Talk:John W. Ratcliff/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about John W. Ratcliff. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Webpage

This wikipedia page needed an update to Ratcliff webpage. Added the links and controversy section. There seems to be a blog as well not yet added.01:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.94.121.242 (talk • contribs) 01:10, August 16, 2005

The Inclusion of AARM on this page

I want to comment on the inclusion of AARM on this entry instead of on its own--especially in light of the potential merger of the Matt Slick entry with the CARM entry. This suggests symmetry as if John W. Ratcliff is to the community of CARM critics as Matt Slick is to CARM and its supporters. This is NOT the case. Ratcliff should not be posed by implication as the most important critic of CARM. In fact, AARM does NOT purport to teach anything or to offer any programmatic criticisms of CARM. AARM is simply another forum. John W. Ratcliff is not Matt Slick's arch-enemy, as it were. So I am suggesting: 1) that AARM should be treated, on Wikipedia, as a community in its own right (for this is what it is), not as the work of John W. Ratcliff. He simply happens to be the excluded from CARM willing to pay for the AARM forum. AARM deserves its own entry if it is to be mentioned on Wikipedia. 2) Other records of the "great atheist purge", as it was called, should be found and cited, if any there be beyond the AARM threads returned by google.

AARM, in other words, is a symptom of events surrounding CARM. This is its claim to fame, not its creation by John W. Ratcliff. Disquieter 15:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with all of this. AARM is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia entry, though, but I do agree that AARM is a symptom of the events surrounding CARM rather than those surrounding Ratcliff. --Yamla 16:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what makes something "notable" enough to have a Wikipedia entry. It seems to me that there are many, many entries on "insignificant" subjects. Should they all be deleted? AARM strikes me as at least as "notable" as, e.g., Kaitain, Dodds, Ohio, Linny The Guinea Pig, or any other obscure entry that results from clicking the "random article" link. This is the place to share "What I Know", is it not? -Disquieter 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the case. See WP:NOT ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"). Also, Wikipedia:Notability, though this is not always consistently applied. --Yamla 22:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

Critics of John Ratcliff commonly hold worldviews as Evangelical Christians. Their most common complaints center around what they consider his misuse of moderation in his refusal to edit or remove alleged slander and libel comments from the AARM website forums. In order to quash opposing viewpoints he will use and permit others to use ad hominem attacks on his boards, resorting to profanity, his intentional misrepresentation of opposing viewpoints is noted to his admitting to being a troll on Christian discussion boards, his questionable tactics in debates to attacking the person rather than responding to the arguments presented realizing his being banned from Christian forums as a troll and his general conduct when talking to those who do not share his beliefs.

We need to have a source for this material. How do we know what Ratcliff critics think? Thanks, -Willmcw 07:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

There is a source given and documented with the Matt Slick response, he documents the critic view point and it is certainly linked. It must have been removed with your edit and it is now added back in. However, it would seem someone is removing the controversy and writing his own article? Or referring to the edit as "I"16:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)~

If Matt Slick is the critic, then we should say "Matt Slick says...", not "Critics say...". Regarding the use of the word "I" in an edit summary, I don't know who that editor is in real life, but that comment was "I can't see why that quote is relevant to anything, also." That doesn't indicate that the article is about him. -Willmcw 18:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Number 207 is the "I" it is John Ratcliff, he stated, "I" in his edit that you can read in his edits and since the IP is from his hometown, and he is using the words "I" in his article edits, obviously the person John Ratcliff and the aarm posters are now editing his article. I would assume the person editing referring to himself as "I" and creator of aarm, is now using the wikipedia article for "self-promotion." Are you going to permit his edit of his article. Will you also permit others to EDIT pages written about them? By the way, Matt Slick is not the only critic. The CARM article represents CARM members, a board of directors and administrators that will absolutely agree to the article written to being from CARM Evangelicals and not just Matt Slick. Would you like the list of names of all the moderators, and admins that support the Matt Slick article?FanofJR 20:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I see now what you were referring to. You hadn't said which edits so I thought you meant Hyperbole, who used the word "I" in an edit summary. It'd help in the future if you could be more specific when talking about other users or their edits. Regarding the criticisms of Ratcliff, what we need are written criticms that pre-date this editing cycle (i.e., not stuff that has been written just for this article). But getting back to the point, if the CARM administrators and board are the ones who are critics, then we should say that rahter than leaving the critics nameless. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

To Willmcw: I gave a list of persons that are not representing CARM as volunteers, moderators, but actually documented on the website belonging to John. Here is a link, to a J Sloan, an apologist referring to the aarm forums, he is NOT a CARM representive or administrator, scroll to first post at the top, and there are many more persons that also criticize, if you want I can provide a list. So here is one. He states: "A place not of free speech (that has little to do with it), but a place where you can verbally attack the character of those who you so happen to not like. That is all this place is. All the talk about the other boards and discussions that happen here are a farce; look at the stats. This board has the most posts, views, and threads. " http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=2530&forum_id=6&jump_to=29520#p29520 FanofJR 01:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Supporters of Ratcliff praise his willingness to give an opinion on a wide assortment of issues of the discussion boards he created even lessons on sexual practices, whining boards that are primarily concerned with discussion of 'people' they do not like, very little moderation. Supporters are pleased that even trolls removed from other websites are welcomed to participate, his permitting the board members to purchase a title as a moderator on his boards, simply sending John ten dollars per person to keep his forum of less than 200 running, but being "called a 'moderator' is little more than a status symbol" according to Ratcliff. [1] Supporters also assert that Ratcliff's track record at AARM forums speaks for itself, as to his being a leader of the posters refusing to follow the CARM rules, a forum where 5900 posters manage to have no difficulty with the rules.

How do we know that supporters praise his lessons on sexual practices? -Willmcw 07:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well that is a good point, your edit was actually appropriate. I added the link to the critic that was removed. However, it appears someone is writing his own article on wiki, is that permitted? The last edit, the person referred to himself as "I" and added to the article and removed the controversy. Isn't that self-promotion which is against the rules. Needs to be reverted back to the edit you posted. I did return it to your edit, and added the link for documentation of the controversy. JR gives his opinion of the controversy in the links to his discussion boards. 16:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)FanofJR

I generally refer to myself as "I". Don't you? -Willmcw 18:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the person is not to being using wikipedia for 'self-promotion' and editing the NPOV of others contributing. Are you suggesting that this article is going to be the work of John Ratcliff, ABOUT John Ratcliff?198.65.167.211 19:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The article should be a collaborative work between everyone with information and perspectives on John Ratcliff - including but not limited to John Ratcliff. --Hyperbole 22:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

User with IP 207. is vandalizing the article

He has deleted all the edits from the article. Will an admin please do something please.All of the edits added to the article have been documented with links to John's actual words, etc. and the person 207. continues to REMOVE all the editing and not giving a name.FanofJR 17:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)17:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)~~

To Hyperbole and editor 207. The article is reverted back to using the EXACT type of edit to the Matt Slick article. Please don't suggest that it is permitted on the SLICK article but not for his CRITICS.FanofJR 18:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

JR, trying to use an exact template of the Slick article has led to exceptionally bad and misleading writing. There's no conceivable reason to stick to that template. Ratcliff's article should absolutely include a NPOV accounting of criticism of him, but he's a distinct and separate entity from Slick, and cut-and-pasting the Slick section and changing a few words leads to total incoherence. I restored the quotes - for now - but I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is about that kind of thing. Are those notable quotes from Ratcliff, or is that just material included to make the article more POV? Hopefully Will or another Wikipedia moderator will weigh in on this. --Hyperbole 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

207 According to Wikipedia policy it is reasonable and accepted to simply remove posts such as those which have recently been added. This editor welcomes an 'administrator' to come along and help edit an objective, balanced, and coherent post that would be relevant. Until then the original Wikipedia article should remain in place. Wikipedia is not a message forum and shouldn't be used as such.

