User talk:Sideshow Bob Roberts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, you became so heated last time we worked together that I took a break to give you the opportunity to calm down. I've been working on some articles today and expect that you will have comments. This time may we work together collegially and productively? Our past collaborations have improved several articles and we may continue to do this together. So, let me know which, if any edits may be issues for you. Raggz (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Sideshow
I've about finished my comments in the discussion that you started. I'm still committed to working with you, if you can manage this. All the best, Raggz (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Rouge admin You should check this site. All the best, Raggz (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You asked the Administrators questions, perhaps the answer is at Five pillars, you might review it. "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity." All the best Raggz (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ICC article tantrum[edit]


Hi Bob, Why do you put things like "Raggz, this is absolute nonsense. The Rome Statute is a treaty between states. The law of treaties applies. You will not find a single person who understands international law who thinks otherwise. As usual, you're just making this shit up as you go along. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC" into the discussion page? You may be correct, you may not be, but you will not persuade me with tantrums. Why not just offer a reliable source for support? THAT is the WP Way. If you are correct, there will be billions of reliable sources. All the best Raggz (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, your claim that I threw a tantrum is as dishonest and ridiculous as your claim that the Rome Statute is not a treaty between states. I've replied on the appropriate discussion page.[1] Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for describing your outbursts as tantrums. That was not as diplomatic as I might have been.
I have also notified the administrators about these outbursts at Raggz (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that you remain hostile, your comments today at the Administrators Board calling me a pathological liar are uncalled for and I ask for your apology. Consider also what you said earlier this week: "::::Raggz, this entire section is original research you've added to the article in a blatant attempt to paint the court in a negative light. You've made no effort to present the Court's achievements to date, and we both know you have no intention of ever adding anything positive about the ICC to this section (or to any Wikipedia article)...:Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)"
If we are going to work together effectively we need to get past these personal issues. Might you consider mediation? Raggz (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You're damn right that I'm hostile. It's very difficult not to be when you keep telling lies about me. Every time I point out that you're lying, you either ignore me or change the subject. I've asked you never to make another negative claim about me without providing a diff, but you lack the basic decency to do this.
Meditation would be a complete waste of time: we're never going to work together effectively until you stop lying. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
How do I make a diff? I've followed the directions twice, but cannot find the radio button described. Actually I told the administrators when you opened that dialog about me that I had been especially frustrating. I'm sure you read that. Why would I even want to lie about you? What purpose would that serve? OK, what lie is it that you want me to stop telling. I have no idea. Raggz (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff info. I will be reviewing this later today.
As for ICC effectiveness, I hold a strong opinion that the ICC is presently precluding a major NATO invasion of Kosovo that would already have occured without the ICC. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, but am certain that (1) US rotary-wing aircraft would be essential to such an invasion, (2) that the US will not commit combat forces into any scenario that would render them to ICC jurisdiction, (Is Serbia an ICC member?) (3) NATO cannot invade Kosovo without US rotary-winged aircraft and also needs to ensure that NATO actions do not violate international law. I am convinced that the prior invasion involved war crimes on the part of NATO and the US, and would not have occured on a massive offensive scale had there then been an ICC.
If you review the limited UN aurthority of 1242 (1244?) that is without Chapter VII, it basically only permits protection of refugees. Even so, Clinton ordered a massive US bombing campaign that had no clear connection to the limited UN mandate. Presuming that Serbia is an ICC member, Clinton could have been indicted for exceeding the UN mandate in the ICC (had there been one). I assure you that President Bush and his successors will go to great lengths to avoid ICC jurisdiction that they might not go to in regard to UNSC jurisdiction. So, in regard to deterring war crimes and crimes against humanity, I argue that the ICC is already has a major impact, at least in areas where the ICC has jurisdiction.
Let's discuss my pov: which you misunderstand. This might help our collaberation? I'm really not anti-ICC (nor is the US). I support US sovereignty which only means that I oppose ICC jurisdiction for the US, particularly to the degree it requires that Americans forefeit our human rights without going through a constitutional amendment to do so. I'm fine with the ICC in Darfur, and if the US opposed this, they would not be there. There should be no court (or government) that is imposed upon a free people without their consent, and the word for such an imposition is tyranny. If the ICC is to have US jurisdiction, it need be by the consent of the free people to decide.
I am strongly for human rights and the protection of them, (which is why I oppose ICC jurisdiction for the US). I believe that it is a good thing that the US now has the ICC excuse within NATO to decline the next NATO invasion of Kosovo. I support the UN as a practical and necessary step in the evolution of international law, and to the degree that the UN and ICC collaberate, this is a good thing. I do not view the ICC as a desirable means to circumvent the UNSC. Even though the UNSC has difficulty reaching any consensus, the fact that tyranny enhances the consensus process does not in my view make tyranny desirable. Like almost all Americans, I'm fine with the ICC spreading worldwide with the consent of those who adopt it. I actually favor this, so, am I really anti-ICC? I say, NO, I am pro-ICC. Raggz (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui[edit]

Updated DYK query On 13 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

1860 Oxford evolution debate[edit]

Updated DYK query On 18 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1860 Oxford evolution debate, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

re Ombudsman ban - lift for now[edit]

Hi, this edit that you commented upon to Ombudsman, irrespective of a ban or not, was constructive. IMHO, I would not have commented upon that edit and such personal engagement was perhaps less than wise given the animosity between him and the likes of you or I. He has made other constructive edits to the page before, and although did edit war and rephrase material pertaining to himself, on balance I think it reasonable to allow him to continue further constructive edits. I've therefore lifted the ban (in process of my writting & submitting this, he had written an unpleasant attack piece - oh well). But whatever his grievence against the ArbCom, he is and remains de facto on probation. That said, that does not warrent any goading, and indeed he would be right to complain if that were to occur; so if you have any future concerns then seek admin action and probably best for the openess at WP:AN/I. David Ruben Talk 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

GAR reassessment of International Criminal Court[edit]

Hi, if you are still active this is just to let you know that the ICC article is being reassessed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/International Criminal Court/1. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)