User talk:StillStanding-247

Suggestion

Announce that you are going to take a week off from all politics articles and discussions and work on something creative or different. Create new articles, help out with maintenance tasks, or just browse and read. If you don't do this, I'm afraid that things will get worse. Think of a it as a vacation of sorts. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur with this excellent advice, and suggest you add to your reading list User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility and WP:TIGERS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEAR is also germane.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done some interesting reading, thanks. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion. I think your new name might not be the best choice, since the metaphor "still standing" carries the implication "despite adversity," and could be seen as a reference to "people who are causing" said adversity.

Also, if you're interested in editing more philosophical articles for a while, a few of the pages on my watchlist that I haven't finished (or started) editing are Duhem-Quine thesis, Demarcation problem, Hypothesis, Idealization, Philosophy of science, History of science, History of scientific method. Of course, I don't expect your interests to completely overlap with mine, but take them as suggestions to potentially distract you for a while. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The user name is fine. I like it, myself. Nobody Ent 01:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Arc, I saw your work on Duhem-Quine but didn't have any improvements to offer. I'll take a look at the others, though. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ent, that video disturbs me. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't actually watch it, just listened to the soundtrack. Nobody Ent 10:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. Don't be sorry at all. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Try this [1]. Worse music video ever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What have I ever done to you? Why do you hate me so?! StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a short explanation. DQ is one of those philosophical statements which seem to be constantly misused or misinterpreted to say that e.g. science is not objective. Except that in a lot of philosophy you can usually say anything you like, so the best I can do is evaluate statements for consistency with actual science. So for example, I don't think the lead is coherent, and my work was only a very small improvement. Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's frequently abused by postmodernists. I'm reading http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/ right now to brush up, and thinking of substituting Drescher's flat-earth/upside-down example. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Drescher sounds like a good idea. To help with your sourcing, there's also a pdf of his book here. Arc de Ciel (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I have it on my Kindle, but this is easier. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple of other articles I just found that need work are Meaning of life and Science of morality. Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler: the answer is 42. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Then what's the question?! StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A few more points

Did you read WP:BEAR? If so, why did you post to Arzels talk page? Its clear he doesn't want you posting there. One cant help but think you are doing it to antagonize him.

Now let's talk about policy. Please try and refrain from instructing or opining about policies and guidelines. Sea lawyering is disruptive and annoys others. If you have questions about policy, ask. Many of the editors you have been interacting with have been here for years and they know the policies and customs well enough. Many people bring up policy arguments, but you seem to do it quite often. It's not a collegial trait.

Contrary to what you might think, I'm not out to get you. My best piece of advice I can give you is to think twice before hitting save. Ask yourself what sort of reaction you think your diff will make.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had to post notices[2][3][4] when he's violated policy, particularly by edit-warring. I am obligated to do so if I am to report him, and I certainly want to keep that option open. Likewise, when Cwobeel approaches him about the very same issues, I'm there to back them up.

Arzel has been here for much longer than me, yet that doesn't seem to endow him with any special understanding of the rules. He violates them frequently, so I drop notices when he does. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And this one? Ask yourself this question. Are you here to build an encyclopedia?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I addressed this already: "Likewise, when Cwobeel approaches him about the very same issues, I'm there to back them up."

I'm here to fix some articles. This includes talking to people who have a pattern of harming articles and reminding them that what they're doing is harmful. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you leave that detail to others. Editors have been blocked, or received non-interaction constraints, for posting on an editor's talk page when it has been made clear such posts are undesired. It falls under the umbrella of WP:HARASS. With a non-interaction ban, you would no longer be allowed to edit the articles that person edits. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:KillerChihuahua, this DRN volunteer disagrees with you. (Even after being instructed per your advice, by an admin.) Would be nice if everyone agreed regarding what the rules are about this. (Clearly they don't, and do whatever they want.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those areas where policy is gray and enforcement is basically arbitrary.

