Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangeley

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 07:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC).

Rangeley (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Rangeley has engaged in the most egregious edit warring that I have ever personally encountered. He has reinserted a specific line of disputed text some __seventy-five__ times. In doing so, he has repeated presented his own personal political POV as fact rather than opinion. He has repeatedly engaged in vote-stacking for the purposes of justifying his actions-- in one instance, for example, he contacted every single member of the Category:Conservative Wikipedians to get them to vote in a poll. He continued to cite this poll, even after several admins reiterated to him that its results were completely invalid. Despite being issued direct warnings by several admins never to engage in similar conduct, Rangeley has contined to engage in vote-stacking, selectively contacting individuals likely to support his position rather than filing an RFC. Similarly, he has repeatedly misrepresented consensus through "creative counting"-- knowingly excluding the opinions of users who posted before or after a narrow time window.

Desired outcome

Rangeley needs to discontinue the disruptive behavior.

Description and Evidence

Edit-warring

Rangeley has engaged in aggressive edit-warring by re-inserting the same disputed text some __seventy-five__ times:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]

Vote-stacking

Despite multiple warnings, Rangeley has continued to engage in disruptive votestacking, and using the results of this vote-stacking to justify his edit-warring.

After creating a poll, Rangeley proceeds to notify every single member of Category:Conservative Wikipedians to solicit their vote. [76]
Rangeley receives a warning from an admin for committing votestacking.
"The practice of mass single-pov notices is prohibited, I'm informing you that in my capacity as an administrator, so that you know to avoid repeating this practice in the future." [77]
A second admin declares the poll was invalid.[78] Rangeley questions this conclusion and is informed again, in no uncertain terms, that the poll is invalid.[79]
Despite knowing that he committed vote-stacking and that the poll was invalid because of it, Rangeley continues to cite the poll's results in order to mislead editors into thinking there was overwhelming support (25-4) for this actions.
"And I dont understand why you continue to use a May poll and ignore the poll which was 25-4 and occurred after discussion had occurred and not before."[80]
Despite past warnings from admins, Rangeley again engages in vote-stacking, soliciting opinions from users who he feels are likely to support his POV.
[81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Extensive discussion has taken place on Talk:Iraq War and User_Talk:Rangeley.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Freepsbane 12:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Milto LOL pia 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC) - Rangeley has gamed 3RR in other cases, or I wouldn't bother.[reply]
Marshalbannana 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

To begin, I will address the claims of votestacking. As I stated in the RfAr, I did contact people of a group in June. I votestacked, and within a short time it was brought up in the admin noticeboard, and with me personally, stating it to be against the rules. I apologized for it, and stated I had no defense for my actions, and only requested that should any punishment be given, it would be towards me and not towards the discussion which was ongoing. I did not "votestack" several days ago, I contacted several members who participated in creating the previous consensus - most of whom disagreed with me before later coming to a middleground with me and others - as well as contacted several members, Petercorless and Tewfik in particular, who I saw as objective, uninvolved editors who had put considerable effort into the Somalian and Lebanese war articles and shown themselves to be fair. Here is an example of my invite to discussion [89], where I merely ask for input without any leading on one way or another. Alec also invited people, but arguably led them on with his language [90]. However, when I invited people, he restated a bad faith assessment in saying "Others say that you've just taken a moment to recruit meatpuppets to do your editing for you." [91] Whoever these "others" are, their bad faith views did not deserve restating.

Secondly, there is the issue of the June poll. I understand the policies on consensus, and the policies which state Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for discussion. It is for this reason that, after seeing Alecmconroy cite a May 2006 poll as consensus, I noted just that – that a consensus is reached through discussion. I also noted to him that the May poll was not even the most recent poll. This is the segment he has twice quoted in what is a misleading manner. Taken alone, it makes it look like I am holding up the June poll as a consensus, or otherwise citing a poll as a consensus. But in the very next sentence, which he did not provide here, I actually link to the location that the consensus – which resulted from discussion – was posted. [92] His taking one sentence out does paint a fairly damning picture that backs his claim of me citing polls as consensus, however taken in the context of the surrounding sentences, the meaning becomes clear – and is clearly not what he is implying here, or what he implied it meant two times prior to this.