Really, it should also not be used for self-promotion by a user claiming he is "I" as to John editing the wikipedia article. Are you suggesting that JR is not biased?198.65.167.211 19:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

207, I'm working on getting the article balanced and NPOV. And your endless reverts are also screwing with my work at cleaning up the sloppy english that was originally used in the Game Design section. We'll never get a balanced and coherent article together if you keep yanking the rug out entirely. Why not try joining in editing it to make it more accurate and NPOV? --Hyperbole 18:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It is 207 that is vandalizing the article, please check the history.198.65.167.211 19:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The admin did see the article yesterday and left it as it should be, he removed another supporter point of view. You and 207. are the persons changing it, the admin approved of it already.FanofJR 18:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages don't go static as soon as a Wikipedia administrator considers it minimally coherent and NPOV. The entire point of Wikipedia is that people continue editing for coherence and NPOV, and this article needed it *badly*. I would still like an administrative ruling on whether the profanity-laden quote is considered encyclopedic, or whether it would be better to simply state that Ratcliff supports the use of profanity on AARM, give a cite, and leave it at that. --Hyperbole 18:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

207 For what it is worth, the profanity laden quote was clearly posted as a weak attempt at humor. Cherry picking a single quote out of context from almost a year ago is hardly balanced. Is it not enough to say "Profanity is allowed on the forum." Without including a quote with an example of profanity? The intent of that original quote was to demonstrate how distateful and unnecesary a stream of profanity is while at the same to showing that it is allowed. I doubt someone popping into Wiki is going to get the subtlety of this point when it is taken out of context of the message thread and forum where it originated.

I agree with you, and that's why I'm asking for a ruling on whether a) it's encyclopedic; and b)whether its inclusion biases the page more than its exclusion. I believe the answers are "no" and "yes", respectively, and the quotes should go. But I don't really want to wrestle with FanofJR over the quotes without any word from Will. --Hyperbole 19:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The profanity was put in by will the admin, as it was blocked originally and he added back in the actual words and actual quote. John should not be contributing to this article as it is against the rules to use wikipedia for SELF-PROMOTION. And suddenly "free speech" isn't fair? You have NO problem slandering Matt Slick and the suspension of a few atheists from CARM a year ago. The links on the Matt Slick article are referring to situations that happened a long time ago. Suddenly you have a problem with "free speech" when it is concerning you, but if directed at Matt Slick or others on your discussion board, you have no problem with it. What hypocrisy. The words used are your words, your statements as to why you created the aarm boards and you don't want them in your article. Why not?198.65.167.211 19:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Will whether the actual profanity-laden quote is necessary. The page on Slick is remarkably NPOV. I think it's clear, at least to me, that you're not here to write an NPOV article, but rather that you're irritated that the Slick article was not POV-in-favor and you want to take "revenge" by writing a POV-opposing article against Ratcliff. With respect to the self-promotion policy, what that means is that I should not create a page to promote my local basement band. I do not believe it should be taken to mean that people are prohibited from editing any page to which they are an interested party. --Hyperbole 19:48, 16 August 2005 (UT

Willmcw put the profanity quotes back into the article last night, as they do tell much about John's website boards. The orginals used blanks. There is a link available to the actual quotes, do you want to see it again? Seems the "free speech" and NPOV is suddenly going out the door? They are his words, his description of why he started his websites. We can get you more quotes from Evangelicals as to their opinion of John's website, if that is what you want. Shall we?FanofJR 19:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The link is still there, and is more than enough to establish the fact that Ratcliff supports the use of profanity on AARM. --Hyperbole 20:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ratcliff From the Wikipedia site "Remedies: If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both." Which is exactly what I did in the first case. If you wish to state facts, that is fine. If you want to get into an extended dialouge about any one of the several thousand internet posts I have made in the past year then take it to a message forum, not an encylopedia. I am satisfied with the wording of the article as it stands now and will leave it as is. There appears to be a major piece of confusion about who is 'responsible' for content on an unmoderated and user-owned message forum. Please feel free to discuss with me statements I have made in the past. I enjoy the dialouge. Please feel free to contact me by email, PM, or on any of the message forums I frequent. However, don't cherry pick one sentence out of context from thousands I have written in the past year as an attempt at vandalism and personal attack of a Wiki entry made by a computer game fan.

________________________________________________________________________

You were not personally attacked according to wikipedia rules. Look to the Matt Slick article, is that personal attack? Gives the critics opinions of Matt's debating and forums, and yes, people argued it was personal attack on Matt Slick and the admins said it is not. Hyperbole said it was not, so if the same critics give opinion on aarm, and its founder John Ratcliff, it is not personal attack according to other articles done. If the admin wants to remove the attacks on Matt Slick and the link to the aarm boards, then you would have a better argument John. But as it is, no more or less is stated about you in this article then about Matt Slick. How about you RUN on over to that discussion about Matt and CARM and tell them you think they are personal attacks. Or is it only a personal attack, IF, it is about you? Both articles are similar, and you don't like the controversy? Why not?FanofJR 21:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my original post, profanity and all. The problem is that it was taken out of context and is in isolation of many more significant and appropriate public statements I have made on this subject. The point of the message, lost in how it is lifed out of context, is to demonstrate (by example) how distateful, disruptive, and inappropriate a stream of profanity is in a message forum while at the same exact time showing that it is someones free speech right to do so if they so wish.

Out of context? I think the context is pretty clear.http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=7&forum_id=1&jump_to=40#p40 The link to the full thread was posted here. What is your purpose here? This is not your website, or your discussion boards, and if you have quotes that cast a shadow on your character or that you believe may be misunderstood, then perhaps you should consider what you write on the internet discussion forums rather then trying to erase the facts from an Encyl. article. It is your words quoted, you said it, you are about 'free speech' on your discussion boards, so let's show an example of your free speech. Seems you have no problem with your discussion boards attacking others with words, 'out of context' but if it becomes about you, suddenly you want rules for this article? Interesting person John Ratcliff, you are all for free speech, but not the free speech concerning your words on this wikipedia article. What are you afraid of John? Please sign your post here.FanofJR 20:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

---John W. Ratcliff 20:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC) " What are you afraid of John?" I'm afraid of this becoming a pointless exercise. Do you want to discuss this? Where? Not here, this place is not an appropriate forum for this kind of conversation. Pick a message forum of your choice or email me privately. Did I use profanity to demonstrate how obnoxious and disruptive a stream of profanity can be? Yes I did. Did I use profanity to demonstrate that in an unmoderated forum people can use profanity? Yes I did. People use profanity in real life all the time. It is not all that remarkable or unusual a thing. Does profanity bother you? Then, perhaps, you shouldn't post on AARM. The website is user owned. Most of the active particpants pay the web hosting fee on an annual basis. It is sufficient to say that AARM is an unmoderated user owned forum that allows profanity, libel, slander, and personal attacks *as do tens of thousands* of other forums on the internet. This is not an unusual thing. If having an unmoderated forum that allows the use of profanity merits a Wiki article we are sure going to have a *lot* of Wiki articles soon.