I would say that immediately deleting someone's comment on your talk page is pretty darned uncivil, yet a few people do this to me routinely. On the other hand, if someone politely requests that you not comment on their talk page, I'd say that it would be uncivil to arbitrarily violate this request. Still, that doesn't mean there aren't reasonable exceptions when there is a legitimate need to send messages to such editors.

As a reductio ad absurdum, imagine if I put up a big, flashing notice informing visitors that comments are unwelcome. Various administrative forums require the editor to be notified, so would this mean that nobody could ever report me on for breaking WP:3RR or some other rule? Could I then revert articles with impunity?

I rest my case. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S.

Yes, I used legal terms. No, I'm not threatening to sue anyone. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it's uncivil to post after polite request(s) not to, unless policy demands it. But who gives a whit about civility at Wikipedia?? (You're joking, right?! Some volunteers exploit the non-uniform/absent/prejudicial enforcement of WP:CIV and WP:NPA in order to enjoy their own personal Wikipeedia.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're all volunteers here (if you exclude the apparent existence of editors paid by third parties). But, sure, we each have our own understanding of the guiding policies and this can lead to conflict.

I think civility is a fine goal, but it's kind of absurd to enforce it selectively. It's not that incivility towards you is a free pass to be uncivil in return, but that some remarks only look uncivil if you ignore what they're a response to. In context, they're actually quite mild.

Also, some things that might appear insulting on the surface turn out not to be once you understand them. For example, I was asked a leading question, along the lines of "What makes you think you have the right to revert as often as you like?", and my pointed response was "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Of course, I didn't hyperlink it, so I was immediately reported for claiming he beat his wife. *facepalm*

Fortunately, common sense prevailed, so the whole thing blew over before I even noticed, but similar things have happened since, even recently. The obvious solution is to ask instead of assuming. If it seems as if someone insulted you intentionally, flying off the handle is counterproductive. If you politely ask them to explain what they meant, this gives them a chance to clarify (and, perhaps, to retract). StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that all sounds so decent. Thing is, WP is so BIG (so many volunteers here), there are interesting, awesomely intelligent, decent folk here. Makes it worthwhile. But then there's the ugly side. (In the end WP is reminding me of Manhattan. Hate it & love it simultaneously. But not for the meek, for sure.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it sounds decent because it's a description of how things ought to be, not how they are. How they are is that hostile editors are routinely uncivil, which serves either to poison the discussion, intimidate participants, or bait them into responding with just as little civility. In the case of escalating incivility, it becomes a game of chicken, in which they try to get you to say something that's a clear personal attack so that they can report you. Besides actual insults, any comment that's witty, idiomatic or sarcastic -- anything not intended at face value -- is a natural for intentional misunderstanding, which is likewise reported.

In real life, if someone asks me whether I ate the last cookie (and I did), a mildly witty way to respond is to pretend to "lawyer up" by saying something like "On the advice of council, I cannot answer that question". Not too long ago, I used that phrase here in much the same way and was immediately reported for... making legal threats! Yes, it's absurd, but such false reports sometimes succeed. And, really, it doesn't even matter if they fail. The mere fact that your name keeps showing up on ANI or 3RR is held against you, unless you're piling on to an existing report against someone, in which case it's ok.

The relevant truism is that you shouldn't wrestle a pig, because you'll both become muddy but the pig likes it. There's no point diving into the mud with people who use incivility as a weapon and who file false reports. Take the high ground; avoid responding in kind. Let them roll in the mud while you remain clean. They can't make you sink to their level. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Good advices. About reports being tallied and their existences being used against you to smear, I've experienced that several times. It's really tacky. (No bother to look at the source or content of those "bad reports", or to look at the quality of a block. Their existences used to smear and only smear. And the "rule" that a block always means you did something naughty you need to confess to, otherwise you stay blocked, is absurd beyond all language.) Blatant manipulation and attempt to politic. So transparent! (Don't they see that?) There are some really good people here, many good admins too; I wanna meet more of them. I think the bad experiences are w/ a tiny minority. But that minority can and does drive good editors away. And they don't care, because they're here to feed their own egos (narcissism), not for encyclopedia article health. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's where the system really starts to break down, when they demand contrition and punish you for continuing to disagree. This happened to me, with my one block based on a false report and a careless but unrepentant admin. In theory, I'm supposed to pretend to feel guilty for being singled out unfairly. In practice, I just can't, regardless of the threats.

