User talk:StillStanding-247

RfC talk: User talk:Viriditas/RfC

RfC draft: User:Viriditas/RfC

Draft RFC on WikiProject Conservatism

Main page: User:StillStanding-247/RfC

Are you interested in getting this off the ground? Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to do my part, for the best interests of Wikipedia. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK if I start it in your user space first? When we are finished, we can move it to WikiProject Conservatism. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just keep in mind, we want to steer clear of attacking personalities and editors, and just talk about the policies and guidelines. Obviously, user behavior will be part of that, but try not to personalize the disputes. This could take several weeks to put together, so please stay patient. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. I believe the focus should be on a) selective invitation of editors with a known history of "countering liberal bias", b) the pattern of inviting these editors to focus on a particular article, with the foreseeable consequence of vote-stacking, and c) the pattern of voting as a bloc on RfC's and straw polls. That's the core issue. There are side issues that are a bit more personal, in terms of the pattern of intimidation of apparently liberal-leaning editors, but we shouldn't get overly distracted by this. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom has previously ruled on the collective behavior of blocs of editors and improper coordination. Some examples include: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. Relevant policies and guidelines in this regard according to case precedent are WP:CANVASS, WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF WP:3RR, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:5. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

In the Macedonia case, the particularly relevant part is "Collective behavior of blocs of editors". StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism and identify the good and bad arguments. Are there any problems that were pointed out in that MfD that are still a problem today? How has the community addressed this problems? What's worked and what hasn't? Also see this failed request for arbitration for historical purposes. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

For the Eastern European ruling, the keys appear to be: Canvassing, Not a battleground, Gaming the system, Meatpuppetry, Presumption of coordination and perhaps Off-wiki communication. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we really need to stick to hard numbers. They will be tough to find, but that's the only way the RFC will be successful. How many RfC's, 3RR reports, blocks and bans, page protections, etc. can be attributed to the project? Is it true that this project is mostly engaged in promoting POV and edit warring, or are they actively improving articles? Or, is it just one or two members who are improving articles while the rest of fighting battles? These numbers are important. Also, how many WQA/AN/ANI's? What was average outcome? Any related arbcom cases? In other words, using statistics, can you show that the project has been a positive or a negative to Wikipedia? Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Since what we're doing here amounts to testing a hypothesis, we should use a scientific approach. I suggest we start with the membership rolls and figure out who the most active editors are. Inactive or rarely active editors, no matter how biased, do not have much harmful effect, so this allows us to narrow our focus. The next question is whether these active editors fairly support support conservative bias and each other. This is most quantifiable in straw polls and RfC's. We should filter out irrelevant outliers, such as an active, liberal-leaning member who only edits articles about botany.

Just to get things on the record, I believe we need to politely ask Lionelt to reveal any real-world COI. I would be shocked if he admitted to any, but we have to ask. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, but we have to take all of that and present it in the format of an RFC. What were are doing is asking for community input, but giving the community a brief summary of the evidence which will allow them to make the right decision. It will help if we present a list of possible outcomes that would fix the problem. If the community cannot make a decision, then we take it to arbcom. Keep in mind, without really good evidence, this will go nowhere. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If we don't feel we're able to put together a clear case, we shouldn't file it. I think that what we ask for will depends entirely on what we can prove. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of a relevant poll: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Ryan&oldid=508364671#Nobel_prize-winning_economist. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that Lionelt has a manifesto on User:StillStanding-247/countering liberal bias, which I'm making a backup copy of, since it's flagged for deletion. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole canard of combating "liberal bias" has pulled the curtain back just a bit on the wizard behind the control panel. What we are really seeing is that WikiProject Conservatism is an outright lobbying group focused primarily on promoting political candidates and religious ideology. They are using the cover of article improvement to hide this blatant POV pushing and their concern with "liberal bias" remains entirely unfounded. Ask these editors for examples of such bias and they might point you to one or two examples from five years ago, but we've got millions of articles–surely if there was a liberal bias we would be able to see it? In fact, "liberal bias" is a euphemism for any type of content that a fringe group of paleo-conservatives wishing to take the world back to the 14th century don't like. However, the encyclopedia, by it's very nature, must be a product of liberal bias, because it does not rely on religion or tradition to promote its subject matter. Therefore, WikiProject Conservatism has, as its primary objective, the destruction of the concept of an encyclopedia, not just the removal of liberal bias. And you can look at Consevapedia to see how great an accomplishment they were able to create. That site is so bad, the average reader can't tell if it is a deliberate parody or not. When informed that Conservapedia is a real site written by real editors who believe what they are writing about, most people still can't believe it. We're not dealing with rational people, and you must always remember that. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

With that said, I'm leaning towards the religious lobbying group hypothesis. Catholic Republicans operating in the United States. Without naming any editors, we saw this exact same behavior with the Tea Party movement and related articles. It might be instructive to review those disputes on the noticeboards and to look for any similarities. I have a feeling we will find what we are looking for. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

When I saw Tea Party movement, I laughed, then cried, then ran away. Dumb as I am, I'm not dumb enough to edit that.

I was trying to explain this to John, but the whole notion of "liberal bias" is essentially conservative bias. At this time, the right wing is very, very far to the right, to the point where it's not just a difference of opinion or an incompatible set of values, it's simply out of touch with reality. Evolution? Don't want it. Climate stability? Doesn't matter. Truth? Not as important as winning.

Snark aside, it's not that reality has a liberal bias, it's that extremism is nuts. Perhaps in a different world, the extremists in America would be left wing, but in this one, that's just not how it is.

So, yes, a manifesto urging conservatives to "fix liberal bias" and offering tricks of the trade isn't the loyal opposition, it's treason. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing that fascinates me them most is that these people who claim to be fighting anti-Christian and anti-American bias are in fact, as anti-Christian and anti-American as you can get. How do you explain that kind of disconnect? If the Jesus of the NT returned at this moment he would be branded a liberal. And the founding of the US? Clearly, a leftist plot. You've probably been following some of the news stories that have come out in the last decade or so (and even recently) showing how certain leaders in the conservative moment have actively tried to rewrite Jesus as a conservative and the founders of the United States as fundamentalists. The scary thing is that with the loss of paper books, history will only be as real as the people who have access to the cloud servers. A despot could easily rewrite history and nobody would ever notice. Even with books, I suspect that this has already been done, several times in fact. Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, let them symbolically have Jesus and America both. I'm concerned with the reality, which is not at all a matter of mere symbolism. And the reality comes down to money. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Money is the ultimate symbol, but it cannot deliver nor satisfy what people truly want in life. Hence, it is the ultimate tease. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Money is a placeholder for control of resources. If I told you I had a magic wand that could compel a person to follow me around all day, do my bidding, run errands and so on, you'd likely conclude that using it would be evil. But if I had the wealth of a Romney, I could hire someone for less money than I'd notice the loss of, and they'd be my personal assistant. That's what the real issue is. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the real issue is that most people don't understand money or the financial system and the media has no vested interest in helping them make informed decisions about it. If they did, then the electorate would make better decisions. Mandatory voting would help. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Lots of things would help, including campaign finance reform, electoral reform and better education. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to mention that many members were invited to join, for example.[1] TFD (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely, and that these invitations went out only after these editors had proved their conservative credentials. It's a clear pattern. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted on the pending RFC

• There is broad support for the existence of such a project, so we should not ask for deletion. Instead, we should ask for it to be re-chartered in such a way as to prevent it from being dominated by editors eager to "combat liberal bias", as they see it.
• A possible alternative is a WP:RFC/U aimed at the ringleaders, with the goal of putting less biased people in charge of the project.
• ArbCom requires "evidence of any attempt at prior dispute resolution". I think we've got some of that now.
• The vagueness and extreme scope of "conservatism" is seen as perhaps justifying a more focused project, like American Conservatism, but this would only be more partisan.
• Lionelt says it "improves conservatism-related articles". This is the key issue; it doesn't.
• User:Wikiwind asks, "I don't know what is the purpose of this project, except perhaps mass canvassing?" So this issue has come up before.
• About a year ago, it had about 55 members. That seems large.
• User:MastCell raised concerns about it being "a coordinating point for people whose edits advocate a conservative political and social agenda". He offers many supporting diffs. [2]
• I'll note that many of my edits are within the scope of that project, yet Lionelt has never invited me to join. However, I've seen him invite many of the people who keep reverting my changes. Selective membership seems to be the root cause of all evil.

