specific. Offer constructive criticism. Fix the edit instead of reverting it. Good faith negotiation and constructive editing are key components of Wikipedia citizenship.Verklempt (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize adding this section would cause such a storm. My intent was to demonstrate the extreme difference of opinion on this issue. If it is agreed that trimming or summarizing this section is a prudent course of action, then I'll support that decision without objection.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Don't sweat it. Any major change to this page will stimulate debate.Verklempt (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is only the opposition section being summarized? Shouldn't the support section be summarized as well? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC))

One would think so, if NPOV were the objective.Verklempt (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I ask the same question: Why are the criticisms summarized while the supporting statement are left in their entirety? Shouldn't both elements be given the same treatment? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

I am not sure what happened there. I do know that that Lulu said something about time being a factor. Meanwhile do feel free to do the summary yourself. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I just read Lulu's explanation via an edit summary.The edit summary says the criticism stuff is all in the article. Albion moonlight (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the minor disruption Verklempt's blankings in the middle of my edits, here's what I edited: All the criticisms that were stated were pre-investigation (or at least definitely before it was completed). I moved all of those to the background section, but trimmed and summarized them. A little bit of the support was also pre-investigation, so I did similarly. The remainder of the support was really just part of "reactions", so I removed the subheading. I also did some trimming and summarizing of that support stuff, and used a little bit of judgement about which were really of sufficient encyclopedic importance (we don't need to detail everyone who ever said something supportive or critical).

I'm sure some of the wording could be improved further, maybe some more quotes summarized too. But basically, I think the way it is arranged now is the way it should look. The changes are, of course, clearly described in my edit summaries as well.LotLE×talk 16:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not going to stay that way. Either we have non-expert critics to balance the non-expert supporters, or all the quotes come out. There's no way anyone can claim with a straight face that it's balanced the way it is now.Verklempt (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this was a bad idea to begin with.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Your additions are much appreciated. Albion moonlight (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do Lulu and Alby keep adding in the POV quotes? There is no consensus do so so. Both editors have ceased any attempts at good faith negotiation. Surely this is not appropriate Wikipedia citizenship.Verklempt (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Lulu persists in adding POV material for which there is no consensus, and without even attempting to justify his additions in this talk space and negotiate a compromise. How does one deal with such an individual?Verklempt (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, in an encyclopedia we need to describe "reactions to the investigation" in general, not only Verklempts personal vitriol towards the bio subject. As is evident, Hyperionsteel who added the material, and me and Albion moonlight who have restored Verklempt's mass deletions (deletions that border on, if not cross the line of, vandalism) all support inclusion of relevant encyclopedic material.

I've made some effort to trim and reorganize the additions by Hyperionstell of both "pro" and "anti" Churchill reactions. I notice that Verkempt has never removed any "anti-Churchill" reactions that remain in the article (nor should he). I do think that some of the quotations that oppose the investigation, or how it was conducted, could be summarized a bit more (I've removed some of the material, and moved some other quotations into paraphrases). It's hard to do productive work with the annoying disruption of this problem editor. The reactions following the completion of the investigation are all critical of it; I haven't seen any sources of "pro-investigation" reactions. That's not really surprising though, if it had concluded differently I would also expect the critics of the investigation to be more prominent (but different critics, ones that criticized the "failure to fire Churchill" rather than those that criticized the firing). Rough chronological order does make the most sense for this article. LotLE×talk 21:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is incredibly disingenuous, even once you weed out the gratuitous ad hominem that substitutes for reasoned debate in Lulu's world. You deleted all of the critical quotes that Hyperion added, and now you say you've never seen any? Either Hyperion's addition of non-expert quotes is balanced pro and con, or the quotes go altogether. I will not permit you to retain only the pro-Churchill quotes, because that is a blatant violation of the NPOV policy.Verklempt (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered, even for a moment, reading the current version of the article rather than blindly deleting?! It contains all the quotes in support of the investigation (anti-Churchill) that Hyperionsteel added! I rearranged their order of occurrence to follow chronology, but did not remove material (other than some summarization or condensation of both collections of quotes). The entire premise of your vandalism seems to be that you refuse to read the current article! LotLE×talk 00:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits. I think they create a blatant POV, by creating the false impression that most of the reactions to the investigation were pro-Churchill. If you would negotiate your edits in good faith and achieve consensus on your proposals on the talk page before making edits, then reverts would not be necessary.Verklempt (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts are counterproductive. It is your Pov that should be placed under closer scrutiny. Lulu is just trying to keep the article from becoming a Coatrack. Albion moonlight (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point, Verklempt's repeated mass deletions have given up any pretense of being anything other than plain vandalism. I appreciate the help in keeping the article neutral rather than screed/coatrack, as Verkelmpt is aiming for (by Verklempt keeping in all the recently added pro-investigation quotes, and deleting any anti-investigation comments, as he's done a dozen times or something now). LotLE×talk 06:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it seems like a kind of vandalism to me too. If you ever want to pursue this through the dispute process just let me know. ...Albion moonlight (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You could do that, or you could try being good Wikipedia citizens and engage in good faith discussion and negotiation on the talk page before making controversial edits.Verklempt (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Trial date set for March 9th 2009

I am thinking of fixing the lead to include this fact but anyone who wants to do it should feel free to do so. ....Albion moonlight (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the trial date (it is March 9, 2009, not May 9). I've also added a proper reference.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

I've expanded this section slightly to include brief statements from both sides attorneys. They are taken from the same article in the Rocky Mountain News as the trial date. I was reluctant to include the quotes from Churchill since they were made in 2007 (he declined to be interviewed for this article). I welcome any comments or suggestions.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Archive 1