There are real-life parallels. A person falsely accused of a serious crime might be compelled to plead guilty to a lesser charge (that they're still innocent of) just to avoid the risk of a conviction that would lead to decades of jail time. The threat of extreme punishment forces them to accept unfair but milder punishment to avoid the risk. Likewise, a falsely convicted person who wants to get out on parole has to pretend to guilt and repentance to stand any chance of walking down the street again before becoming elderly. If they dare say that they can't repent because they're not guilty, they're screwed.

I don't care to speculate as to whether the cause of specific acts of bad behavior by admins is malice or incompetence, but I think it's fair to say that some of each figure in, with more of the latter. Admins are rushed, which leads to tunnel vision and a tendency to work backwards from expected conclusions. So, for example, once they decide you're guilty, further evidence is disregarded. Ego figures in here, as it takes an act of humility to admit to error instead of blaming the victim. It's a human failing, and it's not one that has been tamed even in the high stakes parts of the real world. But on Wikipedia, it's not tamed at all. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Humility -- a rare commodity. And you're right, it's reflected in real life. ("Admit I'm wrong? And have everyone think I'm a stupid jerk? Not at any cost -- no way!") I think you're right too, many admins are rushed. Busy, busy, busy! What happened to care, being the best one can be, "quality not quantity"? Rare. ("Gotta get 1000 edits in tonight. Including warnings, blocks, the works. Gotta impress people, don't exactly know why, just gotta. What would poor Wikipedia do without me?") I really like this article, initiated by The Warden (please see): Festina lente. Wow. And on owning up to crimes never committed, this awesome article (I wanna read again 2nd & 3rd time): Innocent prisoner's dilemma. (A bit ironic, the big proponent of the concept Wiki-wise is User:Penyulap who just recently was stripped of access to his own Talk because an admin thought it "best" for him. P was asked to explain why he should be given back his Talk, and, because he's really intelligent, folded at the very Q (since of course it is absurd to begin with). He's got my respect. (As well as the admin Dennis Brown who restored his Talk. [Funny how Dennis tried to define the "restoration" as not an "undoing" of the removal! He tries to please everybody, which is impossible and tees off both sides. OTOH, scintillating wit and writer-editor Malleus doesn't give a whack what *anyone* thinks -- gotta respect that *even more*!] People say "go edit an article", but there's stuff going on right here too that can be fatefully distracting because of the fascinating personalities involved and their interactions and discourses which are always intelligent & interesting, and involve the Wiki. [That's why I read your affairs, since it is really ideas in contention, and about how WP can be a better, more decent place, which is interesting because there are acknowledged serious problems affecting editor retention. There's more to the core than just "fights between editors".]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Besides being a clever meta-reference, the Warden's page emphasizes patience and constructiveness; I like it.

I've noticed some editors who throw themselves at vandalism control, reverting dozens and dozens of stupid changes. On the one hand, I suppose they're doing Wikipedia a service. On the other, the quantity of edits this generates looks like a clear attempt to pad their wikiresume by showing more experience than is real. Making a few constructive changes to an article doesn't increase your edit count nearly as much as reverting vandalism, but it requires more skill and is therefore more valuable. I would suggest that there's even more leverage in countering a bad edit, such as the deletion of valuable material, or even a whole article. Besides, I don't think that this is the most effective way to fight vandalism.