There is no selective membership anyone can join at any time be simply going to (1) and adding their names to the list, invitations are given to those who might be interested in the project but might not know of it's existance any member or non-member (not just Lionelt) can give out an invitation which if you scroll do to the bottom of the page I just cited you can see under Template. Also Still-24, Lionelt probably never gave you an invitation since he probably thought it be a waist of an edit and I was not inclined to give an invitation either since I thought you would not be interested, which judging by this you clearly weren't. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused: if WP:C is a neutral, nonpartisan project then why wouldn't you think still would be interested in joining? He seems like a person really interested in the subject, afterall. Sorry if I'm misreading you, but it appears that you've implicitly stated that WP:C is a collaboration of conservative editors and therefore still wouldn't be interested in joining. Please correct me if I misinterpreted you. Sædon^talk 06:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second. In this diff you claim that the point of WP:C is to eliminate liberal bias on Wikipedia. I think that answers my question. Sædon^talk 06:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And now you see why there's an RFC brewing. No project should be dedicated to violating WP:NPOV. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• "this project has become a club for civil POV pushing" - and not so civil.
• "Deletists are right that some articles have been tagged that shouldn't have been, but that is no reason at all to delete the entire WikiProject"
• TFD insightfully adds, "The major problem is that the project is primarily about American conservatism, yet American conservatism is not considered to be part of world conservatism."
• I see a pattern of hostile -- borderline uncivil personal attacks, really -- made by conservatives defending their project turf. I think it would be instructive to note them as they appear and keep a count, as it goes towards showing lack of neutrality.
• Roscelese calls it "the heir to the snow-deleted Conservative Notice Board" and supports/suggests ANI. Maybe we should ask her to contribute.

I would be interested in how many of its current members (out of those who were editing Wikipedia at the time, of course) were highly active on that noticeboard. That being said it has been six years, so I think it would only be weak evidence either way. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Take a look at "cross-talk, not relevant to MfD" here.
• Here's an example of an editor politely refusing to join for the stated reason that they're not really anti-liberal: [3]. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I must take issue with the above point as I was the inviter, the invitee was under the impression project wiki conservatism was anti-liberal (no doubt from discussions like these) I belabored the point that we are not anti-liberal (in a lenghty comment) that we just want to obtain N-POV, after hearing this the invitee who the point was made clear to decided that they might join the project one day clearly retracing their initial impression, the above point takes a false impression that I painstakeingly corrected out of context and I would politely ask it be removed so it is unfair point John D. Rockerduck (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I promise to preserve the full context so this is not taken in isolation, but what the actual goal of the project is turns out to be what we're trying to determine. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lionelt makes a point of self-identifying as a Democrat. I see no reason to disbelieve this, but also no contradiction between this and being a staunch conservative. See Blue Dog Democrats. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• The "Countering liberal bias" essay is an excellent source of insight into Lionelt's motives, avoiding undue synthesis, so to speak. [4]
• There is good reason to believe that they have an IRC channel for off-wiki organization.

There could be a contradiction though, your thinking of conservatism only through the prism of social conservatism one can be a social conservative yet still very liberal on other issues, for example the Pope Benedictus who supports social conservative policies but in all other areas is a liberal such as his support and the Catholic church's support for a single-payer healthcare system (coindcedentally Lionelt is a member of wikiproject catholiscism) and for example I'm am a Social conservative but economic liberal that fully supports making the rich pay their fair share yet identify with the Republican only because my opposition to abortion procuring the civil right of life to all is my number one issue and passion, in conclusion it is a faulty point at best John D. Rockerduck (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

John, what is the specific scope of WikiProject Conservatism? It doesn't have one, so there is no justification for the project. WikiProject Catholicism is very specific. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted this diff above but it's also topical here as I think he clearly states the purpose of WP:C in his estimation. Sædon^talk 06:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are legit justifications for this project as why it was voted overwhelmingly to be kept, one could reasonably try to argue that in some ways the project has done unlegitimate things (Which I would utterly disagree with and find no evidence of) also there is a scope and it is at least to me specific along with countless others so that is debatable Link John D. Rockerduck (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

John, in my experience, self-identified Catholics tend to be socially conservative (anti-gay, anti-woman, etc) but economically liberal (help the poor). While WikiProject Conservatism is named very, very broadly, it seems to be more focused on social conservatism than anything else, with a tendency to line up with the American Republican Party on most issues. It might as well be WikiProject Insert Republican Bias. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-women and anti-gay are unfair I'm a Catholic and neither of those things and I certaintly know many others in my expierence that do not fit that bill also of course they would tend line up with the Republican party since the republican party tends to line up with the conservative position John D. Rockerduck (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with John. In the US, I think half of all Catholics are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. StillStanding, are you confusing Catholics with Baptists? Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's entirely fair. The Catholic Church considers homosexuality a sin, opposes same-sex marriage and has even endorsed conversion therapy. It formally considers women unequal to men by denying them the clergy, opposes almost all forms of birth control, including abortion (and even for rape victims), and endorses traditional gender roles (misogyny).

Now, to be fair, plenty of people are coincidentally Catholic but disagree with their church on these matters. Real Catholics use contraception at rates comparable to the general population. However, I spoke of self-identified Catholics, who are self-selected from among those who actually agree with their church on social issues. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with that statement. Have you even followed the debate about the Catholic Church in the US? Self-identified Catholics don't agree with the Pope or Church doctrine in huge numbers. I don't think it is a coincidence. The problem with the Catholic Church is that it doesn't allow criticism or dialogue about what they consider doctrine. Such a position is incompatible with the modern world and is inherently undemocratic. And, many Catholics are calling for reform. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree. In America, the official beliefs of the Catholic Church are not reliably reflected by typical Catholics. Still, while they may be a minority, there are still many Catholics who, along the lines of Santorum or Ryan, are loyal to the teachings of the church on social issues and tend to publicly identify as strong Catholic. Curiously, they aren't necessarily in line with the economic teachings, in that they don't typically support such things as strong safety nets to help the poor stop being poor. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not true Catholics don't deny women contraception because their women it's because Catholicism is preaches that sex is only for procreation also Andrew Cuomo self-identified catholic has said he is against same-sex marriage personally but legalized it based as he said on separation of church and state My position as well) also Ted Kennedy was personally against gay marriage, and the Catholic church does not engage in conversion therapy nor condones it (at least nowadays for sure) and homosexuals are perfectly welcomed in the church the church preaches that sodomy is a sin not justbeing a homosexual is a sin. You are grossly oversimplifieng my faith and it's teaching I am not debating this with you I was disscussing wiki project conservatism not your anti-Catholic views John D. Rockerduck (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

John, I'm not seeing anything in the Bible about contraception. Most of these doctrinal interpretations aren't supported by the sources. What the Catholic Church needs to do is get back to basics and stop promoting ideas that can't be found in their actual teachings. It is entirely irresponsible to encourage poor women who lack access to health care to go and have 10 babies, and the impact it is having on the world is demonstrable. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly it's catholic teaching it is not necessarily in the bible also many staunchly catholic countries are on the rise, Brazil for example I believe in and life my life according to the docterine and my life is great, and it does not encourage poor women to have ten babies that's untrue anyway wikipedia is not a forum stop this critic on Catholic faith, my faith since it's pointless since we were dicussing a wikiproject and I find it highly offensive John D. Rockerduck (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

John, I don't think you're denying that the church opposes birth control, just offering an excuse. It's not intentionally anti-woman, you say, it just coincidentally supports a policy that disproportionately hurts women.