John Ratcliff changed his post on his website

The link has been altered, but is still documented as to what it stated from Oct. - August 16. Now that John has altered the link message to remove his words posted there for almost a year, it is obvious that his words should be quoted as he originally stated, not the words he removes 10 months later, also with the note that he has a problem with "free speech" when that "free speech" is about him on wikipedia. Tell us, where was all the concern for 'context' and personal insults and editing when aarm posters are attacking CARM ministries on Wikipedia, John? Very clever John and hyperbole to change the words of your original, but all of this has been documented. You wanna talk about it? Go to the CARM articles and ask to have your discussion boards and the libel and slander of Matt Slick removed and then we can talk about what is honest and fair. He too has a wife that is sick, a family to support and the slander posted there will also effect his livlihood. Did you ever consider that before it was YOUR name being discussed? Now it isn't fun and games, but it is when you attack CARM ministries? You don't want anything here that might reflect negatively on your character or be misunderstood? Guess what Mr. Ratcliff, Matt Slick and people that you permit to be slandered everyday on your boards, and you thinking it is just fun and games, also have jobs, and churches, and ministries where they too want to be able to EDIT or remove the slander and libel, but you are all for FREE Speech when it is not your person being discussed. Unbelievable what is occuring here and it will be documented. This is a discussion board John, to discuss WHY you deleted any reference to aarm or your wordsFanofJR 21:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

__John W. Ratcliff 21:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC) "The link has been altered," As is my right. It is my post and if it is going to be inappropriately cross posted I have every right to edit it.

"ell us, where was all the concern for 'context' and personal insults and editing when aarm posters are attacking CARM ministries on Wikipedia, John?" If you recall, I had absolutely nothing to do with that entire episode. Please go back and check. I had nothing to do with it and had absolutely no involvement. You guys can fight your own little battles about this.

"Very clever John and hyperbole to change the words of your original, but all of this has been documented."

I didn't change any text at AARM, nor did I suggest such a thing. Contrary to what you may believe, my first loyalty is to Wikipedia and I am here to try to get this article as objective and NPOV as possible. --Hyperbole 22:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And very clever of you to cross post it in a location where it didn't belong and made no sense. It is enough to say the site allows profanity, it is hardly necessary to quote profanity in a Wikipedia entry simply to prove a point that has already been conceded.

"Yu wanna talk about it? Go to the CARM articles and ask to have your discussion boards and the libel and slander of Matt Slick removed and then we can talk about what is honest and fair." Where have I libeled or slandered Slick? Please, feel free to take this conversation which you seem very passionate about elsewhere. Pick a discussion forum and I will gladly discuss any of my own personal statements with you at length. _______________________________________________________________________ I said the discussion boards that libel and slander Slick, your boards are linked to the CARM and Slick articles and it was posters from YOUR boards boasting about doing it on your boards? Do you read your boards? People accusing a pastor of adultery, lying, having mental disorders, threatening law suits, with no documentation or evidence but pure "malice" stated plainly for 10 months on YOUR boards and you permit it? No one said YOU but your boards where you promote "Free Speech", it is the aarm boards we are talking about.198.65.167.211 22:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________ Hmmm..it is hardly unique that people who have been kicked off a message forum will go to another message forum and complain about it. This is simply human nature. Please, feel free to discuss me on CARM, AARM, or any other message forum. I just don't think such nonsense belongs here on Wiki. Please, pick a web disucssion forum and I will gladly continue the dialouge. Obviously we can even do it here, but it seems generally a wasted exercise. ______________________________________________________________________ It is also against the law to libel someone, did you know that? Because it will ruin their reputation and effect their livlihood. Posters on your boards have attacked a person falsely with accusations that are not fact but vicious "LIBEL." As for leaving boards, yes they get angry, may call someone a few names, but to slander and libel day after day for 10 months with attacks that are false and may harm your work because they are FALSE is hardly internet fun. Disliking someone is one thing, permitting them to libel on your website is another. Like I said, how would you feel if it was how you earned a living and your work being attacked by LIES concerning your mental health, or your wife reading on boards that you were an "adulterer" and it is FALSE? That is not free speech, FREE SPEECH is about attacking the Gov't, not attacking other human beings. Do something on your boards about it or get rid of them. You are wrong that it is permitted on the internet, no different then if you wrote it in a newspaper198.65.167.211 22:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________

Removed comments on 'motives' for John's post from the article. Hardly the place to discuss WHY a person posted profanity, this is not an article to explain why or guess motives of any individual but to post the facts, and be reminded, the post profanities were not fully quoted and were placed into the article by the wikipedia admin, not by me. The quotes originally were blocked for the language, but it makes no difference as a person can read the foul language on John's boards, so why object to them in the article?198.65.167.211 22:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Supporters comments removed, no documentation

provided. I know of individuals that are NOT Evangelicals from CARM that do not support the aarm website. We can have the person post here that he is not member of CARM. I know of an atheist that stated to a room full of guests on paltalk that he does not support the aarm boards. To guess and write in the article what people are thinking or the motives is not a NPOV but simply someone's opinion. That is not permitted in the article unless there is documentation provided to the supportersFanofJR 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, Fan. I went ahead and removed everything that was no more documented than the "supporters" section... --Hyperbole 22:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to edit for me, I am not John Ratcliff. The only person that should not be editing is one that cannot speak from a NPOV, and that would be the person the article is about, Mr. Ratcliff. Is this article now to be about "feelings" and what John Ratcliff, "felt", will be removed. Yes there is documentation for the foul language, will post it after this section.

Webpages

Ratcliff felt that unmoderated discussion boards are inherently superior for the discussion of controversial topics, at one point stating, "Why subject yourself to 'their' rules? It doesn't make any sense at all to me."

As founder of AARM, Ratcliff has administrator powers on the AARM Forums.

This entire section needs to go back to being edited by someone OTHER than John Ratcliff. Here is documentation of John's words. jratcliff Administrator

Joined: Sun Oct 3rd, 2004 Location: Lake Saint Louis, Missouri USA

Posts: 572 Mana:

Posted: Mon Oct 4th, 2004 03:30 pm

Quote Reply

In my opinion, the best thing that could happen is for everyone to move over here for a few weeks until the only thing to be heard on CARM is crickets chirping.  (That's pretty much what is happenign right now anyway).

To be quite honest, I think that forum is too stifling anyway. I don't really intend to moderate this forum unless it gets horribly out of control. Even then, I think the worst case scenario would be to just move really extreme posts to a 'flame' thread so people could view them if they care or not.

Personally, I don't give a shit if people cuss from time to time. I don't think a bunch of fucking cursing is really all that mother fucking necessary, but it doesn't fucking kill a person now does it?

Whatever happens, I will keep this forum alive for a while until CARM straightens itself out.

The CARM paper documents the rest of the FACTSFanofJR 23:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

>>This entire section needs to go back to being edited by someone OTHER than John Ratcliff.

What a curious idea. Any random person can come into Wiki and make claims about what they think an indivual person meant when they said something, but the person they are quoting cannot respond? What a surrealistic way to forumulate reality. I hope you are having fun with this. At any rate, no volunteers to go to a web forum to continue this discussion???