Thanks for pointing out the Innocent prisoner's dilemma; I didn't know that a term had been coined for it, but I'm all too aware of its existence. Frankly, I wonder if the very best defense in the face of a false report is to shut up. I recently filed an ANI report (about Witherspoon) which was, as expected, repurposed as an attack on my ability to edit. I was busy with real-life things after the initial filing, but uninvolved admins did a pretty good job pointing out what was wrong with the attacks against me, and their words carried more weight both because of their experience and lack of involvement. (Also, please don't add your comments to that ANI report.)

In the real world, the best advice a lawyer can give you is to respond to police interrogation by politely requesting a lawyer and then shutting up, as anything you say really will be used against you, no matter how innocent or how much you imagine it supports your innocence. The clincher is that you have to deal with what the police remember you as saying, not what you actually said, and any "dishonesty" will be seen as proof of guilt. Anyhow, it makes me wonder whether we need a corp of wikilawyers to guide noobs such as myself through the process. I'm serious about this!

My take on editor retention is that, for anyone foolishly editing a controversial article (and you wouldn't believe what turns out to be controversial!), it's a very hostile environment. Experienced editors can trick you into losing your cool and saying something that could be misconstrued as a person attack or even a legal threat. They can tag-team edit-war against you to trick you into passing 3RR. And they can just pile on top of everything you do in an attempt to make the entire experience miserable. Of course, it's not just that they can, but that some do, quite intentionally. It's not so much that we're losing editors as we're allowing some editors to "bump off" others. We need to stop treating these as accidental deaths and instead recognize them as murders. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... and BRD

Thanks for the barnstar! I still always appreciate them. In the same spirit, I have a favorite guideline to use as a reference when ending up in a contentious conversation due to edits I may have made or reverted. There are some tips which you might find helpful, in order to avoid any undue unpleasantness with editors who may not have read it. I have always found this guide useful, especially since it is documented on WP. Forgive me if you have already read this previously. WP:BRD OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read it and live by it, but no forgiveness necessary. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read [[WP:NOTHERE] ]

A cursory glance at your recent edit history appears to show that a fair number of your edits seem to fall within this guideline. Just food for thought.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

After a careful read-through, I came up with another "not here". Namely, if you want to share advice with me, not here. You violated WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, so I don't want you on my talk page again for anything short of official business. And in case you're wondering, I'm not going to be any more open to unsolicited advice from you anywhere else, so you might as well just keep it to yourself. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What rules mean

Edit Warring is not a bright line in the sand. 3RR is. Edit Warring is something that can happen anytime you push a bit of material back in, or take some material back out that is not being inserted by community consensus. It is what occurs when you and another editor play tug of war over a bit of text.

I get the impression from your comments at the edit warring noticeboard that you don't quite see this yet. The other editors at that article are, in essence, holding me hostage to their edits because I dare not revert again, lest I be blocked for edit warring. You don't simply get to tug-of-war on content. You stop, discuss, get consensus, and then move forward. That has not been happening for some time now at that article. Token replies at Talk and then doing whatever you want with the content is not consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, edit-warring doesn't require hitting 4RR, but reporting people who haven't yet done so is hit or miss. It's even more the case when the editor doing the reporting has dirty hands, and when the report is misleading (as by making it look as though Cas hit 4RR when they didn't).

I believe you were mistaken to report this. There are better ways of handling such issues, and you were already using one: the talk page. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I am unable to edit back without edit warring myself, the Talk page seemed rather insufficient. Using the Talk page requires cooperation from all parties. Those who choose edit anyway and ignore discussion and attempts at consensus-building run afoul of the policy. You're really not getting the spirit of the rule here. You're doing that thing that has continually caused you grief for a while now. The term is Wikilawyering. This is about us coming together on a wording that works well, not one group bulldozing the other. -- Avanu (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's sufficient. There's no reason to hurry. You can talk about it, build a consensus and fix it tomorrow or the next day. It's ok if the article is wrong for a while.