Thirdly, he has pointed out my various reversions on this issue. 75 reversions is a lot no matter how one looks at it, but taken in the context as having occurred over the course of a nearly year long involvement, it becomes a little easier to understand. I have consistently worked to make sure that this verifiable information be presented here at Wikipedia. I feel that when anyone commits themselves to such a controversial article, they are going to end up reverting, and given time enough, they will end up reverting a lot – accumulatively speaking. To then look at the accumulation and say it to be inexcusable is a bit disingenuous; if it were within a month of wall to wall 3 reverts a day and it got to 75, that would probably be pretty questionable. But thats not the case here.

Fourthly, I have not said “its my way or the highway,” as he seems to want to portray, and I have not attempted to push my POV as he again accuses me of. I have pushed for the verifiable truth to be represented here. There is a US-Led campaign, named the “War on Terrorism,” which exists in this world. The US congress authorized the use of force under this US-Led campaign, as is noted in the Iraq Resolution. [93] As campaigns are definable by their maker (such as the “Great Leap Forward” in China,) it is irrefutable that the Iraq War is a part of the campaign given the verifiable information from multiple reliable sources. What Alec’s problem with this is that some people believe that there is a wider war, or a wider conflict, pitting “democracy vs terrorists” or what have you. Many people believe this conflict exists – some call it the Terror War, and problematically for us, even more call it the “War on Terrorism.” Here is the crux of the matter, we have a campaign which carries the same name as something else. Alec’s argument has come down to that because the majority of people believe that Iraq is separate to the wider conflict, we cannot state it as part of the campaign either. I have pointed out to him that this is illogical – many names are applied to multiple things. In cases where multiple people have the same name, for instance, we use disambiguation pages, often doing stuff like “John Doe (actor)” and “John Doe (singer).” I proposed that, as we do not have an article yet on the “conflict/wider war,” this be made and we disambiguate between the US-led campaign, and the war/conflict. Whether or not something is part of a campaign is an issue which can be decided simply by viewing government records of classification. We are lucky with this one, its right in the authorization of the use of force, so it is simple and not difficult to find. Whether or not something is part of a wider war, or conflict, is not definable by any one person or government, ultimately its decided by the public, or historians, or time. And I am not attempting to do so – I am not in the position to. What Alec has done, most unfortunately, is confuse these two issues entirely and put them together. He has not yet acknowledged the difference, instead he filed a RfAr, had it rejected, and now brings it here.

What Timeshifter, on the other hand, has done, is misinterpret the Words To Avoid guideline. It does not allow us to neutrally call groups or people terrorists, instead, when these words are used, they should be cited and qualified. The guideline also gives several examples: Encyclopedic:

X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.
X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings [or "who claimed responsibility for the Z suicide bombings"], is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C [countries or bodies].
Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group [because...][94]

The first one is the format we are using on the Iraq War page; x being the Iraq War, and rather than the designated foreign terrorist organizations list, its the "War on Terror" campaign. Given that it uses the format presented as an encyclopedic example, I do not see Timeshifter's claim as holding any merit. He even notes the "not encyclopedic" examples below, and as anyone can notice, 'Campaign: US "War on Terrorism"' does not meet any of the formats that are "not encyclopedic."

I do not cite straw polls for consensus, just as consistently as my editing has been, so too has been my insistence that consensuses are reached through discussion - as the rule itself notes - with reasonable people. This has been a heated issue, and its been a long issue. I truly believe that my actions have been within reason, and I like to think that today I am a wiser person than I was way back when this began last year. I think we can work this out in the talk page of the Iraq War, because there is no real reason that we cant take a step back, put your political views behind you, and realize that there are two things - a campaign, and a conflict. One is driven by POV's, we cannot take sides on it. The other is based purely in verifiable documentation in reliable sources. It is to this I have committed myself, and it is to this that we must represent as an encyclopedia. And just as assuredly as we must, we assuredly can represent this truth. It might not be easy, it might not be quick. But I know that we are mature enough to reach this end - and I look forward to getting there with you all. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

Some of the difs provided go as far back as April 2006. This is before the consensus was reached. 27 users got together to create a straw poll and give feedback, it was criticized for attempting to reach a consensus through a straw poll, so off to the talk page the users who still were not convinced went and discussed and negotiated middle grounds, from that an eventual 25-2 consensus formed. Alecmconroy is attempting to go against that. Their reasoning is an admin said the former consensus was invalid, which they actually just said that normal discussion is better for reaching consensus, which is what followed after we were able to gauge where everyone stood. So here we are today with a content dispute, one Arbcom refused to take because its a content dispute, and Alecmconroy going around that attempting to file an RfC. I am not sure what the idea is, will one follow for all of the 12 people reverting Alec and Timeshifter? I hope not as RfC's are not around to bully people into your view. Just to point out, not only are some of the reverts from 6+ months ago, but most of the other issues, such as the vote stacking claim etc. This is a bad attempt to dig up dirt to support a weak accusation. I recommend everyone go back to the talk page and discuss and the abuse of the RfC process come to an end.