Likewise, saying that the church is fine with homosexuality so long as nobody ever acts on their attraction is one of those fine points that gays (outside of the clergy, anyhow) have never found very convincing. Imagine if I made myself Pope of a gay church that claimed it had nothing against heterosexuality, but heterosexual sex was a sin; would you find that convincing? Also, I'm sorry to say that the support for conversion therapy is not purely historical.[5]

You're quite right that there are some Catholic politicians whose political views do not match the church's; that's pretty much my point about how the laity and clergy are out of touch with each other. But I'm still correct about people like Ryan and Santorum; their views do match the church, at least on social issues.

I'd like to point out that we're not even arguing over whether the church should be anti-gay and ant-woman. Rather, you cannot see that it already is, so you treat my summary as biased. Now apply this to editing Wikipedia. If you can't even recognize your own bias and instead see what's neutral as liberally biased, think of what that says about your edits. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm am not debating Catholic teaching with you why are we doing this is it for an article (no) WP is not a forum and you sir are starting to engage in personal attacks like calling my editing bias this is offensive and pointless and demonstrating your anti-catholic views speaks more of your own editing than mine since you have such an axe to grind and if we continue this unfair critic of my religion and my editing then I will report this as uncivilityJohn D. Rockerduck (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The key here is that I'm not expressing anti-Catholic views. Rather, I'm neutrally reporting that the Catholic Church opposes women's rights and gay rights. I'm not doing this to have a pointless debate, either. I'm using it as an example of why there's a problem when conservative editors try to stamp out what they consider to be bias. I've been entirely civil the whole time; it's not uncivil to point out where you're unaware of your own bias. It's not an insult, it's constructive criticism. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully believe in my churches teaching yet I'm not anti-woman also mother Theresea would disagree with that your overtly criticing my religion so of course I'm going to be offendednot for any article but for grinding an axe the way you speak so vehemently against the church you are unaware of your bias's and being highly intolerant of Catholics like me (maybe you don't mean to but you are) stop this at once this at once this is my last warning before I think about reporting if you want to talk about wikiproject conservatism our your impending RfC of it then let's, not this forum you have gotten us into John D. Rockerduck (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What I've been trying to demonstrate is that there's such a thing as an objective viewpoint. I was hoping you might exercise your empathy by looking at it from my eyes.

For example, you point out that, rather than seeing its stance on birth control as as being anti-woman, the Catholic Church sees it as upholding the religious notion "that sex is only for procreation". From the point of view of anyone who's not religious, this notion has absolutely no weight. We can understand it just fine, but find no reason to agree with it.

In other words, it's not anti-Catholic for me to reject it, it's just neutral and objective. I'm under no obligation to believe what Catholicism says. So for non-Catholics (and for Catholics whose conscience does not allow them to agree with their church on this matter), the policies of the Catholic Church are contrary to women's rights, particularly their reproductive rights.

This is, once again, the neutral, objective view. You can disagree with it, but you can't complain that it's anti-Catholic or in any way unfair. It's just objective, which is why it's the view that Wikipedia takes.

In order to successfully follow WP:NPOV, you need to distinguish between what you personally believe to be the WP:TRUTH and what an objective view would be. For a good example, consider that the article on God does not state in Wikipedia's voice whether any such entity exists! StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

John, as a Christian, do you believe it is more important to follow the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of your Church? Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The teachings of my church are the teachings of Jesus but Viriditas the mere fact you asking me that question with no purpose to improve an article means that this is a forum and a reasonable man like yourself should know that WP is not a forum I find this offensive please stop this grand inquistion this Viriditas is your last warning or I'll think about going to the wiki ettiquete forum since my religous beliefs should not be such a disscussion that is not for an article John D. Rockerduck (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, should Christians just ignore John 14:6 and focus more on the Church? Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about those warnings I was getting worked up and little irrationale I won't act upon them nor will I particapte in this discussion anymore let me just say Still-24 and Viridias you have a great deal of misconceptions about the Catholic Church. Such as being anti-gay, although it condemns the act, it doesn't the actor. The Catholic church was one of the first racially integrated as well. And as for contraception, Onan covers part of the reason for the church's stance, which isn't anti-woman. Ironically, it could be seen as anti-man, if anything, since the ban is about casting seed on the ground, including masturbation. We should respect even when we disagree. Most people don't understand Catholicism due to simple ignorance, which is often the source of these obviously non-neutral comments that you both truly believe are neutral. I'm out of this forum for good since no one is going to convince the other John D. Rockerduck (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

John, I've defended your position twice in this thread, so it sounds like you're ignoring what is being discussed. Please review WP:IDHT. I think the teachings of Jesus are completely at odds with the teachings of any organized Church, especially those insisting that their followers subscribe to policies and positions that Jesus never spoke about or addressed. There's nothing "anti-Catholic" about me saying that, and if you understood John 14 you would not have made such an accusation. Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

An Invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – user:John D. Rockerduck 02:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want an invite all you had to was ask Still-24 your friend John D. Rockerduck (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Inviting me after I brought up the issue doesn't really count.
2. I believe that a conflict of interest would prevent me from being a genuine member at this time. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just having a bit of fun but you could have gone to wikiproject conservatism at any time to join but you did not since you never wanted to it is not selective membership John D. Rockerduck (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my point is that, jokes like this aside, Lionelt systematically invites conservatives such as yourself. As a result, when he points the project towards an article (like Paul Ryan) he is necessarily vote-stacking. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no selective membership anyone can join at any time be simply going to (1) and adding their names to the list, invitations are given to those who might be interested in the project but might not know of it's existance any member or non-member (not just Lionelt) can give out an invitation which if you scroll do to the bottom of the page I just cited you can see under Template. Also Still-24, Lionelt probably never gave you an invitation since he probably thought it be a waist of an edit and I was not inclined to give an invitation either since I thought you would not be interested, which judging by this you clearly weren't. John D. Rockerduck (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC

The pattern is that he gave you an invitation because your edits and comments showed you to be conservative. In contrast, mine don't, so he instead filed false reports against me to get me blocked. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

He gave me an invitation since I was interested in conservatism and did not know about wikiproject conservatism unlike you. Also he fished against you since he thought you were breaking the rules just like your doing to him whether either are right or wrong about the other I won't comment on it but your both doing essentially doing the same thing to eachother and you would have tried to block him earlier if given the oppertunity John D. Rockerduck (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We're certainly in opposition, but that doesn't make us equivalent. For example, I've never born false witness against him. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly Still-24 would you have joined if you were invited earlier John D. Rockerduck (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If Lionelt was in the habit of inviting non-conservatives as well as conservatives, I may well have accepted. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an archived discussion about this very thing at the Project council talkpage. I believe it was the consensus of editors that it did not present any undue stacking of votes and that projects are allowed to invite members.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Diff? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your reply until today. Man...I had the diff but now I have to go find it again. Do you still need it?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There have been previous attempts to end the vote-banking by WikiProject Conservatism, but there wasn't nearly as much of a paper trail back them to demonstrate the problem. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This won't add to a paper trail. It was a discussion on many of the issue you are bringing up. hile it didn't gain any consensus for action or intervention, that is not to say there isn't any such trail, just that this was discussed at length through the WikiProject Council Talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You should have been notified

I want to make sure that you are aware of this: [6], because it refers to you. Please understand that I have nothing to do with what was said there, but I believe that you are entitled to know what other editors are saying about you. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that a notification was in order. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism Collaboration: Welcome to Team Ryan GA

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism#Paul Ryan needs our help!!!'s talk page.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 04:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

AN notification

Heh. I was just about to post an apology at ANI. I hadn't realised you didn't know about it until I read your comment just now. Yes, I should have notified you and I'm sorry. I think that at the time I thought "I haven't mentioned any editors, so there's no-one to notify", but it would have been courteous to tell you, and I'm sorry. Having said that, I didn't want the thread to be about you in any way - it was a comment that someone else had made on your talk page. (By the way, I think I also erred in putting it on AN rather than ANI.) StAnselm (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm assuming good faith. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Striking

Hey, forgive me if you already know this...I noticed that you sometimes like to redact your own comments to avoid unnecessary drama. Sometimes it's better to strike the comment instead of blanking it, especially if it's already been replied to. I'm not saying you should always do this, but sometimes it can help to avoid further drama by people who want to preserve the thread's continuity for historical or other reasons. Anyway, I hope this helps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have stricken comments in some cases. This preserves the flow of the conversation so nobody is left wondering what people are responding to, as you said. There are exceptions, though.

