Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StillStanding-247 (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 18 September 2012 (→RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RfC talk: User talk:Viriditas/RfC

RfC draft: User:Viriditas/RfC

Draft RFC on WikiProject Conservatism

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 Misplaced Pages. 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: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages? 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/search/?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. 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.
• 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 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 Misplaced Pages. I think that answers my question. Sædon 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 Misplaced Pages 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: . 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.
• 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 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.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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)

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. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Xenophrenic is mistaken. On Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 DRN 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)

I'm not digging in, I'm walking away. My participation would not be helpful. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:58, 18 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. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

You are edit warring in tandem with others. You can be blocked or banned all the same; do not take my warning for granted. The requirement of the article probation is that the editor must have been informed of the terms before sanctions. Arzel and North8000 were, therefore, informed. You've been informed already. This warning covers all topics under the article probation. If I see you engaged in edit warring anywhere, I will topic ban you from the whole lot of them.--v/r - TP 02:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In which case I'll curse you out and delete my account. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"In tandem with others" would imply a conspiracy of some sort to forego the rules and do damage to the encyclopedia. Is there clear verifiable evidence of a cabal or a tag team? Have they (Arzel, North8000, Still24/7, and un-named others) negotiated amongst themselves as to a "plan of attack"? Or is it just a case of similar-minded editors working independantley for the good of the article (as they see it of course)? ```Buster Seven Talk 03:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I acted independently. I can't speak for others. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. It does not matter whether the edit warring is in tandem, or independent. It's disruptive, and the article is subject to general sanctions. Even a single revert can be edit warring, per WP:3RR. And it should be pretty obvious that if content is being added, reverted, re-added, re-removed, that being involved in the re-adding or reverting of that content is very obviously edit warring, even for a single revert. The process is BRD, not BRRRRRRRRRD as long as the R's are being done by different people. Common sense guys. ⇒SWATJester 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, ok, so would you agree to a 1RR restriction. A 1RR restriction would allow you to edit the articles, but not making revert after revert. The reverts do seem disruptive, and should be stopped. So remember WP:BRD. Follow that and there is no need for 3 reverts, or even 2. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the articles are already under community sanctions, 1RR for all is probably what is already there. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Not officially, although I did limit myself to 1RR in this case and was nonetheless threatened with a fatal topic ban that would have ended my Misplaced Pages career. The truth is that 1RR, combined with the broadness of what counts as a revert, makes it really hard to edit at all. You're pretty much stuck with one edit per day, just to avoid the risk of instant death. In short, forcing 1RR on just me would be a terrible idea.

In response to what Swatjester said, I generally agree, but the case here is BRDRRDRRDRRD, where the result of the discussion is tendentiously ignored by those who oppose the B, and they therefore keep reverting to remove it no matter what the consensus of the discussion turns out to be. The B is invariably some well-sourced, entirely relevant passage that has the unavoidable consequence of not putting the subject in the best light, and there are people who think WP:UNDUE doesn't apply if the majority view doesn't happen to suit them. They either don't participate in the discussion at all or participate only to stonewall. These whitewashers are the real problem and they're the ones who need to be threatened, not me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:48, 18 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)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Given your comment on the RFC/U, I would suggest certifying it by signing in the certification section. Homunq (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where exactly do you want me to sign? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I threw out my brief comment and signed under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Better? I'm dubious about the whole RFC/U process, but I do agree with what you've said and I've been unable to reason with this editor. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fox is christian right?

Your edit connecting the Christian right to Fox News is beyond the pale. Your source does make the connection, but using only circumstantial evidence; and anyway, including this offhand connection from a single source in the article is WP:UNDUE. Homunq (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for at least offering concrete criticism, but this isn't the right place. Please comment on the article talk page, and if you feel that this passage is insufficiently sourced, go ahead and add a tag. We'll either resolve it with new citations or remove it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)