You want documentation for the controversy

http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?id=164&posts=1&nr=266&page=2 This person criticizes aarm openly. He is an AARM member, not a CARM administrator. http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?id=62&posts=1 Here is the documentation for a person that criticizes AARM openly, he is not a CARM administrator. http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?id=204&posts=1 Here is another person from the aarm boards that is not a CARM administrator, openly criticizing the boards. Page to be reverted back to a NPOV article. http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?id=148&posts=1 What do you know, you are an aarm poster as well? Is that why you continue to remove the proper edits from this board?

Tell ya what John, I have tried discussing this with individuals from your forums and then there are more libelous statements thrown our way in any attempts to work it out, threats of law suits, denial of words stated to us and harrassment in emails. I do not trust any person from the aarm web boards for obvious reason. The terms are that you remove all the libelous, slanderous post from your website per your moderators and then we can talk about discussing it. I am not representing CARM or any person but editing an article fairly as to what the posters from your forums have added to the CARM articles on wikipedia. The posters from your boards suggested that this is about "free speech." I told you what needs to be done. Have your editors clean up the Slick article and the attacks on his person and then we can work on this one.FanofJR 00:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

To Willmcw concerning the three edit rules...

First of all, I don't know how to talk with you and give a message, could you please show me how to respond to you in private? We needed an admin here today as the article erased many times by the poster 207. How do we reach you or another admin with an alert? The article was edited about six times this afternoon by the poster 207, who then revealed himself as John Ratcliff. I simply returned the article with discussion after he completely erased the controversy and Website section many, many times. I have give the documentation to persons other than CARM administration that disapprove of the website and are critics. If you check the list of the links posted above, there are names and their postings that they do post the same criticisms as the CARM article.

Again, I did not erase the article, but returned it to the edits that John Ratcliff, IP 207 erased many times today.

If you require any further documentation, please let me know and I will certainly post it here. It seems that the aarm posters, are here wanting to remove the article as biased in opinion though I have given the documentation as requested to the controversy section with links in this discussion. Can we please have someone checking this article as John R. did erase it many times today. Again, I do not represent CARM but my person in trying to make this article truthful and fair to both sides.UserFanofJR 01:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC) 01:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Will, I posted this to you above to your comment, here is one person and there are several listed in the links. Here is the post if you scroll up to the first in the link. He states, "A place not of free speech (that has little to do with it), but a place where you can verbally attack the character of those who you so happen to not like.

That is all this place is. All the talk about the other boards and discussions that happen here are a farce; look at the stats. This board has the most posts, views, and threads. " http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=2530&forum_id=6&jump_to=29520#p29520 FanofJR 01:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care enough about either CARM or AARM to wade through all of this verbiage. If there is a general question about how Wikipedia works, then I highly recommend accessing the fine reference materials at the Wikipedia:Community Portal. Concisely-written, specific questions may be placed on my talk page, user talk:Willmcw. Everyone who edits should be familiar with the wikipedia:Five Pillars and follow them scrupulously. Most of all I ask all editors to be civil. This is not a battleground. We are here to write the world's encyclopedia, not right the world's wrongs. -Willmcw 08:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the three edit rule: Based on editing behavior, and ISP, the following IPs are apparently used by the same person:

In the future I will consider edits by any of these IPs to been made by one person for the purpose of counting edits, and any of them that are involved in a 3RR violation will be blocked indefinitely by me on account of bhaving been used to evade our policies. I strongly urge the user to obtain, and use, a username. Gaming the system is not appreciated. -Willmcw 01:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to monitor the editor

that is continuously removing the NPOV in controversy. I read that last one with statements of critics just being from the carm group, can he prove that? Not a member of the carm group here and I most certainly agree that this Ratcliff guy is a bit over the top. Did you read his quotes? Looks to me like there is a friend to the family of Ratcliff doing the editing here. Or is Ratcliff still here?Tom S 48 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Tom S 48 - you're not a member of the CARM group, you're just someone who dropped in at Wikipedia in order to contribute exclusively to CARM-related articles: Your list of contributions can be seen here, and everything you've written is POV in favor of CARM. You haven't made a single edit on any other subject. Your transparent attempts to bias Wikipedia are not amusing. --Hyperbole 04:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The only transparency going on is with yourself as the obvious hostile, AARM member with the intent to slander and libel on a wikipedia article. Hyperbole is an obvious ACTIVE, biased member of AARM discussion boards with the intent to using wikipedia to push your personal propaganda from the AARM website to promoting hate of those that disagree with your personal belief system. Your membership on AARM is documented http://aarm.mywowbb.com/view_user.php?id=148&posts=1 HERE with over 700 or more of YOUR posts to the AARM forums and your announcing your intent to write articles for this website with an obvious bias to attacking the CARM members and administrators. Any idiot, with an ounce of common sense can see that it is YOUR name as editor to the CARM, Matt Slick, John Ratcliff, in the history of pages and pages, and that you are USING wikipedia as an AARM member to advertise the AARM website, to promote your personal bias, and for the record, out right lies. No Tom S 48 is not a CARM member. A CARM supporter, of course, you want a resume, telephone number, social security number? Now you tell us why it is YOUR name page after page in history as a BIASED member of the AARM discussion boards, that it is YOU a biased AARM member that has maintained control of the edits, manipulating and lying to the admins here, pretending that you have a NPOV, your doing the RV's, and writing to the wikipedia articles as a representative of John Ratcliff and his 'hate' website? By the way, your last addition is another documented, LIE and fraud. The libel statements remain on AARM, the list is HERE http://www.carm.org/list/aarm.htm. If you would look to laws in every country concerning libel, it is not about calling someone a name, but to state without proof that someone has a mental disease, a learning disability, a personality disorder, that they purposely lie in their writing, is LIBEL, against the law, it is not alleged, it is documented, still on the AARM boards, check the list. The fraud to this article and CARM articles by you is obvious to everyone BUT the admins here who you so cleverly manipulated.Tom S 48 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I am a member of AARM. And I have a POV on this subject. And I intend to write a NPOV article. That's what Wikipedia is about: people with POVs coming together to write a NPOV article. I haven't misrepresented who I am and what my POV is; you have, acting as though you're some guy who just wandered in, came upon this article, and formulated a POV on it, when your contribution history clearly reveals that you're interested in nothing here other than writing POV-skewed articles on CARM. If you think anything I've written is demonstrably false, please bring it to my attention; if it is in fact demonstrably false, I want it off these pages just as much as you do. Not due to your veiled threats of suing for "libel," but because I have respect for the truth and for Wikipedia's goal of providing it. --Hyperbole 18:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

---John W. Ratcliff 03:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC) I'm here, but I'm staying out of the edits at this point. Most of what is going on here belongs on an internet discussion forum, not on a Wiki. It is highly doubtful that anything I have done merits a Wiki article to begin with. Apparently the original article was entered by a fan of a game I wrote two decades ago. I was unaware this article even existed. In my view, neither myself nor Matt Slick merit Wiki entries simply because we are owners of a discussion website. It is questionable that the websites deserve a Wiki entry either. This entire thing is stupid and juvenile. This is a discussion that should be taking place on a web forum, and a dispute that is basically a bunch of individual's personal grievances need not be aired in this forum. People can, and do, respond in appropriate forums to a 'controversy' that amounts to nothing more than a childish exchange of internet messages. Of about as much importance as any spew on USENET. You guys have at it, keep editing this thing until there is a change-list ten thousand items long. I don't care, the petty squabble speaks for itself at this point. I tried to revert all of this nonsense in the first place and was told that I should stay out of it, so I am. Have fun boys and girls, I'm sure this is the most important thing you have to do with your life....