In the recent case with Belchfire, I blanked my own comment before there was a response, which I think was appropriate. Unfortunately, he kept bringing it back.

In a recent issue with Little green rosetta, they blanked part of my response, which left the section reading as if I was struck dumb by his awesome argument and was unable to respond. I therefore blanked my own comments (as WP:TPG does not allow me to blank others'). I believe he's still edit-warring to restore them, still out of context. I may try slashing next.

Really, it's hard not to believe the accusations made by the IRC log IP. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

{ec}}I hadn't looked too closely at those edits, but now that you mention it, I do recall you striking before. Sorry for telling you something you knew already. As for the IRC comments by the 76 IP, I'd be inclined to take them with a grain of salt. You don't know who the IP is or what their motivations are; they could easily be a banned user just trying to be disruptive. I'd be wary of doing anything about it without the logs in hand. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree about that. So far, the logs are still a claim, not a fact. Last I checked, the IP editor is confirmed as not being a banned editor (a brief block based on "duck" sockpuppet claim was overturned) and they've created an account. Whether the logs are accurate is something that has not formally been determined, and I'm certainly not going to make any strong claims to either direction. But I do note that the accusation is that specific editors were told to bait me. Frankly, the behavior of these two editors fits perfectly. Maybe they're baiting me all on their own, maybe they're not trying to bait me but are effectively doing so. I can't say for sure. I can only say they're baiting. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I just removed your comments from the FRC talk page. They were not in line with the purpose of the talk page: article improvement. I like what you contribute to Wikipedia but please stay focused on article improvement. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You acted in good faith but were mistaken. The section was directly about recent changes in the lead, so someone restored what you deleted. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Hi StillStanding-247. I've been on the periphery of this for a little while as I have many of the talk pages affected on my watchlist. I've looked into a lot of the matters you've raised and I do see an issue, indeed I've got some diffs offline which would probably be relevant to an RfC, which I expect I will participate in. However, your current attitude appears to be one of paranoia, which leads the valid points you are making to be lost in the sea of accusations of incivility and collusion.

Spreading this discussion all over the encyclopedia, commenting over and over at noticeboards, talk pages and the like makes it much more likely that editors will not bother to read what's going on and the focal point of the dispute (i.e. you) is likely to be blocked.

The advice: Stop commenting on the WikiProject and its members. Stop the accusations. Don't even edit their talk pages. Don't rise to the bait. Focus normal article editing and writing that RfC. Worm^TT(talk) 09:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

and thirded. If you really wish, collect the diffs like [7] for the RfC to show a system of behaviour, but don't respond to them and cause drama. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And fourthed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Fifthed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sixth time's the charm? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sixthed. I'll put the charm on a braclet. ;)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've actually started branching out into non-political topics, mostly in philosophy and related fields. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear, but please take what I'm about to say as further friendly advice. Judging by the thread where you've recently commented at ANI, you and some of the other politically inclined editors still seem to be very much at loggerheads. You need to step back from that. And while we're at it, part of the rationale for keeping the draft RfC page was that it would move ahead within a reasonable period of time, so you might want to spend some time on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm going to need to remove myself as the originator of the RFC. Otherwise, it would invite the usual suspects to pile on with irrelevant personal attacks. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I will move it to my user space. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do. When it's moved, let me know and I'll have my copy deleted. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan GA nomination

Hey, you may want to see the suggestions I have made at the review page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Using Opinion Pieces from News Outlets

News outlets could be credible sources for facts reported in the "News" section. However, News websites - be it the "Guardian" or any other - are hardly credible as any source for facts - such as who is a "liar" and who isn't - based on what is published in their "Opinion" section. That information is inherently subjective - rather than objective, nor is it presented as anything else. Therefore quoting opinions from an "Opinion" section - even one in the most credible news website in the world - is inherently problematic and as such, IMHO, should be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtmcrrctr (talk • contribs) 07:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my edit comment, not only is The Guardian a reliable source, but it's not the only one that supports the claim.[8][9][10] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This does not address my comment. My comment above said clearly that it is NOT about the credibility of the website. It has to do with the fact that the information you quoted (such as Paul Ryan's speech containing omissions among other criticism, was drawn from an OPINION PIECE. ANY opinion piece has an axe to grind, and therefore is invariably (and overtly) biased. I repeat my position from above: facts about current affairs should generally be drawn from the "News" section, and NOT the "Opinion" section.Rtmcrrctr (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but can you point to where this is addressed in policy? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for Rtmcrrctr to answer... I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary and opinion pieces... are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It also says:

Editorial commentary and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Here, we're talking about the opinions of these authors. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to your edit. I see that the you are merely reporting an opinion. However it appears to violate WP:WEASEL and the comments should have inline attribution. Then you get into the problem of what WP:WEIGHT the comments deserve. You need to show that the column cited has itself been reporterd in actual news stories. My advice is to use a reliable source such as Factcheck.org. TFD (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right: that's not the best version of it. Unfortunately, it got edit-warred over and lost cohesiveness and citations. We should definitely use fact-checking sources for the factuality while providing inline attribution for the opinion side. If we dig through the history, I believe there's at least one version that fits these criteria. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC

You are creating drama here Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Verification. when it's not needed. Give some time and let others respond. If you aren't getting traction with an editor, let others comment and see where the consensus is. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Way ahead of you; I walked away at "Alfalfa". I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, StillStanding-247. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

IP address

I was just reading that debate at ANI. The general locations of IP addresses are publicly visible. So announcing your IP address when creating your registered user ID was not the wisest decision. If you're still concerned about being "outed", you might want to approach Black Kite or another trusted admin and have them rev-del any entries where you state your IP address. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear to be possible to remove all mention of that IP. If it were, I'd request it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Admins do that kind of thing all the time. Although you might want to discuss it with the admin privately via e-mail, or else ask the admin to rev-del anything where you've posted the IP blatantly obviously (for example, in an edit summary). And I've probably already said too much now publicly. But if you hurry, maybe Black Kite can do something quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we're at the point where the closing the barn door will not cause the cows to return. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs. I don't want to run into a WP:BEANS situation, but there are some definite revisions here that can be rev-del'd. This is definitely not a situation of closing the barn doors after the cows have left. Singularity42 (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm following up on this on User talk:Black Kite, where Bugs took it. Please join us there. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's probably past the point now, but if this happens again and you can't get Black Kite, drop a line on my talk. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's really, really, really not possible to completely cover old edits and anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand how the site works. If you have serious enough concerns, all you can do is abandon your user account, and start a new one that you hope never gets associated with the old one. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that's even less likely. I've already been taken to SPI once and there's an admin who's convinced himself that I'm the sock puppet of some defeated enemy or something. If I showed up under a new account tomorrow after retiring this one, it would be painfully obvious to everyone. I'd likely be blocked as a sock puppet. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Qualia

Glad you liked my comments. Thank you. RayTayMiht (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I was amused. As it turns out, we do know that some people have a variant in their red-sensitive cones that results in perceiving redness somewhat differently. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My advice

Saw all that business with ANI. I think at this point it is better if you avoid the heated political issues for a while and try to avoid or ignore any of the editors you have had problems with recently. At this point it really isn't worth the stress it is causing you and other editors. Find some other areas where you have an interest and cool off. On a general note I submit that the less you revert and the more you try to pursue compromise in a respectful manner, the better things will turn out usually. Keep in mind that is far from a guarantee that you will not run into trouble anyway, but in most cases it works.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I've branched out into non-political articles and I've long since moved my efforts from the articles to the talk pages. I still edit them, and some of these edits count as reverts, but I always restrain myself to 2RR, and usually 1RR. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Even on the talk pages the matter can get heated to the point that it makes remaining calm rather difficult. I just think maybe you need a general break from the politics stuff to keep yourself from going stir crazy. At this point it would also be a good idea to table that RfC. Should you want to preserve the revision history for later use the pages could simply be blanked to comply with WP:POLEMIC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm handing the RFC off to Viriditas because my primary involvement would only be used as an excuse for another distracting pile-on. As soon as he's moved it under his user pages, I will blank and then remove it from mine.