It should also be noted that the new "vote stacking" accusation doesn't show Rangeley making a bias notice. If you look at the dif's [95] it is a non bias notice where it is not asking anyone to pick a side, or insinuating which side to vote, so its not a case of vote stacking.

In response to Freepsbane, its odd you have a list of 38 people when RKrichbaum is noted as agreeing to the consensus afte rhaving reverted at one point, so do we only count votes we like? Compiling a list of reverters, many who never participated no the talk page, doesn't show consensus, it shows a list of people who didn't follow the basic Wikipedia principle of discussing. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

--Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Outsider

As an observer to the events that have transpired for the last six months, I can definitely say that User:NuclearUmpf’s point of view does not represent that of a uninvolved third party. He has aggressively campaigned for that sentence in the past using the same circular logic and aggressive tactics that resulted in [96] his censure under and placement under probation. He has also been the subject of blocks in the past for actions such as “false conspiracy accusations to discredit people “[97] The previous poll he mentioned took place in the aftermath of a vote staking campaign, and if numbers are all that mater a list of 38 people opposed to the text has been compiled.Freepsbane 12:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timeshifter

Several people discuss an alleged consensus or supermajority or agreement in favor of putting "War on Terrorism" (WOT) in the infobox of the Iraq War page. But when investigated it is not found to be true.

This is the conduct problem that needs to be stopped. It would be better yet if some arbitration of the actual issue itself would occur. Since all the other problems come from the lack of Wikipedia guidance about putting inflammatory info in infoboxes.

In their recent lists or statements about the number of editors who are for and against WOT being in the infobox some people conveniently leave out many of these editors who have spoken out against it just in the last month or 2:

savidan
csloat
Timeshifter
Alecmconroy
UnfairlyImbalanced
Bobblehead
Wgbc2032
Kevin Baas
The Proffesor

See the info and links below about the various polls, discussions, and interpretations of them.

Alecmconroy compiled a list of 38 people who did not want "War on Terrorism" (WOT) in the infobox. Someone else linked to a May 2006 discussion and poll showing that many people did not want it in the infobox. I pointed out that WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism require that the use of the word "terrorism" be put in context. That has already been done in a long section in the article called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism". The wikipedia guideline on the use of the word terrorism can not be met in the limited space of an infobox. It would take at least a paragraph. Quotes ("War on Terrorism") will not suffice. Neither will the addition of a few words like "campaign", or "Bush's War on Terrorism", or "U.S. War on Terrorism," or "According to some sources, Iraq is part of WOT, while other sources say Iraq is not part of WOT", etc.. It is a complex issue, as can be seen in the article section. This wikipedia guideline has been discussed in several talk sections, too: [98] [99] [100] [101] [102]

I came into this dispute later than others. My interest was in how the wikipedia terrorism guideline did, or did not, apply. That specific guideline did not seem to have been discussed previously. There was a June 2006 discussion, but it was not about WOT being in the infobox. It was about whether the Iraq War was a part of WOT. That June 2006 discussion seems to be subject to various interpretations. The May 2006 discussion and poll said something interesting. It mentioned that using the same logic, the Iraq War could be labeled in the infobox as something like this: "Part of Bush's campaign against the Axis of Evil." The phrase "War on Terrorism" is offensive to many people in both the Western and non-Western world, because it is such an obvious propaganda slogan. Wikipedia should never put propaganda slogans in the narrative voice of any wikipedia page. It must be put in context.

Another issue is that WP:NPOV would also require the infobox to have the campaign names of the many insurgent groups from Iraq and from outside Iraq who are now fighting in Iraq. Also the nations and groups outside Iraq who are aiding insurgents in the Iraq War. Shall we put "Part of Iran's long campaign against the Great Satan" in the infobox? What are the campaign names of the foreign Sunni Wahhabi fighters? The issue is not whether these slogans and campaign names exist or not. But how Wikipedia uses these phrases. Many Iranians, Americans, Saudi Arabians, Sunnis, Wahhabis, Shiites, etc. do not agree with the minority viewpoints of Bush and the other more radical religious extremists who are fighting inside Iraq, or who are aiding combatants in Iraq. Moderates on all sides would say "that is not *my* campaign, so why is *my* affiliation being smeared by association?"