Matt Slick is not just a discussion board owner, a very small part of the CARM Ministry, but he is an ordained pastor, published author, speaker, it is the CARM articles and Home pages that are CARM, with 26,000 visits weekly, thousands of emails, praise for the ministry, continuous updates and writing to the Ministry Home pagers in order for the ministry to support his family as CARM president. Check the guest book to what CARM is. http://new.carmforums.org/cgi-bin/dcguest4/dcguest.cgi and the many people offering support that are no where NEAR any discussion boards on CARM. CARM is Matt's work of 25 years in ministry and how he supports his family. You think this is games Mr. Ratcliff, well it may be to you, but the slander and libel written by your AARM board members to the CARM and Matt Slick articles on wikipedia, have influenced his reputation to libeling him as a Christian Pastor. You are right, you don't deserve to be mentioned but you made it your business to take your fun and hobby to creating a website for the purpose of slandering people that you don't like.

CARM is not just a fun group of discussion boards, and maybe when you realize it, you will get your AARM board members to BACK OFF and stop attacking the life work of a man trying to support his wife and family. How do you people sleep at night? You have some decency Mr. Ratcliff, then get this nasty bunch of propaganda pushers to delete their slander on the CARM and Matt Slick wikipedia articles. It is YOUR boards they reference to promote the slander.Tom S 48 18:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

We've been through this a million times. CARM hasn't alleged a single specific instance of slander, libel, or falsehood on the CARM and Matt Slick Wikipedia articles. Slick's conduct has led to numerous - dozens if not hundreds - of people who strongly oppose what he's doing, and the fact that such criticisms exist must be included in any Wikipedia article on the subject in order for the article to be NPOV. Period. --Hyperbole 18:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbole, do you not understand?...This is NOT what I wrote, TS, someone changed my words and edited my question. Or are you that biased you can't see what this says. Look up libel, what is LIBEL? Educate yourself. This has been posted here and linked for days. Now read it, one sentence at a time, VERY SLOWLY, these are the post and quotes from AARM and they are almost ALL libelous statements that are AGAINST THE LAW. This is the list, it is HERE, listed HERE day one with the link. http://www.carm.org/list/aarm.htm Now here is the link copied again. These are all LIES, they cannot be proven and they are LIBEL and they are STILL on the AARM boards. There are much worse there that are documented. Shall we start posting Yoki and Buttons post? Just about everyday they libel someone. Calling them child abusers, accusing them of being ADD by NAME. Are you for real?Tom S 48 19:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.carm.org/list/aarm.htm Here is the LINK again to the libelous SPECIFIED documentation.

Exactly what is your position here Hyperbole? Would you please make an effort to keep up with what we are discussing? We are talking about the edits on the articles and your blatant, obvious bias and POV to controlling every word posted to these articles. You wanna see if we can last? Ok, let's do it. You can continue day after day to remove everyone elses edits, and we will do the same if that is what you want. I've got the time and the patience. Ya wanna go for it, let's do it. You have decided that you are the judge, jury, authority, and sole protector of the wikipedia articles on CARM and now Ratcliff? By what authority to you impose your POV on everyone else? I think you are the biggest hypocrite I have ever met. That is a fact. Are you getting off on this power struggle here, because that is how you come across. Is this fun for you? I asked a question, and YOU edited my question. I asked, "Are you learning impaired" as you seem not to be able to read any of the documentation given you. And you REMOVED my words and wrote, "Hyperbole do you understand." I am asking you again, are you learning impaired? Now I ask you why you think that you have the RIGHT to edit my question, it is my opinion that you may have difficulty with reading since you continue to ignore every word given you in documentation. THEN, you turn around and tell me, it is OK for people to suggest Matt Slick has a "Borderline Personality Disorder" as just their opinion. The facts are, if the person doesn't give the diagnosis by a professional and doesn't have the PROOF to make such a statement on public discussion boards, it is LIBEL. They have to prove it. I simply asked you a question, are you LEARNING impaired and you edited out the question, WHY? You have noooooooo problem with the list given you as being just opinion, but you remove an edit here? How dare you? Who do you think you are. Now I will give you some time here. You go and find the proof, the diagnosis from a professional that Matt Slick is ADD, Borderline Personality, and then I will concede the statements are not libel. Prove it, and then put BACK my question, or admit you are an hypocrite. You edit my words here again, and I will publically do a wikipedia article on YOU and list it under hypocrites.Tom S 48 20:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't edit your suggestion that I was "learning impaired"; that was Will, a Wikipedia administrator who apparently thought you had crossed the line. There is, of course, a Wikipedia "article" about me, just as there is about every Wikipedia user including yourself: click the link in my signature, and you'll go right to it. Edit away. I can't even make sense of this last round of comments you've made, except that you want the Ratcliff article edited to reflect the fact that CARM has specified statements on AARM that they think amount to libel. Fair enough: I'll make that edit if you haven't already. --Hyperbole 20:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well that is interesting, we are not even permitted to ask if someone is learning impaired and a person edits my words, but it is ok to accuse people of "mispresentation of facts, attacking their persons in a wikipedia articles as using moderators to quash opinion, with no documentation that is trustworthy.

Yes, Matt Slick has a dozen or so, maybe 100 people that do not like him, and thousands upon thousands that do. You sir, focus on the few as giving a 'common' complaint to paint a false picture of a person, and that is dishonesty, but you make the attemts here to paint Ratcliff as a saint. You should not be participating in the CARM or Ratcliff articles, you are a biased member of an ANTIcarm website as documented.

You also suggest in the article that only CARM members have a problem with aarm, that is not the truth, and I said already, that is not true that I don't post on CARM. That part of the article needs changing. If the admins are changing my words here, or anyone else, then why bother to respond, anyone can say what they please without them even writing that it was their edit and the admins changing words of people without writing that it was edited by their person is truly unacceptable? My words are being edited on this board, so I claime now, WHAT IS POSTED BY TOM S 48 MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE HIS WORDS AS WRITTEN.

Go back, back to the discussion. You claimed that there are no specified accusations of libel in your edit, then you gave an opinion on libel and what is or is not libel that is not accurate. I gave you the documentation that there were "specified accusations" of libel and you said you didn't believe they were libel. That is why I keep asking you if you have a reading problem as you were given the documentation. It is impossible to reason with you.Tom S 48 20:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've already edited the Ratcliff article to remove the "unspecified" language, after learning that the quotes on the "CARM response" page are the ones CARM considers libelous. I honestly can't see anything else in your latest dozen paragraphs or so that contain a suggestion on how to improve the articles, so I guess I'll just ignore them. Cheers. --Hyperbole 21:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You are not the judge and jury here,

