User:WLRoss/Sandbox2

This is the user sandbox of WLRoss. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

This is a hold page for temporary material for later use.

Phoenix and Winslow’s behaviour throughout the dispute, his behaviour since the closure of the WP:FTN, the canvassed support of MONGO who has just stated: You've repeatedly attempted to turn this article into some delusional fantasyland of far out bullshit...it is a HOAX…that sort of misuse of Wikipedia ultimately will get you blocked or topic banned or both (with the edit comment Get lost), along with their repeatedly stated intention to delete and rewrite the article to also exclude long standing material added by other editors, has indicated that Arbitration may be the only way to resolve whether the proposed edits (and also related current content) are conspiracy theory or legitimate context and also determine what is acceptable behaviour by the involved parties.

The following are diffs showing that editors have tried to work with Phoenix and Winslow:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This edit is a specific discussion on avoiding edit warring and requesting all editors discuss edits in Talk before making them. Phoenix and Winslow ignored this and continued to edit without discussion.
This edit is me accepting Phoenix and Winslow's argument against an edit and deleting it to show that I was willing to listen to his concerns.
This edit is another involved editor, Apostle12, accepting Phoenix and Winslow's argument against an edit and deleting it to show that he was willing to listen to his concerns.

Phoenix and Winslow's behaviour and edits implying ownership:

These are Phoenix and Winslow’s first edits to the article indicating his own agenda. Deletion comment Quote: irrelevant, politically motivated smear. While no one objected to the deletion of mention of Kings singing at Republican conventions, consensus was gained in Talk to call King a "Republican fund raiser" (newspapers usually say “rising star in the Republican party” while Phoenix and Winslow didn’t want the political affiliation mentioned at all). Phoenix and Winslow (the only dissenting editor) posted that even with consensus WP:weight is more important than consensus and he subsequently reverted it. The diff also includes another statement that the article is about the hoax and should discredit the accusers, informing us that we can write new articles for the other aspects of the case.
1 Bryant treats the victims’ testimony as reliable, therefore no matter how scholarly and supported by reliable sources he is, he is not a reliable source.
2 The findings of the committee appointed by the state legislature to investigate the allegations have no more weight than “letters to the editor.”
3 The allegations’ being a hoax is "the theme" for the article and everything else is insignificant.
4 States that 3-2 is not consensus for an edit.
5 Apostle12 suggests an apology for Phoenix and Winslow's claim that other editors are favouring the "lunatic fringe" and are "consistently wrong." Phoenix and Winslow replies here Report me.
6 Phoenix and Winslow states he will not apologise for stopping "us" from editing.
7 Phoenix and Winslow states that the public do not know most of the details so only what the public knows should be given weight, not what the reliable sources say. He further states that as the damages for the civil case will never be paid because King is broke, that fact diminishes the weight of the civil case.
8 Phoenix and Winslow implies that as there are only four active editors, all edits apart from those he calls deleting WP policy violations (his), should have unanimous consensus. He further states other editors should make new articles if they want to write about the civil case, Franklin Committee or King as this article is about the hoax.
9 A reasonable post but P&W ends it with, Quote: Take what you can get [some minor edits he had not reverted] and be done.
10 A more direct refusal to participate in discussing edits.

Phoenix and Winslow's canvassing, forum shopping, tendentious claims and I cant hear you behaviour

Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Phoenix and Winslow then brought the issue to RSN. Where Phoenix and Winslow states: Two WP editors have persistently attempted to back up a truckload of conspiracy theory and dump it into the article from two extremely dubious sources. He then cites the two sources, a self-published book by John DeCamp and a book by so-called "investigative journalist" Nick Bryant published by Trine Day who specialise in publishing what they call “well-researched and well-written books” declined by larger publishers. Phoenix and Winslow then asks that both books be declared unreliable.

The first book, DeCamps, has in fact never been used in the article and all editors had long ago agreed it is not a RS. The second book was in fact first introduced as a source by Phoenix and Winslow himself. He only objected to it's use after other editors began using it for content he did not approve of.

The argument in support of Bryant’s book was that while the authors used by the publisher (which is used in other WP articles with no complaint) may not always be reliable, Bryant himself is where the claim being made is supported by primary sources. Phoenix and Winslow then argued that the publisher’s overall reliability is the only criteria pointing out as “proof” that DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin repeat some of Bryants “claims” and they are not considered a RS. Phoenix and Winslow then accuses other editors of pushing Tarpley and Chaitkin’s books. These have in fact never been used as a source and other editors have tried to reduce their weight, while Phoenix and Winslow himself has repeatedly pushed for adding them to the lead and expanding mention.

After failing to get consensus, Phoenix and Winslow canvassed for support, which now gave a majority result rejecting Bryant's publisher, and by extension Bryant, as a RS. Phoenix and Winslow then posted a thank you to the editors he canvassed: I must admit that being outnumbered by people who wanted to violate policy was pushing me to the limit of my patience, and I want to thank Fifelfoo, TimidGuy, DreamGuy and Maccy69 for intervening here. In future Talk page arguments and in the next two noticeboards where he took this issue, he consistently claims that this consensus was unanimous. I am not accusing any of the editors canvassed of any underhand behaviour; they merely gave their view as uninvolved editors.