I think wikipedia needs a guideline saying that infoboxes should not have inflammatory info in them. That info needs to be put in context in the text of articles according to WP:NPOV.

I am not saying that "War on Terrorism" is not a phrase being used. The wikipedia guideline says this:

Not encyclopedic:

X is a terrorist group.
Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...
After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

The USA or Bush or old Congressional resolutions (before the war and before the insurgency!) make a blanket statement that the Iraq War is part of the "War on Terrorism". Putting it in the Iraq War infobox means that all opponents of the USA in this war are being called terrorists. That is in the "not encyclopedic" list.

Some say that "Part of the U.S. War on Terrorism" may be more acceptable in an infobox on the page for the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). But I think the same problem exists. Because insurgents opposed to occupation don't look on themselves as terrorists. There are many groups fighting the NATO occupation in Afghanistan. Not just Al Qaeda. And I would have the same fairness request to have their campaign titles included in the infobox, too. I guarantee that some of their campaign names will be just as inflammatory, and more.

Wikipedia should not be a platform for broad-brush name-calling and slandering via campaign names. Those names must be put in some serious context. Not just some token context consisting of quotes and a link. How about some patently offensive campaign names such as "The Islamic campaign against the bloodsucking Zionist Crusader allies and their baby-killing, gay-loving regimes." Would just quotes and a link make anybody happy? I sure as hell hope not. --Timeshifter 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible solution. I am copying this comment below from Alecmconroy from the Iraq War talk page. His comment begins:

Let's step back and ask: what are we trying to accomplish with the text in the infobox? Which is to say-- are we trying to convey assertions about the Iraq War, or are we trying to create a navigational aid for going between pages?

The issue we run into with trying to make assertions in the infobox is that the brevity requirements in an infobox tend to make us unable to attribute that opinion to specific individuals. This has been the real sticking point-- infoboxes aren't good places to be trying to making assertions of fact or opinion, because there's no room to talk about all the intricacies of an issue.

On the other hand-- maybe we we're just trying to make navigational aids-- so that readers can see click through to the War on Terrorism article. This purpose seems more in keeping with what infoboxes are for. If that's what we trying to do, what would people think of this:

At the bottom of the infobox, include a link that says "See also War on Terrorism".

if it was at the bottom, I don't think it would be making the assertion that "WOT" is a nother name for "Iraq War". We could then leave the discussion of what the precise relationship between the Iraq and WOT for the article text, but at the same time provide readers with a link to the WOT. --Alecmconroy 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Alecmconroy comment ends--

I like the idea. It is strictly a navigational aid, and does not remotely sound like the narrative voice of wikipedia favoring (even slightly) any viewpoint on the War on Terrorism.

Back to the conduct issue in this RFC.

No polls show majority support for WOT in the infobox. The June 2006 votestacked poll did not ask about WOT being in the infobox. Rangeley was reprimanded by admins about that poll.

That June 2006 poll did not ask about WOT being in the infobox. It asked whether WOT existed, and who said it existed, and whether the Iraq War was part of the WOT, etc.. Few people have a problem with all viewpoints on the WOT issue being discussed in the article.

There is a whole section in the article called "Iraq War and U.S. War on Terrorism" that details all the viewpoints.

So Rangeley needs to stop using deceptive methods to push for WOT being in the infobox.

To say elsewhere recently about the June 2006 votestacked poll "But they surely can cite the poll, as we must assume good faith about those who voted" is deceptive. Because that votestacked poll was not about the issue at hand. Specifically about WOT being in the infobox.

---

Here is an even better solution to the problem:

"Casus belli" and Template:Infobox Military Conflict

I added a standard option for a military infobox. That being the code for "Casus belli". Then I added the wikipedia pages covering it. This way people can decide for themselves the rationales, larger campaigns, reasons, etc. for the war. Here is the page revision with the better infobox: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_War&oldid=104370772

Under "Casus belli" it says

See: Rationale for the Iraq War, Governments' positions pre-2003 invasion of Iraq, War on Terrorism

More pages can be linked. This way it is a true navigational link to several relevant pages, without favoring any of them. Since it is a coalition that participated on one side of the conflict, it is important to link to a page that covers their rationales also.