As for avoiding the political articles, I'll be glad to do that the morning after the presidential election. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I just think it will be less stressful for you if you avoid the political articles for a brief time. I am not suggesting any specific length of time, but just however long it takes for you to cool off. Focusing your efforts elsewhere for even just a brief amount of time can make contributing to these contentious topics easier on you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the drift that you like Democrats and don't care much for Republicans. If so, I share your viewpoint. However, as I found out in the 2008-2009 time frame, editing political articles is a minefield. It's a never-ending battle. For your own peace of mind, stick with something non-controversial, like badminton or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not so wild about the Democrats, either, but that shouldn't matter. What motivates me is that I'd like these articles to be accurate and neutral. Yes, it's frustrating, but the downside of editing badminton articles is that I don't care about them and they hardly matter in the big picture (sorry, badminton fans). I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Avanu's approach, immediately below, makes a lot of sense. I concluded from your edits that you were smacking down the Republicans. Your viewpoint shouldn't be readily identifiable from your editing. Four years ago, about this time, I somehow found myself defending the Sarah Palin article against a relentless host of marauders, and the fact I considered her a bimbo (and still do) didn't enter into it. But it did convince me that editing controversial articles is a full-time job, and I had other things to do. So now I stick to badminton and such stuff as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, that thing with the Mitt Romney article isn't a "fact", it is an opinion, no matter how you slice it. Your phrasing of it really took it beyond what the source says.

• Not so good: Due to Obama's successful handling of two wars, Romney was the first Republican presidential nominee since 1952 to not mention America's military in his acceptance speech.
• Better: Forbes contributor Loren Thompson makes the case that Obama's military success led Mitt Romney to be the first Republican presidential nominee since 1952 to not mention America's military in his acceptance speech.
• Even Better: Forbes contributor Loren Thompson compared Democrat Barack Obama's record as Commander-in-Chief to Republican George W. Bush's record, focusing on situational awareness, preparedness, strategic concepts, and military management. Thompson states that "Democrats have a better story to tell on defense than Republicans do." And that this led Mitt Romney to be the first Republican presidential nominee since 1952 to not mention America's military in his acceptance speech.

Make sense? -- Avanu (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(Assuming that it's a correct statement) it is a fact, or at least it is a factual statement and evidence can be presented using a reasonable definition of the question - "reasonable definition" meaning that we don't have borderline cases like references to "national security" that couldn't be easily categorized. I think the question would be about whether it is relevant and due, and whether the fact that it was discussed in Forbes is an important characteristic of the fact. (I say all of this not knowing the content of the speech or really anything about the current state of the article, just making an observation.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Hmm...I completely didn't notice the "Due to...wars" statement when I wrote this. Sorry about that. That part of the statement could only be reported as a fact once it was no longer a current event and if the consensus of historians agreed on it. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You should avoid using Wikipedia's voice to proclaim things as facts. Unless Mitt Romney himself said this is why he didn't mention the military, or a secondary source can show absolute proof that 'Obama's successful handling of two wars' was the reason for the omission, you don't know exactly why it was not mentioned. You might think you know, you might even be right, but you don't unquestionably and inerrantly KNOW. -- Avanu (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Further expansion - of course it would still need to be reliably sourced, etc, and the best solution could still be to leave it out. I agree with the comments above - I just wanted to make the point that it is a statement that is amenable to analysis based on evidence (that is, a factual statement), and is not prima facie an opinion. (That is, it could be an opinion, but not necessarily. This just happens to be one of my pet peeves. :-) ) Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The closer you stick to the text in the source itself, the better off you'll be. Still's original summation was too far. Was it "two wars" or was it "1 war and a drone attack"? Or some other combination? Or some other thing Republicans don't want to discuss? We don't know. The original statement veers off the track of its source, and becomes an opinion. It is 'factual' to discuss what Loren Thompson actually wrote. It is not necessarily factual to draw a conclusion not stated in that source. -- Avanu (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't know the content of the article and whether or not the statement was properly sourced. I am only making the point that it is in principle possible for the statement to be sourced such that it could be reasonably presented in a factual manner. Why someone does something is an opinion, but whether they did it is either true or false, and your first comment seemed to deny that.

I also disagree (again, a general statement not necessarily applying to this case) with "avoid using Wikipedia's voice to proclaim things as facts" - we proclaim things as facts when they are supported by the weight of evidence, and otherwise we don't. I'm sure you didn't mean to make your statement so general, but that would imply that we also shouldn't state Romney's birthdate without qualification. :-) Okay, leaving the discussion now since this is getting off-topic. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that it's a fact Romney didn't bring up defense. And he has certainly brought it up before, grousing that Obama is taking too much credit, etc. He has certain things he wants to hit Obama hard with, and given our relative success in military activities in the last 3 1/2 years, he probably figured it wasn't worth getting into. But unless someone can find a quote from Romney or an advisor that explains why he didn't bring it up, it's merely a matter of opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What I said on the article talk page is that there's a fact in there as well as an opinion. The fact is that Romney omitted mention of the military and that this is unusual. The opinion is the part about the two wars being handled well by Obama being the reason. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the issue's dead. Turns out that our reliable source was less than reliable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We all do this at one time or another, so don't worry about it. -- Avanu (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I'm totally ok with being proven wrong about such matters. If the original revert had been on the factual basis you brought up, I would have left it alone. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes we don't realize at first. I think everyone involved was trying to do their best here. -- Avanu (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Not every disagreement has to drag on for months and drag in ever drama notification page on Wikipedia. :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Since I had an edit on your RFC, it showed up on my watchlist, but I hadn't been following it so I don't know the background behind this -- why did it get moved from your user subpage to Viriditas' page? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There's some conversation about this above, but the short answer is that I'm not going to be one of the two editors filing it. It it my hope that this will allow the RFC to focus on the issue -- how WikiProject Conservapedia has been contradicting the five pillars -- and not on me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This was closed summarily. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

An editor has mentioned you at ANI. Here is the discussion thread.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, but it has nothing to do with me, despite his transparent attempt to railroad me, so I'm not going to provide ventilation for his witch-burning by participating. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Goodbye.

Right, so they've decided to single me out for punishment. If topic-banned, I'm going to request that my account be deleted with all traces removed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being an unwelcome commenter here, let me say two things: first, "they" are not in the process of singling you out or proposing anything. I have proposed a set of possible restrictions on you and/or the topic area (which you're more than welcome to be unhappy about, or think I'm misguided for suggesting, or do all of the above and actively oppose the proposals on ANI), and as of the last time I checked ANI, I was the only one who'd supported any of them. If I'm out of line in suggesting any of these things, I can pretty well guarantee you that the community will very rapidly set me straight and veto the idea of any or all sanctions. So if you wish to assign blame, the blame for this process being started is mine, not the community's. Please don't react to an act performed by me, which you don't like, by leaving the entire community.