and YOU sir are wrong concerning what you think. Do you think Matt Slick was so stupid as to not consult legalities before posting the list? Of course they are libelous. The quotes above are LIBEl, not think, not maybe, not could be, they ARE. No we will not take it up with them. The owner of the website as administrator is the publisher and is responsible to remove them.... Would you like the opinions of an attorney posted here? Who are YOU to determine what is or is not libel? The issue is were they documented, YES, the libelous statements are documented. You do not determine what is or is not cyberlibel, you do not decide by your opinion or what YOU think, as already stated above and you admitted to being BIASED. These quotes are libelous quotes, they will affect the reputation of a pastor, and you will REMOVE the edit saying they are 'undetermined' or I will. Your opinion is not what matters, is there documentation provided? Yes, and you need to REMOVE your statement. I want you to PROVE, prove these are not libelous statements before putting the words "undetermined" back into the article. There is NO free speech to posting lies about people, and if you are going to participate as a representative of Wikipedia, you had BETTER learn the copyright and cyberlibel laws. No you may NOT say what you please about a person using their real name on the internet. It is AGAINST THE LAW. Your opinion of free speech is not near reality.Tom S 48 19:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia:No legal threats. Do not post libellous material here, or you may be held responsible. -Willmcw 19:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is no libelous material posted here, or threats, but DOCUMENTATION of libel. Mr. Hyperbole has stated in the paragraph on Ratcliff that there are "unspecified" libelous statements. The SPECIFIED documentation has been posted here in a link, the words above are linked already in your article. As you have stated on another discussion concerning Matt Slick, wikipedia is not responsible. You said it more than once, shall I post it here. I read the discussions. Secondly, the statement that the libelous statements are 'unspecified' is the issue, they are. I don't see any libelous threats here. I see responses and documentation, of the aarm article that is linked. Tell ya what, I will just post the link here, and edit the documentation. Which I only QUOTED here because Hyperbole continues to edit with the false accusation that they are not specified. They are, and here is the link. Again, I will now remove the words above and again post the link, that you claim is ok.Tom S 48 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC) http://www.carm.org/list/aarm.htm The SPECIFIED libelous statements from the AARM forums where John Ratcliff is responsible as administrator to remove such libelous statements. Yes they are specified.

Wow, so much verbiage for such a minor point. Yes, you've specified statements that you think amount to libel. No, I don't think those statements even resemble libel. Yes, I've edited the Ratcliff article to reflect the fact that the quotes on the "CARM response to AARM" page are the ones CARM considers libelous. I hadn't been aware that those were the quotes you thought were libelous, because to my eye, they don't resemble libelous speech. --Hyperbole 20:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually they are a small clean sample, there are much worse in language and documentation that I have been exposed to. Now you take the statements to a lawyer, a LIBEL lawyer, or even do some research on the internet, and ask if they are libel, yes, they are libel, whether a person decides to sue or not, does not make them less libel. In fact, the person suing for libel does not even have to prove they caused damage, if it is in writing, it is assumed it did. If even an opinion is given by a person on such statements, and it appears there was any "malice" at all, anyone involved may be sued for making false statements that they cannot prove. They must be PROVEN facts and if stated in writing, even by anonymous persons against the name of a person, they are libel. The reason for the necessity to lengthy "verbiage" is the threats received to our being blocked as a couple of us using comcast cable IPs. Half the country here is using Comcast cable and we were threatened with changing edits. We are not permitted to edit but you can write whatever you please with no documentation or proof. Believe me, all of this is being documented as to what is going on here. There is absolutely nothing fair observed to the way the same moderators, and editors have been controlling the AARM and CARM articles and yes it is documented including the threats to the editors to block them simply because their opinions do not agree with you. Something not good is going on hereTom S 48 21:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that nothing you're saying here has anything to do with the quality of these Wikipedia articles. Yes, if you continually break the 3RR rule, or make legal threats on Wikipedia talk pages, your IP will be blocked. It's up to the administration of Wikipedia to decide whether that's the case. Otherwise, discussions on whether libel exists on AARM are simply not appropriate for the talk page of a Wikipedia article; they're off-topic. Take it to AARM if you want to complain about this; that's the appropriate forum. --Hyperbole 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What we are stating here are responses to your false edits to the wikipedia article. This IS about the wikipedia article, and you erasing and deleting every other EDIT but your own. Yes, reverts have to be done because you and Ratcliff keep erasing everyone's work, that was documented, sourced, even to his own quotes. No one is threatening libel and no one needs to discuss libel if you would stop giving your POV opinions on the Ratcliff article and suggesting what you think is 'LIBEL." You said, unspecified slander/libel charges, and then argued they were not libel. I simply responded to your comments, your inaccurate editing, that the libel statements had been linked here for several days, and you suggest, you don't THINK they are libel and wonder why we have to explain in 1000 words to every edit. You simply REMOVE what you don't like, no documentation, no source, telling us it is heresay and what Ratcliff told you. You should not be an editor here. None of this "verbiage" would be necessary at all if you would stop putting your opinion in the article and ERASING everything from the other POV editors attempting to keep this neutral. Please do not insult my intelligence hyperbole and stop with the false statements do you not knowing why we are writing all the verbiage, it is because of YOU that we have to explain. I may be dumb, but not stupid. You don't want to read all the discussion on edits, then STOP erasing everyone elses edits. You post false statements in the article, the documentation was presented that you said didn't exist and now you ask why someone mentioned libel. TWILIGHT ZONETom S 48 02:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

A quick review of my work will reveal that I'm not merely reverting and erasing edits; I incorporate all your extremely POV edits to the greatest extent possible. I am *actively avoiding* simple reverts; Wikipedia is a collaborative process. To use your own example, when it was pointed out that CARM specifically considered those quotes libel, I immediately removed the "unspecified" language. I absolutely do not want false information to appear on any page at Wikipedia. --Hyperbole 07:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Beliefs.

There is absolutely no reason in the world to have the religious beliefs of a game programmer on this article. It looks ridiculous. Where is the documentation and why is it here? JR started an Atheist discussion board that he blows off as not big deal, not a "Beliefs" discussion board or "Pantheist" discussion board and to list everything he believes is complete nonsense.Tom S 48 21:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ratcliff's beliefs are relevant to his capacity as a religious discussion board moderator, not to his capacity as a game designer. Isn't that obvious? --Hyperbole 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Atheism discussion boards are about religion? He said he is just a member of the boards, are you going to give all the beliefs of the paying members? Do you list the beliefs of all game developers on wikipedia? Who cares what he believes, he claims he is a troll, is that going back in? Also, the boards are moderated. Would you like the documentation stating that 'personal information' was taken off the boards by a moderator, posts moved to different boards by a moderator. Also I have seen a letter or statement by Ratcliff that he will remove post if sent to him, that IS MODERATION.Tom S 48 21:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Edited Ratcliff troll since he STILL describes himself as a troll and here is the link http://aarm.mywowbb.com/forum36/2579.html, were he admits to trolling and doesn't just state it was only on CARM.Tom S 48 21:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please post here the documentation to Ratcliff's beliefs.Tom S 48 21:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, Ratcliff's beliefs, and no one else's, are relevant to the John Ratcliff page. Ratcliff's beliefs are not a point of contention (Ratcliff described them to me personally), so documenting them with a link hardly seems necessary. AARM has a policy whereby people with moderation powers do not edit other people's posts without permission; in my view, that qualifies it as an unmoderated discussion board. We could try to get more precise in the article and say that moderations are not made except when user-requested, but frankly I don't see any reason for that; it's wordy and adds no real value to the article. But if you have a suggestion, let me know. I'll see about touching up the trolling section. --Hyperbole 21:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Edit on Beliefs till further documentation, this page too full