From Template:Infobox Military Conflict:

"Many of the parameters can be omitted if desired; the choice of which parameters are appropriate for a particular conflict is left to the discretion of the article editors." --Timeshifter 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

A "see also" link for WOT at the top of the infobox seems like it again conflates the Iraq War with the War on Terrorism. Combining the 2 phrases in this way violates the spirit of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. A "see also" WOT link at the bottom of the infobox (or in the casus belli spot) does not look like it is conflating the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism. It does not look like the narrative voice of Wikipedia is endorsing that name-calling of U.S. enemies. --Timeshifter 13:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same problem with this being at the top of the infobox:

Part of the U.S. "Campaign"

When one puts one's cursor over the link it says "War on Terrorism". So it still conflates it with the Iraq War. And so it still appears in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. The link is just a POV fork to the clarifying info that puts it in context. Many people will not click the link. So it leaves the impression that wikipedia endorses the name-calling of all the insurgents as being terrorists.

Even if one clicks the link and starts reading it takes awhile before one gets to info that starts showing opposing viewpoints such as this one:

In December 2006, the British Foreign Office advised the government to stop using the phrase "War on Terror". A spokesperson for the department said the government wanted to "avoid reinforcing and giving succour to the terrorists' narrative by using language that, taken out of context, could be counter-productive". - Burke, Jason, "Britain Stops Talk of 'War on Terror'", The Observer, December 10, 2006 [103]

Whereas the relevant section in the Iraq War article almost immediately goes into the various differing viewpoints on WOT. --Timeshifter 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that it seems that the British may not subscribe to the U.S. version of the WOT campaign. Since the British are part of the Iraq War, it is U.S.-centric to put WOT as being the campaign under which the Iraq War is being fought. So besides the problem of the narrative voice of wikipedia, there is the problem of the other coalition members and their names for their overall campaigns. If they have a name they use for a larger campaign. --Timeshifter 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any battle or war infoboxes with propaganda names listed for the larger overall war? I have yet to see another battle or war infobox with a propaganda phrase or name used as the overall war or campaign name listed just under the infobox title. Can anybody else point one out to me? I am sure many inflammatory campaign names must have been used by many sides in various battles, wars, or series of wars. But I don't see them listed in the narrative voice of wikipedia under the infobox title for the local war or the battle. See Hundred Years' War and its many subpages. See also Thirty Years' War. That had a large religious element. One does not see something like "War on terrorist Catholic infidels" or "War on terrorist Protestant infidels" listed under the infobox titles. --Timeshifter 11:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). From that page: "Neutral Point of View. Regardless of which rule applies, there may still be different points of view on how to characterize the event, and some of these points of view may be contrary to the title. These points of view should be discussed in the article."

So even though it is OK to use the phrase or title "war on terrorism" the article must still meet WP:NPOV guidelines. The campaign name "war on terrorism" is thoroughly discussed in the article in one long section. It is not necessary, nor is it required, that a campaign name be in any infobox for a war or battle. It is strictly optional whether to use all parts of an infobox. --Timeshifter 12:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope some arbitrators are paid for their work. Otherwise, your sanity may be at risk due to the nature of the constant conflict you must deal with. So I make my plug for optional advertising on wikipedia. :)

I hope enough money is raised to pay some wages (or more wages) to more arbitrators. That way maybe some of these guidelines could be fleshed out some more. It would really be great if the Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism guideline stated that infoboxes must not have info put in them in an inflammatory way. Then this discussion would not have to be repeated over and over. I am about wore out by it, and I think Wikipedia is becoming more vandalized and POV-ridden over time due to the lack of paid mentoring admins, and fleshed out guidelines. With so many admins, and so few paid staff, things are spiraling out of control. Wikipedia needs a serious infusion of cash. Optional advertising would do this without having wikipedia being controlled by advertisers in any way. Right now wikipedia is becoming chaotic and less under the control of its guidelines. --Timeshifter 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Statement by Publicus

While editing 75 or so times on this does seem like a lot, in my opinion the main reason Rangeley has been doing so many edits comes basically down to the fact that he's really been the main editor closely watching this part of the article. Personally, it's been helpful to have someone watch that part of the article since it has been so controversial. I've posted my thoughts on this for the Request for Arbitration page as well. Publicus 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:[reply]

Tewfik^Talk 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marshal

Sounds to me like a case of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles seems Rangeley is trying to own that section. Marshalbannana 17:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite

A plague on both your houses.

Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheronJ

A whole bunch of comments:

Is there a current consensus for either side? One issue that isn't clear from Alec's statement is whether Alec is arguing that (1) Rangeley is ignoring a consensus that the Iraq War should not be identified as part of the War on Terrorism in its infobox; or (2) whether Alec is arguing that there simply is no current consensus. I certainly haven't seen any evidence of a consensus on either side, and not only are polls generally insufficient to establish consensus, several-month-old polls aren't good for much of anything, since consensus can change. If there's no consensus against Rangeley, then you guys need to do the difficult work of dispute resolution, not bring ArbCom cases against him.
Edit warring: Generally, the essential element of edit warring isn't repeated reversions but an unwillingness to negotiate. Based on a review of the Iraq War talk page, it looks to me as if Rangeley is negotiating in good faith, including proposing and offering to accept various compromises.[104] The fact the some editors agree with Rangeley and some don't doesn't make him an edit warrior. (As I said, if there were a clear consensus against Rangeley, he would be expected to advocate for his position, but not to revert to it unduly. However, I haven't seen evidence of such a consensus.)
Vote stacking: Rangeley's recent comments appear to be closer to (permitted) "campaigning" or "friendly notices" than to (forbidden) "votestacking", particularly since there is no current "vote" to "stack." (See the links for the distinction between those three terms). Therefore, Rangeley's recent talk page solicitation seems to be within the letter of the law. I personally find that a couple messages to the project talkpages (e.g., WP:MILHIST and the terrorism project) may be more helpful and less controversial than individual talk page requests, but current guidelines are ok with what Rangeley has done, IMHO.
Dispute resolution: The bigger issue is how you guys are going to resolve your dispute. You seem to be deadlocked, although various compromises have been proposed, and I encourage you to continue to propose and explore compromises. In general, though, I think you need more outside opinions from experienced, disinterested editors. My primary recommendation would be that you ask the military history project if one of their deputy coordinators would be willing to conduct a informal mediation, but anything else in the dispute resolution list might be good, especially requests for comment on the underlying issues and formal mediation.
My summary of the underlying dispute: It's been a while since I read up on this dispute, but if I understand correctly, the problem is:
1. The standard military conflict infobox contains a section to identify the larger conflict or campaign of which a given military conflict is a part.
2. Rangeley and several other editors think that because the Bush administration and the US Congress have identified the Iraq War as being part of a larger campaign referred to as the "War on Terror," the Iraq War infobox should include a reference to the war on terror. They are open to compromises such as including "War on Terror" in quotes, or referring to it as the 'Bush administration "War on Terror" campaign', but not willing to remove all reference from the infobox.
3. Alec and several other editors think that because the term "War on Terror" has some propaganda elements and because a majority of Americans believe that the Iraq War is not advancing the strategic goals of the War on Terror campaign, the infobox should not identify the Iraq War as being part of the War on Terror. They are open to compromises such as including a section of text in the article explaining that the Bush administration claims that the Iraq War is part of the WOT, but not open to any compromise that places the WOT in the infobox, regardless of limiting language. (Update: At least some of the editors on the "anti-Rangley" side appear to be open to including "See: War on Terror" in the causus belli field of the military conflict infobox,[105], so it's not accurate to say that they are categorically opposed to including War on Terror in the infobox, just that they are currently firmly opposed to identifying the Iraq War as "part of" the War on Terror campaign by including in in the part of field of that infobox. TheronJ 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
My opinion regarding the underlying dispute:
1. If it were up to me, I would include "War on Terror" with quotes and limiting language, in the infobox. The Bush administration has identified the Iraq War as being part of the larger campaign, and I am not aware of any neutral name for the campaign. I question whether the Iraq War will be seen in the future as advancing the WOT's strategic goals, but I suspect that future history books that address the WOT will include the Iraq War in their discussions as a (probably misconceived) part of the overall strategy.
2. IMHO, the most relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Naming_conventions, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). The second guideline actually uses the War on Terror as a specific example of a term in such common use as to be appropriate notwithstanding its propagandistic nature. I think that resolves the issue here. The Bush admin (and Congress) started the major hostilities in the Iraq War; they identified the war as being part of the military campaign commonly referred to as the War on Terror. Although a majority of Americans (justifiably, IMHO) question whether the Iraq War has advanced the WOT's strategic goals, for taxonomic purposes, it's part of the larger campaign, however ill-advised a part it may be.

Thanks, TheronJ 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.