My second point, in relation to your wanting to quit Wikipedia, has two parts: 1) Please don't leave Wikipedia in response to a perceived slight or an editing restriction. As you yourself have said in the recent past, you're trying to move away from editing politics articles anyway. Is it possible for you to view a topic ban, if one were to happen, as an opportunity to do that moving away? 2) From a technical standpoint, Wikipedia accounts can't be deleted. They can be vanished (which means your username is changed to a random string) or abandoned (and blocked for security purposes, if that if your wish and you ask for it), but not actually deleted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I will not abide by such restrictions. You may as well community ban me. If you single me out while allowing Lionelt, Collect and Belchfire to insert conservative POV, I will not watch. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. This kind of thing has been going on for years. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I do know that. In a sense, that's why I'm here. I have no commitment to Wikipedia for its own sake. Rather, I care only that the articles that matter are neutral.

At this point, it's not clear that Fluff's attempt at a topic ban will succeed. Regardless, what I'm saying now still stands. If reduced to editing articles about badminton, I'd rather not edit at all. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually the problem is that you both need to spend more time learning how to communicate ideas. StillStanding-247 is a fairly new editor in some ways, I don't know about you, Viriditas. But we had a discussion just yesterday about some content involving a supposed 'fact' about Mitt Romney's speech. I brought good sourcing and information to bear, and StillStanding-247 quickly recognized that the debate needed to take a different direction. We didn't attack each other or belittle each other, or file AN/I's. We just talked. You guys have a lot of partisan hackery going on right now. No one wants to bend, no one wants to see another perspective. If you want to get something productive accomplished, you all need to learn how to work with each other. -- Avanu (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved in editing these articles, so I can't agree with you. We're not here to communicate ideas, we are here to write and improve articles. The problem is that some editors are only here to communicate their ideas, and that needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, I had a recent disagreement with Avanu about a content addition. He did some research and dug up enough information to completely undermine the claims, so I immediately conceded. This was the ideal case: a genuine disagreement that was settled to mutual satisfaction by evidence.

Most of the content disputes I find myself in are nothing like this. Instead, there is what has been called civil POV pushing, in which editors bend over backwards to interpret policy so as to exclude what they dislike and include what they like. The worst offenders are not fellow noobs but seasoned editors and even admins who ought to know better. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Personally, I'm perfectly fine with political articles that take a very cautious and neutral tone. However, not everyone else is. This is an opportunity to work on language that can compromise between the two. -- Avanu (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's perfectly possible to work civilly and productively with an editor of an opposing point of view if that editor also respects Wikipedia policy. See, for instance, Talk:Ethiopian eunuch of late - User:JohnChrysostom articulated a concern in a way that appealed to policy legitimately rather than spuriously and cited sources that supported the concern. I suggested that he add more material from his sources to deal with a WEIGHT concern, but also rephrased the section in question in order to reduce its weight myself. Neither of us insisted on our preferred One True Version or edit-warred to get our way. This simply isn't happening in these election topic areas, where people are edit-warring and (on one side) flagrantly disregarding reliable sources and sourcing policy and waving at policies that don't support their POV-motivated edits. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do not leave. We need good editors GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not leaving unless I'm reduced to editing badminton. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean I would leave if I were topic banned from WP:me. Just remember WP is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY no matter how many right-wing republicans gang up at WP:ANI GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely common for editors to be interested in specific subjects, not the general welfare of Wikipedia. Topic bans on issues that matter to an editor have the foreseeable consequence of demotivating them from continuing. That's not to say that a topic ban is never justified, only that it must be understood that it is not so different from a community ban. It's less a gentle nudge and more a crude maiming.

I sampled the history of WP:ANI, and I've found that, not only is it not a democracy, it's all too often a lynch mob. All it takes is one person to suggest burning the witch and a couple of others to agree while tossing some diffs that look bad, and then the villagers grab their torches and pitchforks to join in on the fun.

Having said that, it didn't happen this time. Partially, it appears that Wikipedia is starting to become more aware of its bouts of insanity. Partially, luck drew cooler heads to the report. Partially, the fact that I stayed out of it and didn't try to defend myself (per Viriditas' general advice) provided too small a target to excite the sharks.

This doesn't mean that I won't be dragged to ANI tomorrow on some pretext or that it won't lead to a ban of some sort. It just means that, this time, Wikipedia didn't embarrass itself by being too blatantly unjust. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean you are NOT leaving?!? --Mollskman (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be the case. Don't worry, the sparklers and balloons will keep until New Year's. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U

Hi Still Standing, I couldn't help but notice the happenings here and at AN/I (although admittedly I slept through most of it). I think the approach at AN/I was a little hamfisted, although I can understand the frustration that started it. One thing that many seem to agree upon is that there should probably be an RFC/U of some sort. I've been trying to stay on the sidelines as much as I can, but I've been batting around the idea of framing the RFC/U myself. I've never actually participated in an RFC/U before, but to my understanding the main goal of the RFC/U is to "Allow an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their conduct." and that would be my goal as well.

I think there are definitely problems with your conduct, and although a number of well-intentioned users have tried to explain what the problems are, I'm not convinced that you have understood or believed them. In my mind the RFC/U would be a moderated forum where users can express their concerns and you can reply without the distractions of fighting over content, incivility, etc. In the ideal situation you will realize what the problem is and commit to fixing it, while other users come to understand things better from your point of view. In a worse case scenario it would devolve into bickering, come to no consensus, and generally end up being a time sink for everyone involved. Also, it should be noted that any sanctions will (or at least should) be voluntary. (I've read the instructions, but I haven't seen one in action before, so I can't promise you it won't turn into a lynch mob :-)

Anyway, my goal here is to help you get out of the rut you're in and help you become a better editor. If you'd rather that I don't file an RFC/U, you need only say the word, and I'll forget it and walk away. I won't take any offense (and I hope that you don't either). If somebody else decides to file an RFC/U, I'll probably add an outside opinion and then be on my way. Anyway, let me know what you think about all this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(without attempting to speak for Still, of course) I suggest that wouldn't be necessary if general sanctions are applied to the articles. I think it would also have the effect of focusing this issue on one editor, which per the ANI discussion is undesirable. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Arc de Ciel is doing a fine job speaking for me. As he and others have said during the ANI that was almost turned into a topic ban, my behavior is not the most significant aspect of what's going on; even if I died tomorrow, the political edit wars would not end. Now, of course there are things I could do differently and better, but this could also be said for others, and even more so. That's why singling out individuals who are trying to make Wikipedia suck less and focusing on them instead of the systemic problems is counterproductive.

We're suffering from an Eternal September effect in which noobs become editors during political seasons, from culture war spillover, and the inherent limitations of content dispute resolution. Compounding this, WikiProject Conservatism has turned into an organizing force for the increase in conservative bias, with concomitant intimidation and elimination of non-conservative editors. Imposing restrictions on the articles, not individuals, is exactly the right thing to do. Those who cannot deal with these restrictions may yet wind up with blocks, topic bans or worse, but at least the problem is being solved from the right direction.

As for me, any RFC/U will be a tug-of-war between those who mean well, such as yourself, and those who don't, such as Lionelt. Lionelt, in his role as leader of WikiProject Conservatism, has led the efforts to have me blocked; he's been instigating for this since July.[11] An RFC/U would turn into circus, as each conservative editor drives up in a clown car that unloads an endless stream of misleading, out-of-context diffs. It will do nothing more than create a basis for the ANI-delivered topic block that is so eagerly desired by some of these people (see Mollskman, above).

So, for these reasons, I would not recommend launching one. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll drop it then. I do think, however, that you should stop the unneeded and unnecessarily inflammatory side comments about WPConservatism/Lionelt/others. Focusing on others rather than content is probably the main point I wanted to discuss in the RFC.