I was blocked because an editor filed a false report against me, miscounting my edits so that it looked like I hit 4RR, so I know what it's like to be on the ugly side of a bad report. Your report was premature, messy and counterproductive, so I was quite willing to get involved and point out what's wrong. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me make you crystal clear ultra aware of something. If it isn't BLP, then "It's ok if the article is wrong for a while", HOWEVER, this isn't that. This article *IS* Todd Akin's actual biography article, so there is zero question it is a BLP concern and therefore it is ABSOLUTELY imperative that the article be RIGHT, not "wrong for a while". You *REALLY* need to get with the program here. -- Avanu (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing: I got blocked despite the fact that my edits were on a BLP and I identified them as invoking the BLP exception to 3RR (although I did not exceed 3RR, either). Turns out that there's wrong wrong and BLP wrong; only the latter counts.

Look, the right thing happened: instead of blocks all around, the page got protected. Now we can fight over the content without churning it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You're missing it. There's unfair. Life is not fair. You got blocked and other people get away with it. Life sometimes sucks. People sometimes suck. I said in the Edit Warring post that I didn't want people blocked. I chimed in on the page protection request that this needed to happen. The difference is that I'm here to see that good outcomes happen. Some people are here to be bullies or be jerks. But that's life. To quote the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (4th in the trilogy): "Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairan dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin. But I haven't and I am." -- Avanu (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Life is usually no more fair than we make it. In this case, the fair thing would have been to avoid WP:3RRN entirely and instead ask for page protection at WP:RFP. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That was already done, and 40-some-odd edits later it finally got enacted. I chimed in as well at RFP. I've explained this fact to you several times already. Which part of it is having trouble being seen by your eyes? -- Avanu (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm recommending WP:RFP instead of WP:3RRN, not in addition. You were impatient. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Still, I wasn't impatient at all. When people ask for a consensus discussion to take place, the time is then. Not whenever the other editors decide to stop editing. You seem to be advocating a position where I simply sit and wait for the other editors to actually give a shit about my concerns. BLP doesn't say that, and you know it doesn't. The difference is that if you stop and let the "bad" editors continue, they are the only ones at fault from that point forward. If you engage them in reverting, then you are also edit warring, and that means you *all* are potentially getting a block. But me allowing them to continue doesn't mean I simply sit back and wait for them to get around to giving a shit about my concerns. The "request for page protection" is one step. Its a nice, kind, gentle step, but it prevents improvement to the article. That isn't good. The other administrative option is that someone gets a block. That isn't nice for the person who gets a block, *but* everyone else can still edit the article and improve it. See... it cuts both ways. Either way, you lose something. The *BEST* option is that people actually don't edit war at all, and give a flying shit about things when editors ask for discussion and consensus. But we didn't have that at the Todd Akin article. Not even close. So what are the options in such a situation? It turned out OK, I suppose. But rather than being able to have a quicker discussion over things and coming to a locally decided consensus, no one can improve the article for a while. If that's your idea of a great outcome, I don't see what you're here for. -- Avanu (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason Wikipedia has such a strict WP:BLP policy is that there've been a few hugely embarrassing scandals that hurt the reputation of innocent people and of Wikipedia (which wasn't at all innocent). As a result, there are certain kinds of things that we simply cannot allow onto a BLP page for any length of time. For example, if an editor added the claim that some notable person was a murderer, we'd scrape it off immediately, no many how many reverts it took. But if a comma is out of place, WP:BLP does not give us license to edit war over it. This is what I meant when I spoke of wrong vs. BLP wrong.

Unfortunately, for anything that's not very clearly BLP wrong, we need to exercise patience, even if that means the page is (non-BLP) wrong for a while. Let me give you an example. On Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, an editor removed a whole section without explanation.[5] My attempts to get him to explain have essentially failed. Even more, his edit comment was empty, as if my version was vandalism, and he's violating WP:BRD by countering the revert of a Bold change. All of this is absolutely terrible, but am I edit-warring to fix the article?