Removed unsourced beliefs of Ratcliff. Personal heresay is not going to make it. It only confirms your POV and your bias in this article. People can go to the forums to see his opinions, but there is no documentatin to his beliefs. This is what I keep trying to point out to the bias here. This is to be a factual article, with documentation. The moderators do remove post with or without request of the poster. I can post the documentation to Ratcliff saying he will remove slander.Tom S 48 21:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see you, or anyone, contesting Ratcliff's beliefs; since they're an uncontested description of his beliefs, there's no point in removing them. Since the "trolling" stuff is obviously not controversial (as Ratcliffe apparently agrees with it), it is more appropriate to put it in the "beliefs" section than that "controversy" section, and I have moved it. --Hyperbole 21:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Put BACK the link to his admitting his trolling that you removed. It is never ending with you Hyperbole, why can't you be this FAIR on the Slick article to removing unnecessary attacks on his person. You make sure you list each and every critics comment in the article and then here you remove anything that might appear negative to Ratcliff. How much is he paying you? Tell ya what, if we get Matt Slick to give opinions of Ratcliffs debating style will you list all the accusations as you did in the Slick article? You are obvious. You are going to paint this guy as the pope and yet attack Slick with nonsense from wackos. Go over to the SLICK article and remove all the critics comments, or admit what you are. You do need to take a real long hard look at yourself. I WILL BE BACK.Tom S 48 21:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The section about Ratcliff supporting trolling is supported by a link wherein Ratcliff says he supports trolling. I don't see what possible further documentation could be needed for the proposition. --Hyperbole 23:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

According to wikipedia rules, discussion boards and blogs are not "reliable" sources of research and documentation.Tom S 48 21:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Any writing by Ratcliff is a reliable source for what Ratcliff believes. Besides, you put the link there in the first place. --Hyperbole 21:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules and guidelines that are being ignored by editors

"Reliability Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources.Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." Tom S 48 22:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Primary sources are original research. Secondary sources are analyses of original research. Tertiary sources are those that compile and make sense of secondary sources. None of these terms are truly descriptive of what's being done here. These C/AARM articles do not contain anything identifiable as scholarly research. Rather, boards are being linked to to prove the proposition that certain criticisms exist. And such linkings shouldn't even be necessary since the existence of the criticisms is an obvious and apparent fact, the kind that does not demand authority in the first place. --Hyperbole 22:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Common sense dictates that any web-site is an acceptable source for an assertion about that web-site. If the Blog1 article asserts that "Blog1 says the sky is green" then it is appropriate to use the blog as a source. Similarly, if the Fred Bloggs article asserts that "Bloggs says xyz" and cites a blog that Bloggs has identified as his then again that blog is an acceptable source. —Theo (Talk) 11:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Being bold

There seemed to be a lot of suggestions to merge on the VfD for AARM (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/AARM), so I've taken the liberty of merging that article with this one and redirecting it here. This isn't part of the VfD result, it's subject to further discussion and consensus. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 16:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the below content is disputed as "POV" not factual

Webpages Ratcliff is the founder and creator of the unmoderated discussion forum website, AARM, which stands for 'Atheist Apologetics Research Ministry.'

The aarm boards are moderated, many persons have the title moderator, and posts are moved, etc. by moderators. John himself moderates the forums. The above statement is not fact.

I have no objection putting in a sentence to the effect that AARM has people with moderator powers and sometimes re-organizes posts into appropriate boards. However, AARM does not delete any content except at the request of a user; that makes it comparatively unmoderated --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"The name of the site is a play on words referring to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, founded by Matt Slick. Ratcliff began AARM as a reaction to the suspension of several users in the moderated CARM forums and his interpretation of this as atheists as well as Christians that held any liberal opinions being systematically excluded from those forums.

The above statement is not fact. A few posters suspended for a week, all were permitted to return in a week, and accounts were reactivated. Any liberal or atheist leaving permanently did so by choice. The above is not about the facts but POV.

So what's not factual about the statement? Several users were suspended - that's an agreed-upon fact - and Ratcliff interpreted that as systematic exclusion - that's a fact. Nothing NPOV here. --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Ratcliff has expressed a preference for unmoderated discussion forums for the purpose of discussing controversial subjects, stating "Why subject yourself to 'their' rules? It doesn't make any sense at all to me.""

Ratcliff has moderators on his forums. Not fact, how he moderates is one thing, however they do have moderation.

Yet Ratcliff has expressed that preference, so whether or not moderators exist, this particular sentence is factual. --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

AARM was founded in October 2004. The hosting fees were (and are) paid by soliciting donations from users, who collectively are considered the owners of the forum.

Also a lie, the administrator is Ratcliff, if contacting his webhost, the name of the owner is Ratcliff that is responsible as the administrator and founder.

What you wrote is not incompatible with what appears in the article. Unless you want a revision specifying that Ratcliff and the users consider the donators to be the owners of the forum. I wouldn't object to that. --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Despite the name, the site does not promote atheism or any particular philosophy. Members of the AARM discussion boards hold a variety of religious, spiritual, and theological beliefs. Discussion on AARM cover a wide spectrum in nature. Some of the topics are "Christians vs. Atheists", "Alternative Lifestyles," "Catholicism," and "Politics". Members of AARM also frequently use its discussion boards to critique, analyze, and complain about the CARM boards.

The boards are used to slander and libel CARM members, as is given the documentation and references in the CARM response to aarm. The quotes are given, and the facts NOT included in the article.

"Slander" and "libel" are legal terms, and it has not been established that any criticism of CARM amounts to slander or libel. It's already included in the article that CARM believes several AARM comments amount to slander and libel; I think that gets us to NPOV. The above paragraph, at any rate, is factual. --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Despite creating an "atheist" website, Ratcliff is not an atheist. He describes himself as a Pantheist influenced by "Neo-Platonism, quantum physics, the Seth Material by Jane Roberts, and the works of Robert Anton Wilson." Ratcliff practices Wilson's confrontational and controversial practice of guerilla ontology.

Ratcliff describes himself as an internet troll, it has been deleted and edited many times from the article. He also used foul language and promotes profanity on his discussion boards, also removed from the article, to a POV to painting Ratcliff in a more positive manner. Criticisms of Ratcliff, with documentation have been removed by the editors here. The same editors, slander, BASH, Matt Slick and CARM articles and erase, edit, remove, ANY comment to criticisms of Ratcliff in their article. This is a PROPAGANDA article and advertisment for the aarm forums. The facts are distorted and truthful details removed.

See below --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"In keeping with guerilla ontology, Ratcliff approves of the practice of internet trolling in the context of posting to moderated discussion boards, as he believes it forces people to confront new ideas."

Again, he brags and boasts of trying to cause problems on the CARM boards and then suggests he thought atheists removal was suspicious? Which is it? Again, minus the NPOV facts to give a POV favorable to Ratcliff and minus all the facts to what he is actually about in boasting of causing problems for Christian discussion boards.

Right here, we talk about Ratcliff's approval of the practice of Internet trolling and even include a link. What are you asking for, then? No information is being omitted here. Do you just want an extra sentence in the criticism section that CARM disapproves of Ratcliff's approval of trolling? --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Critics of John Ratcliff from the Evangelical website CARM charge that Ratcliff is negligent for failing to use moderation to edit or remove several comments allegedly amounting to slander and/or libel from the AARM website. [2] These critics also disapprove of unmoderated boards, where people are permitted to make personal attacks and use profanity and other foul language. They point out that Ratcliff has actually supported the use of such language in the past, and did so in a post that itself contained a large amount of profanity.

He does use moderation, but refuses to remove slander and libel as given the quotes in the CARM response.

I don't understand whether you have a complaint with this section. --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Ratcliff's supporters at AARM believe that criticism of Ratcliff amounts to little more than a reflection of CARM's disapproval of AARM and of unmoderated discussion in general.