By the way, I don't see an RFC/U as being the next step toward Arbcom or an ANI-delivered topic ban. Yes, it can be that, or it can be a turning point in which an editor makes a decision to change. Basically you choose your own outcome. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am open to honest advice (and I'm counting yours as such) outside of the RFC/U framework, which I'd prefer to avoid. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. (I can't know for sure, but in my opinion a lot of the advice you're getting here has been honest and well-intentioned, but that's just my opinion.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I share that opinion, and in some cases, I have been able to follow good advice and change my editing behavior. Some advice, I could not follow, particularly any call for me to restrict my editing to badminton. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am involved in the disputes with you and I have to tell you that the type of attitude you are having makes the case for an RFC/U on you much more convincing. Needlessly accusing 80+ editors of trying to disrupt the encyclopedia and destroy you does not come off as logical; it instead comes off as an us-versus-them mentality that goes against the idea of consensus-building and compromise. Until you address and correct your editing behavior, you are going to have editors coming after you to block you or topic ban you, since most people don't appreciate being accused of being part of a Wiki-wide conspiracy. If your attitude wasn't so confrontational, you wouldn't have nearly as many 'enemies' on here. People are going to keep coming after you as long as you continue to keep your battleground attitude up and assume the worst in others rather than attempting to compromise or reach a consensus that, God forbid, maybe doesn't agree with you 100%. This is an encyclopedia, not a warzone, and your attitude fails to recognize that. Toa Nidhiki05 01:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You're attacking a straw man. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I'm citing your failure to change your editing pattern as the reason to why people such as myself are wanting you topic banned. Your battleground mentality pits an evil, shadowy cabal of conservatives led by an evil mastermind against you and, by nature of their wicked deeds, the entire encyclopedia. Part of the issue with that is that there is really no grounds to attack the vast majority of the 80+ project members on. To put it another way, there may be a few problem editors, but that doesn't make the 80 other editors evil by extension.

On the other hand, if you change you editing pattern, there really isn't any ground to want you blocked on. If you try to develop consensus and compromise, it becomes that much harder to accuse you of being a tendentious editor and of having a battleground attitude. And if by that point people are making false claims about you, there is a good chance they might go back and hit them instead of you. The way out of this mess isn't to continue fighting people and accusing them of trying to destroy you, it is to back off and try to deal with issues through compromise and consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree completely. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as you continue to 'disagree completely' instead of considering you might be at fault for at least some of you issues on here, you are going to have people coming after you. It isn't going to stop because you got all of the 'bad guys' blocked or because you get rid of their 'cabal' - the issue goes much deeper than who you think is out to get you. Toa Nidhiki05 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your framing is skewed and your "facts" are false, so I see no basis for further discussion. It's as if you're asking me why I've always hated trees. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Elaborate on why I am presenting false facts, then. I'm simply trying to tell you that if you change your editing behavior, you will run into much less trouble. The fault isn't all in the 'bad guys' or the 'cabal'. Toa Nidhiki05 01:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's accidentally true: if I limit myself to badminton articles, I will not be attacked by WikiProject Conservatism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So you either need to stop editing in political articles or destroy the 'cabal' and its evil members, correct? Because that is really the only option you present yourself. Toa Nidhiki05 02:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I need to continue to edit articles so as to make them comply with policy. Having opposition does not mean I should give up. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So you don't think there is nothing wrong with your editing or attitude? Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

--> Toa, your comments here strike me as gratuitous, unwarranted, and counterproductive. And repetitive.Please take a breather.SPECIFICO 17:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Compared to, say, yours? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have a concern with my editing, feel free say so - I encourage people to do so on my user page and I'd discuss issues civilly and respectfully, and if there is a real issue I am open to change. I doubt you'll find much in my recent history, but you are more than welcome to try. I've been open about my previous, early editing behavior and the issues it had, as well as my (albeit far removed) history of 3RR blocks (3 to be exact, most recently in April 2011). Unlike you, I acknowledged there was an issue with my editing. I stopped revert warring, stopped trying to push ideas or an agenda, and started trying to improve articles and topics. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing something similar except for your refusal to acknowledge flaws and change. Toa Nidhiki05 02:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I need diffs to remind you that you have quite openly suggested that your purpose here is to introduce conservative bias into articles, but if you insist, I'll dig some up. It's all over your user page and the WikiProject's. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing my with User:RightCowLeftCoast; my purpose is not to introduce bias into articles and I haven't said so. Politics isn't even my primary topic area, so I must be failing pretty hard if that is my purpose. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I never stopped hating trees. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, what? Toa Nidhiki05 02:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Toa, can you please stop? Whatever purpose you have you are going about it the wrong way; you are complaining about someone being confrontational in a confrontational way (and yes you did create a strawman initially). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been more than familiar with Still for a while, and he and I have had some discussions, and I actually see progress. It is a long road. I relate to his perspective on some issues, but told him he needs to work on his delivery. Some people have difficulty in transitioning to the collegiate way we do things at Wikipedia, and it is fine to be an advocate for your perspectives, but how you advocate that perspective makes all the difference. I was somewhat more confrontational when I started here many years ago (although never to the point that sanctions were even discussed) and I learned how to persuade without being confrontational, and how to accept when consensus was against me. I'm hoping Still lasts long enough to learn those methods, because I think he has a lot of offer Wikipedia in passion and ideas, but he has to learn some different methods.

I think an RFC/U isn't needed yet, but I would strongly encourage Still to actively avoid admin areas, avoid reverting more than once and using the talk page afterwards, and avoid conversations on other users talk pages, insisting to stay on article talk pages instead. I say this not because I find fault with his ideas, but I think that if he will force a little discipline on himself, he will find he has the ability to persuade and do good things here. Otherwise, I fear that discipline will be forced upon him, and we will just lose another good editor. And Still, I've found that the lessons I've learned here about patience and tolerance carried into the real world and have benefited me greatly. We don't always win here, but it is a long race, one that never ends, so you have to fix what you can today, and not worry about what you can't. Maybe 6 months from now you can revisit those areas and find consensus. Luck may favor the bold, but results tend to favor the patient and persistent. You need to depersonalize things here. It is tough, believe me I understand more than you know, but you will be more effective and happy here if you start down that road and develop those skills. And of course, you get to keep them in the real world as well, a bonus. We are nothing if not students of life, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I think I'm pretty much following your suggestions already. Despite attempts to drag me to the drama pages admin areas, I think I've done a relatively decent job staying out of them. There are exceptions, but I've generally avoided other user's talk pages (leaving notices if needed but not getting involved in "debates"). I try to keep myself at 2RR, preferring 1RR when possible. My talk page edits far exceed my article edits, and many of my article edits are uncontroversial.