I am not. I've left comments on the article talk page and the editor's talk page. If I don't see a plausible response, I suppose I'll revert it tomorrow or the next day. Or perhaps someone else will. But I'm not even going past 1RR on that. It's not worth it. After all, nothing stops them from reverting back, and soon we're all covered with the same mud. By staying above this, I keep my hands clean. If I have to report them, I won't be blocked along with them. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to decide how noteworthy a BLP violation is by yourself. People come to Wikipedia to look for good information, and we have a duty with regard to information that is potentially libellous. Just because you think "oh this isn't that bad", doesn't mean it gets ignored, nor should it be. Yes, it is true that some information is a lot less likely to be a problem. But many editors, left to their own devices, have zero problem inserting very politicized or polarized information, very biased information, or simply untrue information. The way the text was initially shaping up was very much in line with the gossipy nature of news media. It isn't about correctly understanding the guy and whatever nuances he brings, it is about catching the guy in a verbal goof or a silly statement. The media loves that, no matter who the 'prey' is. We're not here to repeat that kind of reporting. We're not here to help people make hay out of nothing. We're here to build a damn good encyclopedia of worthwhile information, not the latest hiccup or gossip. In a few years, will this verbal gaffe be remembered? Will people vote for this guy because of it? Who knows. But all too often, that kind of sourcing is what passes for 'worthy' around here. I'm up for setting a better standard. -- Avanu (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You had it right at your first sentence: You don't get to decide how noteworthy a BLP violation is by yourself. In other words, even if you're convinced that some passage is horrible and must not be allowed to remain in the article, unless it's just vandalism, you should follow WP:3RR and report it on WP:BLPN, rather than continuing to revert.

When I decided something was bad enough that BLP overrode 3RR, I later found that, for good or for ill, an admin disagreed with me. I should have just reported it.

The only reason I bang my head against political articles is because I agree that they suck and should suck less, but the first step to making a positive contribution is figuring out the complex and often self-contradictory rules that are more or less sometimes followed. I've found that, the more I understand, the less hasty I am. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You have a pattern of edit warring it seems. You have been blocked for doing such already, correct? --Mollskman (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I was reported a few times. The only time I was blocked was when Lionelt falsely claimed I violated 4RR. In short, the claims were false. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well hopefully you learned your lesson and won't repeat it, it seems like you are using talk pages more which is good. --Mollskman (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I can only hope to serve as a good example to you, encouraging you to stop edit-warring on articles such as Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. [6]
• 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: [7]. 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. [8]
• 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.[9]

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 broadly construed. – 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)

RFC evidence

Hey Still (and Viriditas) - as I said on my user page, I'm not terribly active for the next week-ish, but I anticipate that when I return, I will be helping to compile evidence on selective invitation of users to the project. We might also do well to provide a selection of articles that were bannered under the project apparently because they were of interest to editors with conservative agendas rather than relevant to the topic of conservatism - some LGBT articles come to mind, and I recall there being a flap over militant atheism as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There's no great hurry; let's do this right. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a talk page about this RFC to which we can add comments or suggestions or is it all happening on Still's/Viriditas' talk? Sædon^talk 23:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page: User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC

RfC draft: User:StillStanding-247/RfC

Sandra Fluke Delection

Deletion review for Sandra Fluke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Casprings (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You should have been notified

I want to make sure that you are aware of this: [10], 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)

They're really organized.

Looks like you're not the only one they pass the ammo boxes about.

How nicely organized they are. Kinda like those weekend wack-job white supremacist militias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.86.32 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, because it's not personal. Shortly after I created my account (after briefly editing as an IP), Belchfire launched a completely false SPI against me. At first, I thought it was a transparent attempt to get me blocked, but now I'm wondering if all non-conservatives just sound the same to him. I've come to believe that the WikiProject Conservatism posse targets people entirely on the basis of behavior, not identity. They go after whoever edits "their" articles in a way that makes them neutral. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Lobbying theory may have legs

Do you remember me saying that it looks like many of these members are lobbying for candidates and religious organizations, and using WikiProject Conservatism as a "front" for improving articles, and that this would best explain their behavior? Although we have nothing actionable just yet, take a look at this example:

• User:Algonquin7 creates an account at 15:38, 20 June 2012.[11]
• Algonquin7 makes their first edit to Wikipedia at 04:55, 28 June 2012, to the article United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2012, promoting endorsements for Republican candidate Tommy Thompson.[12][13]
• Their next 145 edits focuses on anti-homosexuality, mostly to Chick-fil-A related topics and discussions.[14]
• Meanwhile, the very same user creates a new account, User:John D. Rockerduck, on 22:51, 25 July 2012.[15] However, the user was still actively editing as Algonquin7 on Talk:Chick-fil-A at the time.[16]
• Notice, the very first mainspace edit of John D. Rockerduck is to United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2012, where they go on to make 14 edits promoting Republican candidate Tommy Thompson again.
• Throughout this time, for some strange reason, they edit as both Algonquin7 and John D. Rockerduck, until the Algonquin7 account is officially abandoned on August 9.[17]

Notes: again, this is just an example, but neither account has ever created an article[18][19] and gives the appearance of being a newbie who doesn't know much about the site, but when their talk page contributions are examined,[20] they give the complete opposite appearance, seemingly an expert on every aspect of Wikipedia and able to communicate clearly and without the spelling and grammatical errors we see on their talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, there's no question that they're the same person[21], and the overlap in account usage is explained by his comment about waiting for his new account to be autoconfirmed.[22]. As for language ability, neither account shows the ability to write proper English. Note that this is not a personal attack, just an accurate evaluation. I also don't know whether it's a reflection of ability or inclination; the texting culture among youth does not favor correct English, and is in some cases recording English phonetically with no attempt at conventional spelling. I could be wrong, but the overall impression I get is that he's young, perhaps high school age. But, yes, his edits are quite consistently biased in the direction of conservatism. He doesn't seem to understand how biased he is, though. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so you are aware...

Wikiproject:Conservatism has their own IRC channel. And at least one admin in their group who's promised to stay off editing of topics to appear "neutral" for bans. Watch your back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.81 (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure that whoever it is that stopped editing will soon file a false report against me, so I won't bother asking for a name.

However, I should probably mention that my email address is still_twentyfour@yahoo.com. According to my in-house tech expert, if you use a disposable web email account, the most I'll be able to determine is your IP. In other words, I'll have no more clue than before about what your Wikipedia account might be. This would make it rather easy to share IRC logs with me. Think about it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it would be helpful to them if I did something that, if interpreted with sufficient malice, could be made to look like an actionable violation. I suspect that Belchfire's provocations on James Dobson would suffice, except for the fact that I'm not taking the bait. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Belchfire and Lionelt are going on a reverting campaign that spans many articles. I will limit myself to 1RR when dealing with them. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's not going to be another false 3RR report, although those have been moderately successful so far. Lionelt's suggesting an RFCU.[23] StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Now Arthur Rubin is reverting back to the POV versions created by Belchfire and Lionelt. Interesting. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the admin the IP is referring to retired in April. I could be wrong, of course. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it's an active admin. I know better than to say the name because then it'll be an "unsubstantiated accusation", "in bad faith", "harassing an admin", and anything else that they can come up with.

The topics of discussion last night about 7pm, and I'm sorry I didn't have logging running, were how they could manage to get you either banned or topic-banned along with how they could "keep new users away so that the consensus could be properly made to remove liberal bias."

It appears the planned pattern is to have a few of their members play the gadfly and deliberately try to provoke, another few around to fill your page up with "warnings" for anything they possibly can think of, and one or two of them to constantly create notices at WP:AIV and WP:ANI to try to garner admin support for a ban under the idea that you "must be doing something disruptive if he's constantly being mentioned at ANI." They plan on known ignorance, that admins rarely look into an actual situation deeper than the shallowest representation placed by an initial writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.236.81 (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Knew I recognized a few of those names. "ArtRubin" is most likely [24] Arthur Rubin. He was designated to the provocation group. Just FYI so that you know when you encounter him, he's assigned to deliberately try to provoke you with incivility.