Refer For Comment/USER Noticeboard

A source originally introduced by Phoenix and Winslow to support his own edits was found to support Bryant for the disputed edits so Phoenix and Winslow now took the same edits to WP:RFC/U. At this noticeboard Phoenix and Winslow made unsupported claims that my 911 article editing was “proof” that I was only editing the Franklin article to include edits that promoted conspiracy theories. To this end Phoenix and Winslow canvassed editors who had disagreed with me in the past on 911 related discussions. Despite an admin pointing out that I had made only three edits to 911 articles over the past 18 months and that I had never been sanctioned for POV pushing or tendentious behaviour in 911 articles, seven editors, including four who were unknown to me and had never actually edited a 911 article at all, supported the RFC/U regarding my alleged POV 911 editing but between them only posted a single diff for a 911 article edit I had made as proof (I had changed the existing text “thermite [was] found” to “thermite [traces were] found”). Phoenix and Winslow was informed by an admin that he shouldn’t have canvassed for support to which he replied that he thought he had chosen neutral editors and that it was a coincidence they all supported him. Phoenix and Winslow relied on these editors to support his case and declined repeated requests that he provide diffs to show that my editing of the Franklin article was in violation of any WP policy. The RFC/U failed for “Insufficient certification” and was subsequently deleted.

Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Phoenix and Winslow now filed a case at WP:FTN to have the disputed edits excluded as fringe.

Phoenix and Winslow starts off this noticeboard by bringing up my 911 editing again and stating The number of people [at the RFC/U] who have endorsed the identification of WLRoss as a conspiracy theorist and POV-pusher is significant and that this supports his case here. He also makes a number of false claims stating there are only two sides: The first Grand Jury findings (the second Grand Jury critisized the findings of the first) and everything else including the Franklin Committee findings which he claims is supported by the "everything else" being used by conspiracy theorists. His next post states that if I continue to push it (the disputed edits) like a bulldozer, [he will] seek sanctions against [me] at WP:ANI.

Despite frequent requests for Phoenix and Winslow to supply diffs to support his case, he repeatedly refuses stating that it, Quote: would take an enormous amount of time and words. I have already linked the article, its Talk page, and the RfC/U which was well supported by a half dozen editors. Phoenix and Winslow then goes on to make three accusations that are outright lies in [ this post] stating that he will provide diffs for them if required. I challenged Phoenix and Winslow to provide those diffs but he declined and not only repeated the claims but exaggerated some edits made by another editor to imply we were guilty. I again challenged him to provide the diffs and MONGO, a canvassed 911 editor who had supported Phoenix and Winslow in the RFC/U and had now begun to edit disruptively in the Franklin article in support of him, threatened me with Arbitration if I continued to push the edits, repeated this threat in Talk and indicated he would delete the article and rewrite it himself to exclude all “our” work. I then requested the promised diffs again, perhaps harshly, with no result. Phoenix and Winslow replied, first stating that I had been: exposed as a POV-pusher and fringe theorist in the 9/11 ArbCom, an ArbCom that was closed after finding no evidence of disruptive or POV editing on my part; quote by closer: Close this with no action taken. The relevant question is whether Wayne is being disruptive. I've looked at the diffs you offered, I've read the entire talk page, and the talk page Hut8.5 pointed out. He is not...there is little here other than talk page edits that are civil. I don't see disruption, edit warring or name-calling etc. That post again exaggerates edits, repeats the lies and ends with a request for admins to prevent editors opposing him from editing the Franklin article and to close the FTN as he has proved his point, all without him supplying a single diff.

Phoenix and Winslow again posts implying that Decamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin are being used as sources and that any reliable source that provides the fuel and oxygen for them should also not be used. there must be a bare minimum of details from the Franklin Committee report, or anything else that would tend to promote or propagate … fringe theory. It was shown at the previous board that none of those authors have been used as sources.

Phoenix and Winslow posts: Is there any doubt remaining in anyone's mind that these two are as obsessed with this conspiracy theory as any 9/11 Truther? I posted Please post evidence to show which of these edits are conspiracy theories or accept that they are not to which Phoenix and Winslow replied: The evidence is in the two books published by DeCamp, Tarpley and Chaitkin, and in related articles published in Executive Intelligence Review, none of which are used as sources in the article. After I was advised by admins to take out a WP:ANI against Phoenix and Winslow I declined and made a final attempt to encourage collaboration to improve the article and avoid going to Arbitration but the argument continued.

Phoenix and Winslow now states that, if what a reliable source reports is the centrepiece of two books by conspiracy theorists then when used in a WP article, it can be reasonably inferred to be a promotion of fringe theory. Further stating in [ this post] that when editors use material from other [reliable] sources that not so coincidentally was also used by conspiracy theorists for their books and websites, it rises from a reasonable inference to a near certainty.

The FTN closed unresolved with Phoenix and Winslow stating now that MONGO has become involved with the article, his experience with your personal WP:FRINGE history at the 9/11 articles … two against two definitely won't be consensus, thus repeating discredited claims regarding my 911 article editing.

Taken back to the Franklin Talk Page

After the rejection of a pejorative descriptive that Phoenix and Winslow had added to the Franklin article on the grounds that it was not supported, Phoenix and Winslow edited two unrelated articles (without supplying refs)[1][2] several hours later in order to support his use of the pejorative in this one. Phoenix and Winslow’s edits in those articles had long ago been rejected as POV and uninvolved editors reverted him the following day.

After debate to remove “conspiracy theorists” from the lead (but keep mention in the article body) Phoenix and Winslow edited: Allegations of a cover-up persist, some levelled by those directly involved in the case and others by conspiracy theorists. I suggested a compromise to avoid the implication that all others are conspiracy theorists as the majority of these "others" are US senators and other government officials: Allegations of a cover-up persist, both by those directly involved in the case and by others, including several conspiracy theorists. Phoenix and Winslow rejected this compromise outright with no argument other than he likes it the way it is and was supported by MONGO.

Following the stubbing of the Franklin article Phoenix and Winslow made this personal attack. On his Talk page I requested that he delete the post but he refused. This discussion can be seen here.