Is it "working"? Well, I didn't get topic-banned, so we could take that as a yet. But there are any number of articles that are, in my view, mired in a stalemate where every change leads to endless objections, many of which are grossly out of touch with facts and policy. Will it work better over the course of six months? Don't know, barely care. I'm here to keep the political articles from turning to shit in the sensitive time before the election. I fully expect my participation to be reduced after the better man wins. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted your comments, but it seems to me that your goal is to counter conservative bias on Wikipedia. I find that a worrying standpoint--whenever an editor sees purpose here as fighting POV pushers of a certain bias I think it can lead to troubling behavior. This happens a lot on religion and ethnic articles, and I've seen it lead to a battlefield mentality. It's important to keep in mind that there are POV pushers on both sides that need to be dealt with. For example, there were a lot of people who set out to combat the Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. There was certainly a problem, and I certainly don't want our articles to have a pro-Scientology POV--but (according to our article) the people who tried to thwart the church ended up engaging in problematic behavior. I think it's very easy to get in trouble if you let yourself see other editors as "good guys" and "bad guys" and so on. It's hard not to do that though, and it really takes effort to work together with some people. So my advice is not to see yourself as someone who fights against conservative POV pushing, but someone who helps build quality articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is easier said than done, but Mark is right and that is the goal and it takes discipline. This is why I have to avoid admin'ing, and even editing, in certain areas. I KNOW I can't be objective, I have opinions, too. And Still, I'm not ragging on you, I have told others that I have seen a marked improvement in your interactions, on several occasions and I've generally been impressed in the momentum I've seen. I'm here to remind, to reinforce, to help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to counter conservative bias; I'm here to make the articles suck less. Since I'm following WP:ENEMY, this means editing conservatism-related articles so that they're neutral. On occasion, it requires countering liberal bias, and I'm all for that. More commonly, these articles are informally WP:OWNed by WikiProject Conservatism, whose semi-overt goal is to increase conservative bias, so it's conservative bias that I encounter more often. In short, I'm against bias, not conservatism. I avoid even the term "POV-pusher", because I think it's missing the point. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Others are also reviewing the project, as you will soon learn, but it takes time and patience, like anything around here. The goal is always balance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Elric. :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh give it a break Dennis. All you're trying to do is come up with a way to impose yet another unwarranted indefinite block like a good little stooge of Lionelt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.36 (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Dennis's motives, but I would like StillStanding to avoid the kind of behavior that (in the case of other editors) has led to a warranted' indefinite block. He's made some progress, but still has a long way to go. (And, if you declared that I am unwelcome on your talk page, I apologize. I don't recall seeing that.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and how about your behavior? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And, to be clear, I'm talking about this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering my involvement at WT:WikiProject Conservatism, which was founded by Lionelt, I can't help but to snicker at the accusations of being his stooge. :) StillStanding might not agree with me on some issues, but I am hoping he doesn't question my motives. I want everyone to participate in a civil and equal manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was that IP (almost certainly SkepticAnonymous again) who made the accusation, not me. I'm at the point where I hardly look at motives, just results. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Corporate welfare

I think Belchfire happens to be right about this one. The sources are weak and there appears to a bit of unsourced synthesis going on here. When faced with a problem like this, it sometimes helps to do a complete rewrite. Note, it was not easy for me to say "Belchfire is right". :) Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'm trying to get a straight answer about why the Cato statement has been removed. I'll look at that academic statement next. If Belchfire is right -- and, yes, this can happen on occasion -- then I'll concede. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think he is right regarding his "weasel" word tagging, which is not supported by the source. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't attempted to dig up the actual document, but I did come across this excerpt from page 27:

The provision of business incentives…, one of the mainstays of economic development policy…has been the target of the most intense criticism. Indeed, there are many prominent critics who believe that virtually all incentive programs should be banned. Nevertheless, indications are that spending on incentives has continued to expand.

...copied from this source. If that page equates "incentive programs" to "corporate welfare", then there is absolutely nothing "weasely", synthesized or inaccurate about the statement. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone ahead and used your citation.[12] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Xenophrenic is mistaken. On Wikipedia, the term "many" is considered a weasel word, more so when an editor like Belchfire has questioned it. Further, the term "corporate welfare" is not used by either source in that paragraph. This is an example of inaccurate, weasely, poorly sourced synthesis, and it should be deleted or modified to align closely with the actual sources. Note how Xenophrenic says "if that page equates". Well, I don't see where it does. Viriditas (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced the citation. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Work

For what it is worth, I think that you do a good job here. Your wisdom on the CCofA page is greatly appreciated.50.81.155.59 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

General Sanctions on Paul Ryan

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Paul Ryan, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.--v/r - TP 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Friendly nudge

Hello. I noticed your recent interaction with User:Naapple and would encourage you to review WP:HARASS. Note that I've encouraged Naapple to review our civility conduct guidelines as well. Cheers —Eustress ^talk 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you're a participant, not a neutral admin. As for WP:HARASS, I've read it but I don't see how it might apply; you're going to need to be much, much more specific.

I did notice that WP:HA#NOT says "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." This seems relevant. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

October surprise

Three weeks left... Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll be fun for all. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't you hear the sound of war drums beating, my friend? Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I assumed it was because I haven't taken my meds for the evening. Hallucinations are a problem for me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's no hallucination; we've alway been at war with Eastasia. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I could swear it was Eurasia... I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Guess who is waiting for you in Room 101? Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing scares me. Except spiders. It's not a spider, is it? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't *snakes* scare you? (It's in our DNA to fear both spiders and snakes.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, snakes is Indiana Jones. This is 1984. Didn't you get the script? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Warrior or Diplomat

@ SS24/7. It is good to witness your evolution. WP Warriors die on the Battlefield. WP Diplomats write and edit articles. Your improved willingness to collaborate at articles that are important to you (and to the country), will work in your favor. Good luck and happy editing! ```Buster Seven Talk 06:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Do not attempt to convert your opponents---aim at converting their audience." ```Buster Seven Talk

Calvinball

Lol, that comment didn't really get to me until I saw someone else mention the comparison. It certainly seems to be an accurate description of Wikipedia's system of non-governance. :) --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The truth hurts. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Just letting you know, if someone tags a statement as needing a citation, please add the citation before you remove the tag. In this edit, you removed the tag while explaining in the edit summary where the claim came from, but it should have gone in as a footnote. StAnselm (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

We can't cite each sentence. One per paragraph should be enough. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! Psalm84 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:recent requests that you remove yourself from certain discussions. 1) I think these requests are problematic, As long as you continue to trade ideas rather than insults, there should be no problem. From my side of the street your participation is insightful and forwards the discussion. 2)The request to abstain from editing articles that are important to you and withdraw until the articles are no more than just minor historical reports is way out of line. Its like asking a farmer to ignore whats going on in the "North Forty" so the moles and the crows and the other varments can have a field day with the crops. The Political Arena demands care and thoughtful participation so as to protect our visitor, the every-day reader---The guy who just wants the facts, not the spin. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I deleted the "request" without further comment. It didn't help that it came from the DRM volunteer who allowed me to be subjected to personal attacks earlier today. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

1)Among the editors that castigated and mocked you for leaving the Dispute Resolution was an editor that decided to go on vacation during his own RfC a few years back.

2)You might be better off as an observer rather than a participant. It will give you time to think about your reply (should you choose to reply) rather than just blurting it out.

3)You have a bright future. Don't do anything silly (during this ass-in-inely so-called "silly season"). Most times it's best not to respond to nags.

4)Please. Don't attack the DR volunteers. They are doing the best they can. Its a thankless job and they are entitled to respect for what they do. Even the request to remove yoursef from the troublesome venues was in good faith.

5)I have lost 1/2 a Dozen editor friends because at moments like these they decided to Dig in...Come Hell or high water...Damn the Torpedos....Blah, blah. blah. Please dont be the seventh. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Please do not use edit summaries as a way to discuss articles. The content was boldly inserted and reverted. Now is the time to discuss, not restore the material.--v/r - TP 22:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.[13] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:

Hello, StillStanding-247. You have new messages at Toa Nidhiki05's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:

Hello, StillStanding-247. You have new messages at Psalm84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, StillStanding-247. You have new messages at Psalm84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Final Warning

This is your final warning on articles related to the 2012 Presidential Campaign. You are currently engaged in an edit war. This content was removed and then restored, then removed and you restored. If I see you edit warring anymore, I will ban you from Paul Ryan.--v/r - TP 00:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

TParis, what you're saying is that I restored this exactly once. In the meantime, I commented on the talk page section five times, including once with a list of supporting citations. I'm sorry, but this does not look like edit-warring to me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm noticing that you didn't give anyone else a warning. You did post a notice on Arzel's page, but it explicitly stated that he's not being accused of anything. I find your behavior hard to explain. In particular, why are you singling me out of special, harsh treatment? Aren't you supposed to be impartial? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" #64 on the all-time great movie quotes.  ```Buster Seven Talk 00:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)