CARM does not disapprove of unmoderated forums. Please give proof. CARM disapproves of slander, libel as it is against the law to LIBEL an individual by name. Ratcliff promotes LIBEL on his boards, that is objection of CARM.Peggy Sue 04:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Ratcliff's supports believe that CARM disapproves of unmoderated discussion in general. That's the only proposition the article makes, and that proposition is proven via the forum link. It's already represented in the article that CARM believes that Ratcliff allows libel on the boards. --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hyperbole's suggestions on how to fix NPOV

I can only see three reasonable edits that would address your complaints given here:

1. Write a sentence specifying what's meant by "umoderated": how some AARM individuals have moderator powers and use them to organize the site, but that no content is deleted except at the request of the original posters.

2. Specify that "ownership" of the boards is considered to be communal by the users themselves - that, obviously, there are third parties (such as the webhosting company and CARM) that consider Ratcliff to own the boards.

3. Put a sentence in the criticism section to the effect that CARM disapproves of Ratcliff's support for Internet trolling.

To me, all three of these edits seem somewhat unnecessary and burdensome to the article, but I'd be willing to make them if others concur that it would make the article more NPOV. So - can I get the opinion of someone other than the Dianes on whether these edits are worthwhile? --Hyperbole 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to Peggy Sue's identification of POV material

NB: This edit conflicted with Hyperbole's edit of 16:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC), so may duplicate some of his points. In general, these criticisms seem to fail to distinguish between reported opinions and the substance of those opinions. If we state "George believed that the sky was green", that is a true statement if he does so believe. Some of the points raised seem to be valid, however, although the tone is incivil and assumes bad faith. Here is my take as an editor with no allegiance (or sympathy) with either camp:

Moderation of AARM. It seems that "moderation" may not be the best word to communicate the original author's intent. From the context, I deduce that they meant that the forum's sysops do not change or delete the content of messages. I can see how one person can use "moderate" to mean "manage content" and another can use it to mean "manage structure and content". This is the basis of three of Peggy Sue's objections to the article.
Origin of AARM. By Peggy Sue's own statement, several users were suspended (albeit for a week). Ratcliff may be mistaken in his opinion that aetheists and liberal Christians were being systematically excluded but that is not the point here. The article claims that Ratcliff started the forum because that was his opinion. Peggy Sue refutes a statement that was not made. Her suggestion that the paragraph "is not about the facts but POV" appears to be mistaken (remember George and the green sky).
Ownership of AARM. The registration and ownership of the domain name by John Ratcliff is not inconsistent with the fee donors being collectively considered the owners of the forum. It would be clearer if the article stated who holds this opinion.
Topics of AARM. Leaving aside the issue of whether criticism and complaint on a web forum is slander or libel, I do not see it as POV to assert "Members of AARM also frequently use its discussion boards to critique, analyze, and complain about the CARM boards." without detailing the specific topics of such posts.
Ratcliff as "internet troll". Because Ratcliff has described himself as an internet troll then it is appropriate to state that with a specific source. The article's current statement that he "approves of the practice of internet trolling" presents an incomplete picture. There is no need to include the full text of such a claim; it is enough to say that he describes himself as a troll and cite the source as a reference.
Use and promotion of profanity. The article already says that he has used profanity and supports its use. I can find no sustainable claim that he promotes its use.
Behaviour of editors on other articles is utterly irrelevant here. Anybody having a problem with the behaviour of another editor should take that up on the offending editor's talk page and in the event of continuing disatisfaction post a notice at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
Ratcliff's motives. Ratcliff's stated desire to challenge the values of Christian Fundamentalists is not incompatible with his opinion that aetheists were removed from CARM and his opinion that the reasons for this were suspicious. I think that the article should state that he intends to challenge the values of Christian Fundamentalists, particularly those that contribute to CARM.
CARM's position on unmoderated forums. If the sentence opening "Ratcliff's supporters at AARM believe…" was rewritten as "Ratcliff's supporters at AARM believe that criticism of Ratcliff amounts to little more than a reflection of CARM's disapproval of AARM." there can be no argument. A further statement might be: "The same supporters believe that CARM is opposed to unmoderated discussion in general, although CARM's <owners/administrators> say they only disapprove of the promotion of libel/slander. CARM considers such promotion to be implicit in a refusal to edit or delete posts with they consider to be libellous." These last two sentences need further work to make them accurate and fair.

If the issues identified at points 1, 3, 5, 8 & 9 are addressed, I think that the NPOV flag may be removed. —Theo (Talk) 16:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with your opinions. First of all, your comment;"Topics of AARM. Leaving aside the issue of whether criticism and complaint on a web forum is slander or libel, I do not see it as POV to assert "Members of AARM also frequently use its discussion boards to critique, analyze, and complain about the CARM boards." without detailing the specific topics of such posts." CARM does not have a problem with criticism, and complaining, the response from CARM to aarm that is linked shows you LIBEL posted on the aarm boards, to use the name of a person, to attack the persons by name, accusing them of mental illnesses, learning disabilities, attacking their character with FALSE statements in using their name is LIBEL, it is against the law. We are not talking about a few users whining about being suspended, but actual, libelous statements in using the real names of CARM administration. The administrator, Ratcliff was given the lists of just a few of the libelous statemenst and they have not been removed from his boards. AGAIN, whining about CARM is one thing, attacking the persons by name of the administrators with comments such as are posted in the link from CARM are LIBELOUS statements. Ratcliff is listed as the administrator, and no one was removed from CARM when Ratcliff started his boards, he knew, as well as everyone else that CARM suspensions were at that time, for 3 days....again, the information posted is a lie.Peggy Sue 20:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Peggy Sue: Do you disagree with all my opinions or just some of them? You only address one. The opinions that I opine here are that:

"moderation" may not be the best word to communicate the original author's intent.
the statement about ownership of AARM would be clearer if the article stated who holds this opinion.
it is not POV to assert "Members of AARM also frequently use its discussion boards to critique, analyze, and complain about the CARM boards." without detailing the specific topics of such posts. This is the only opinion that you discuss above.
it is enough to say that Ratcliff describes himself as a troll and cite the source as a reference.
the article should state that he intends to challenge the values of Christian Fundamentalists, particularly those that contribute to CARM.
my proposed "two sentences" need further work to make them accurate and fair.
if the issues identified at points 1, 3, 5, 8 & 9 (in the initial sequence) are addressed, the NPOV flag may be removed.

Regarding the specific point that you discuss: First of all, your comment;"Topics of AARM. Leaving aside the issue of whether criticism and complaint on a web forum is slander or libel, I do not see it as POV to assert "Members of AARM also frequently use its discussion boards to critique, analyze, and complain about the CARM boards." without detailing the specific topics of such posts."

Neither I nor the article assert that CARM has "a problem with criticism, and complaining". Your assertion that libel is posted on the AARM boards is not the issue here. Since you spell the word out in upper case and then explain it at some length, I imagine that you believe that I do not understand the meaning of "libel". I understand its meaning under English Law and, although I recognize that there may be differences in other jurisdictions, I am confident that this is close enough to the sense in which you use it. How does Ratcliff's failure to remove statements listed by representatives of CARM make any part of this article a "lie"? Please bear in mind that your assertion that a statement is a lie necessarily implies that the person who wrote the statement is a liar. Unless you have evidence that the person intended to their statement to deceive, the accusation that they are a liar is defamation: the very offense against which you are railing. —Theo (Talk) 22:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)