User talk:Sephiroth storm/Archives/2013/December

Read 3RR

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts...". The third revert is not the violation. A 4th one is the violation. This is basic stuff. So your statement that I violated the 3RR is wrong and you should amend your false allegation. Further, you stated that I reverted before I posted on the talk page. My response on the talk page was posted at 15:25. The subsequent revert was 15:27. You can amend that false statement too. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder if your stated lack of respect for Army CID is because you found yourself on the short end of an investigation. BTW, here is the link to the conflict of interest board. Please feel free to take your case there. If it was worth littering my page with a "warning" over, then why not take it there. User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, i've never been on any side of a CID investigation. I served in the USMC and USA with honor. My respect for OSI comes from seeing their operational reports from the war on terror. I don't trust CID because they train at the MP school, and MP's have a bad reputation. They are the only MFLEA that does not send Agents to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which I can't ignore as far as whether their agents are as qualified as other Agents. They also have split CounterIntel which gives them a less broad range of experience. As far as why I didn't report you to the noticeboard, I wanted to be civil and give you the warning, which is what it is. I'm not asking for you to be blocked or any such thing, just be aware that discussion on talk pages is the preferred method for dealing with conflicts. if you have a COI, mention it and avoid editing in a way that may be seen ass controversial. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently, you need to learn more about Army CID. 1) Your claim that they split with counter-intel is simply wrong. CID's CI mission is actually less than OSI's mission. Army MI has their own agent. 2) Not going to FLETC isn't really that big of a deal. While you demean the Army MP school, you fail to recognize that the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps send Masters-at-Arms, Security Police Investigators and Marine CID respectively to the MP School for their training, as well as for training for several specialties. So does the Dept. of Defense Police. Also, the US Army MP School is one of the training providers for drug enforcement training for federal and civilian law enforcement agencies.[1] It also trains all the polygraph examiners for all DOD activities. 3) As for your "MP's have a bad reputation", that's your opinion based on anecdotal nothingness......and failing to note that Marine MP's train at the same school. 4) Some CID agents start as MP's, many do not. Being a MP is not a requirement to enter CID. In the end, you have more bias than facts. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of Army CI's mission and its history with CID, the only thing I am saying is that almost all other federal LEA's have CI divisions within the organization, whether it should be the same in the Army has been debated throughout history. 2. That is my opinion, as I have stated. A person shapes their perception based of opinion, evidence and facts. I am fully aware that many organizations send people to the MP school. That speaks to the caliber of the instructors. That being said, If the MP Corps has issues, I have to assume that there is an issue within the training pipeline. Because CID has the same training pipeline, I have to consider the possibility that it may be affected. This is not something I claim as fact, it is what I believe is a reasonable belief. Keep in mind you are going after me based on something I told you, because I wanted to be open and honest about my views, I don't edit for or against any Agency based on my opinion. I edit based on my understanding of policy and procedure. That all being said, I would love to hear your opinions of CID, perhaps you can change my opinions. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Training pipeline? In one breath you talk about the high caliber of the instructors at the MP School (most of whom are MP's), then claim their training pipeline is the problem. That doesn't track. Additionally, I was pretty clear that a significant number of CID agents are never MP's. They reclassify, attend the school (which you admit has good instructors) and then go to field offices. So still not seeing how you arrive at your conclusion. CI and CID are separate orgs. I have to admit, I find it funny that you keep telling me what FLEA's and CID do/don't do/have/don't have when I'm the one in this conversation that has been in CID and worked for a FLEA (in the Treasury Dept.). The shame of this is that we have shared interests and probably aren't that far apart on most things, but when you come right out of the box with a COI allegation and continue defending it, that creates a real divide. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you cant see what i'm saying. You can have good instructors all over the place, and still have issues at the training academy. They are not mutually exclusive. You can have issues with leadership, you can have issues with policy and procedure, it could be anything. I never stated that any number of CID Agents were MP's. Its like this, If CID suddenly was training with NYPD, I would be concerned because NYPD has some issues with racial issues that they may bleed over into CID. That is a logical assumption. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Again, you're heavy on assumption and very light on fact. Yeah, I get that it's you opinion, I just submit that it's an opinion based little objective basis and mostly anecdotal prejudice. You still keep claiming that CID splits their duty for counter-intel and that's not correct. CID may deal with criminal intelligence, but not "intelligence" as in counter-intel. Every LEA collects criminal intelligence. OSI, however, does have counter-intel as part of their duties. Maybe I can't see what you're saying because I know better. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying, the Army has taken CI out of the LEA while OSI, NCIS, and the FBI all have those functions within the Agency. That is what I mean by "split". Now we can debate whether that is a positive or negative, but the point remains, It is another thing that separates CID. If I am hiring an investigator, and I have 2 relatively equal canidates, one from OSI, the other from CID, I *may* give a nod to the one from OSI, as I know that the CID Agent has never worked a counterintelligence case. In addition, if my agency requires FLETC, I know the OSI applicant has completed it, he can come on board with minimal training. Depending on regulatory requirements, if there is an exception for the CID Academy, (which i've never seen mentioned in a job posting) I will have to pay to send the CID Agent to FLETC. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• The FBI learned their lesson on this matter. In the Cold War days, over half the agents were CI. Once the Cold War ended, they had to transition most to criminal investigations and found that the two disciplines were far apart. Many experienced counter-intel agents had little to no experience with criminal investigations and had to be retaught things they'd forgotten or had changed since they completed the academy. On top of that, Counter-intel only matters to people working counter-intel. A BATFE agent working undercover with a militia group could care less about counter-intel. They need to worry about criminal intel, which is what CID (and everyone else) does. It's not like agents sit around juggling criminal and counter-intel cases at the same time. They specialize in one or the other at a time. Typically for large portions of their career. Why? Because different techniques and different laws apply. Additionally, you seem to not be clear on what FLETC actually is. It's a training facility, but not a streamlined one. A uniformed Park Police Officer "attends FLETC". So does a Juvenile Corrections Officer from the BIA. It's a question of what program they complete. And CID, which is a partner agency just like OSI, can and does send agents to the Criminal Investigator training program (notice that is criminal, not counter-intel), which is the same one OSI uses. Not all go to it, but many do. This is all, however, moot because you clearly will never be in the position to hire federal agents and appear to be pretty fuzzy on the lines between criminal intelligence, counter-intelligence and where they fit into the day to day life of most agencies. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you can't seem to have a decent, civil conversation, while I have discussed things with nothing against you personally, every message of yours tells me i'm uninformed, or unintelligent, care to address that before we continue? Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• It probably started when you made an offensive allegation with your COI template. It also doesn't help when you sit here and tell me what CID, OSI and federal agencies do and don't do. I may not know everything about every agency, but I have worked in 2 of those 3 and I'm willing to bet have had more contact with OSI than you. But you continually act like I have no idea what I'm talking about. Respect works both ways. Right out of the gate, you made an insulting allegation, but expect me to act like it never happened. You've cast aspersions on one of my former agencies (and by extension on me) while offering nothing more than "it's my opinion" to support it. So please, don't insult me by acting like you've been all sweetness and light here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We are having a discussion, it's not personal, I have opinions and I am telling you what I believe and what I think, no different than us talking about politics or anything else. Theres no need to make jabs. This COI business is in the past, my only concern is to do what I can to contribute to the encyclopedia. My discussion here with you is not a debate on the validity of anything, just a friendly conversation, at least that was my intent. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why exactly is the COI allegation in the past? Because you stopped saying it? It was insulting and that made it personal. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? I don't know, i don't make things on wikipedia personal, at all. In my mind many editors have a COI in something they edit. I have a COI as I respect and would prefer positive editing on all of these Agencies articles, however, I recognize that COI and edit, to the maximum extent I can without partisanship. Whether I succeed or not is up to other editors to decide. If an editor feels I have acted improperly I'll look at the situation, decide if I was wrong and make changes. In this case, I feel that you have a COI, again, not personal, a fact IMO. You are a member of a sister agency, by default that means to me that you need to be cautious in your edits. I saw what you did as whitewashing, and it seems that you have a personal stake in this. I could walk away from this article tomorrow and have no issue with it. If you can say the same then I would say we can keep moving forward. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• So you repeat your baseless allegation, call it a fact and then ask why I take it personal? I am not a member of a sister agency. I was. See that minor difference is the sort of thing you overlook. You can talk all you want about your personal COI's, but when you start telling me mine, especially absent actual evidence, it become a personal attack. Even one of the admins at the 3RR board told you that. I thought you were actually getting to the point where you were going to back off of that silliness, perhaps even concede that it wasn't proper to lead off with that. Instead, you double down on it, repeating it and making an allegation of whitewashing. Talk all you want about "civil", "not personal" or what have you, but you've shown that is a lie. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether you were currently employed by CID was not clear to me, sorry. I said it is a fact IN MY OPINION. A conflict exists in my mind when there is a reasonable expectation that someone may have a reason to edit towards a goal that is beneficial to their employer. The DoD was your employer, you likely feel some connection to that employer, therefore there is a COI. A COI warning exists to say "hey, be careful". As for my use of the term whitewashing, that is what you did, you removed the information from the article you stated that you did not intend to discuss the subject, which is our policy when there is a dispute. If the information does not violate BLP or wikimedia policies, take the discussion to the talk page. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have a COI because I worked for the DOD? Um, guess what.....so did you. When you enlisted, you started working for the Dept. of Defense. Discussing your conspiracy theory is NOT "our policy". Just because you say it doesn't make the topic automatically merit any discussion. It was insulting. You've been told it was insulting. An uninvolved third party told you people may view it as insulting. Yet you not only continue to ignore that, you actually ramp it up by calling the COI a "fact". Then you have the gall to talk about civility. How you can even think you have the footing to talk to me about civility while repeatedly (and increasingly) insulting me is unfathomable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I admit I have a COI, in case you didnt read that above. In addition, I was told that some editors find it insulting. What they find is irrelevant, the policy is what it is, and a conflict of interest exists whether you are insulted or not. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• What you're missing is that you are foisting YOUR COI on me. You're the one with a COI. You state you have one. I don't have one. No, it's not that I don't recognize it. It's not there. Don't assume everyone else shares your shortcomings. And while you're yakking about what is or is not relevant, perhaps you should learn what you are talking about. WP:COI is not a policy, it's a guideline. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are policies. when you are told something is false and insulting, repeating it is uncivil and a personal attack. Policies are not irrelevant. In the end, what you are telling me is that you don't feel like you need to abide by those policies, yet want to tell me that I'm not being civil enough for your tastes. You can't have it both ways. You're a hypocrite. And there is far more evidence to back that up than your moronic COI theory. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. Therefore my assessment is correct. Anyone can say that they don't have a COI, it is for other editors to determine if a COI exists. EDIT: I'm going to try to get some outside opinion on this, I am going to open a review with COI Noticeboard. This is not a personal attack, I just want an outside opinion on who is correct here on the issue of the COI. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• I know what the guideline says. I know how to read. The operative word here is "reasonably" and that's where you fail. And yes, your continued personal attack is an attack. COIN will likely tell you this. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously I believe it is reasonable or we wouldn't be here. Honestly i'm just hoping we get some input from the COIN board so we can resolve this. Despite whatever you are feeling I have nothing against you. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Some people believe that the earth is flat. Just because you believe it doesn't make it reasonable. When you continually insult me, despite being told your allegation is untrue, it is personal. You can tell yourself that it isn't, but each time you repeat it, you essentially call me a liar. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about you, i am talking about anyone who is in a similar situation. If an FBI agent edits the CID article i'd say they have a COI as well. I am not calling you a liar. this isnt a matter of fact/nonfact its all views and opinion. Now before you go using the word personal attack, I suggest you view the definition at WP:WIAPA. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 20 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

break, cont

This isn't a matter of fact/nonfact? You stated above that it was a fact. If you misspoke, you could have corrected that when I pointed it out more than once. You haven't. You repeat it. Further, your link is something you should read. It says you can QUESTION a potential COI. Your concern was addressed, but you simply refuse to accept it. The policy doesn't allow for you to keep repeating it absent evidence. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I broke up the section for easy access. allow me to explain. "I feel that you have a COI, again, not personal, a fact IMO" Please note a few things. I feel - meaning that according to my interpretation of the COI guideline a COI exists. That is all I am saying. As for WP:WIAPA, I believe what they are saying is that you may question an editor on whether they have a COI. We are having a discussion because you don't agree that your connection qualifies as a COI, I am not trying to say YOU HAVE A COI! per say, I am saying that I believe that your association qualifies as a COI. You disagree, which is why we have mediation and conflict resolution teams. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• What you should be saying is that you think I have a bias. One can have a bias without a COI. You feel I may have some sort of affection or goodwill towards the subject. That is BIAS. I even quoted the passage for you in the COIN response. I don't have an interest in AFOSI in the way "interest" is used in COI. What you keep trying to lay out is a case for a bias. I'm sorry that you can't distinguish between the two, but your inability to do so has lead you to make an offensive allegation repeatedly. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I hear you on the point of bias. I suppose it is my belief that a COI would lead to an editor having bias. Would you say that is reasonable? Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• No. You have it backwards. The COI guideline is quite clear: "Conflict of interest is not simply bias. Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest. On Wikipedia, a person's beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest." You are so invested in the notion of a COI that you are still trying to figure out how to make it valid. forget COI! What you are articulating it that you think I have a potential bias. There's no real evidence of it and it's mostly speculation on your part, but you're talking about a bias nevertheless. Since I'm not paid by them, promoting anything involving them, in anyway increasing anything I have an interest in etc, it's going to be tough to say there is a COI. If I was a record producer and cleaning up derogatory info about my artist, there is a potential COI. If I wrote a book about wrestling and kept trying to use it as a reference to increase my stature as an author, there may be a COI. But that's not what you are articulating. You're articulating a potential bias. I dispute the bias, but that's what we should be talking about. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)