User talk:StillStanding-247

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 ^{Shoot Blues!} 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 Wikipedia 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)

I was concerned that TParis is showing less than a fair measure of objectivity. The events here have confirmed it. If he topic bans me, rather than quitting Wikipedia, I will go over his head. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

TParis singling me out.

TParis has been singling me out with regard to the community probation of election-related articles. He has threatened to ban me just because I reverted exactly once after long discussion. If he were consistent, he'd have to ban half the editors involved, but he's no being consistent at all. I asked him[1] to lay out his requirements up front so that it's possible to follow them, but he refuses. In short, what's going to happen is that I do something reasonable that plenty of other editors do without anyone complaining but TParis will single me out and ban me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may attempt to impart a clue here: sparring with TParis is not going to get you anywhere other than the business end of a banhammer. I suggest you quit while you're ahead. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  03:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Kerfuffler is right. Just drop it and forget it. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is why TParis needs to lose the admin rights. Over zealous, biased and if you dare criticize him the hammer of thor comes out. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on that, except to say that the one requirement that all admins must have is thick skin. They should be able to accept criticism without taking it personally, much less threatening to retaliate. This one takes things personally, he threatens to retaliate, he singles out those who annoy him. And that's why I'm complaining: he's not doing his job, just threatening mine. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look at his talk page, you can see where I in fact walked away. I took a quick peek just now, and it's clear that nothing he said after that in any way addressed my point; instead, he threatened me for asking him to stop being ambiguous. The unaddressed point is that he had so broadly interpreted edit-warring (1RR after discussion) that everyone was guilty, then selectively chose to threaten me but not anyone else who'd reverted it at some point that day. The end result is that, instead of specifying what is acceptable so that we can voluntarily stay within those lines, he's keeping his requirements secret so that he can arbitrarily enforce them. I fully expect that he will live up to his track record of special treatment by topic banning me essentially at random for things that nobody else is getting topic banned for. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are some discussions where you just have to walk away. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. This is the part where you fold 'em. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And if you could actualy take that advice yourself.....it would be super!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And, what part of the midwest are you from? Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

More advice (sorry)

Hey, I was going to try to avoid bugging you again with more advice, but I saw the hullabaloo on TParis's talk page and checked your recent edit history again. On the bright side, you seem to have improved since last we talked, but there are still some problems I'd like to address. The first is creating a section named Failure to BRD by Belchfire on an article talk page. While I am no fan of Belchfire, his techniques, or his foul language, I have to say that making a section title accusing another editor is inappropriate. Second: When Little Green Rosetta pointed out that you too fail to follow BRD, you freaked out, hatting his comment twice [2] [3], confronting him on his talk page [4], and requesting that he redact it [5]. (Incidentally, in the past three days you have failed to follow BRD at least 4 times by my count. I can provide diffs at your request.)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Anyway, I'm going to share something with you that has helped me a lot when I'm involved in conflicts. It's Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Basically the higher up the pyramid you go, the better your argument. Most of the arguments I've seen from you tend to be from the bottom four rungs on the pyramid. For instance, when TParis gave you the "final warning" you responded by accusing him of being biased. That's Ad Hominem and name-calling. The same goes for accusing people you disagree with of "conservative bias" and such. Labeling someone as an edit warrior is also name calling. (Off-hand remarks about Wikiproject:Conservatism are a Red herring, which is not on this chart.) You also frequently respond to the tone of an argument, raising Cain over anything you perceive to be a personal attack.

My advice is: Stay in the top three rungs of the pyramid. Ignore the tone and the characteristics of your opponent and focus on the substance of the argument itself. If somebody says something that sounds like a personal attack, ignore it. It will only reflect badly on them. If an admin threatens you with a block, don't attack them; adjust your behavior. To sum it up, if you want to actually "win" arguments, stick to the top 2 or 3 rungs. If you enjoy useless bickering, making enemies, and having to edit war to win disputes, stick to the bottom 3 rungs.

Anyway, there's my advice. As always, you're under no obligation to take it or leave it. Your editing today was much better than your editing 3 days ago, so keep up the good work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I've removed the "by Belchfire" from "Failure to BRD by Belchfire".
2. He falsely accused me of hypocrisy, which is unambiguously a personal attack. The comment was particularly offensive because it's an intentional distortion. When I choose not to follow the letter of BRD, I still follow the spirit, as by discussing immediately after reverting the revert. Belchfire just walked over, reverted with an insulting comment and left. Big, big difference.
3. When someone hats a comment as offensive or otherwise indicates that it's offensive to them, the right thing to do in most cases is to redact it. The wrong thing to do in most cases is to edit war to restore it. He violated WP:DICK after violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
4. Graham's hierarchy is about debate. There is no debate here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from Paul Ryan

Because of the ongoing edit warring on Paul Ryan, I am topic banning you from Paul Ryan until the conclusion of the RFC on the marathon issue. This topic ban may be appealed to Arbcom or WP:ANI. Under no circumstances may you edit Paul Ryan or Talk:Paul Ryan until the RFC has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. Also, you are placed on a WP:1RR on all 2012 Presidential Campaign articles until the expiration of the community article probation.--v/r - TP 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As predicted, you singled me out for punishment. Your ban is illegitimate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

He hardly singled you out. Three other users got the same treatment. [6], [7], [8] ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't think SS should have been topic banned over what occurred (just as I don't think I should have been), I find it amusing that only he jumped to such a conclusion. I immediately checked to see who else TP had banned when I got my message.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a history with TP. In particular, he has singled me out before, so it was not unreasonable to think he was doing it again. If anything, going nuclear on everyone involved in this is even worse. Basically, he created an edit war and then punished everyone who was in the vicinity. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to ANI about it right now. Here comes the drama and boomerang punishments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to give it a break and let others defend you. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A couple suggestions for ANI the next time you decide to use it:

1. Don't bias the heading with your recommended outcome. Leave it as neutral as possible
2. Don't leave a long, multi-paragraph notice. The shorter, the better, and if you can break it down into five long sentences, that's ideal.

Hope that helps. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll step back and let others speak, as this is a community decision. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Your innocence is delightful. "Community decision" often translates as "you're screwed". Enjoy. I very, very rarely ever agree with the "community". Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm catching up on what's going on. What I'm not seeing is any evidence that a topic ban was warranted for any of the edits made during this period of time. Basically, TP screwed up and now he's covering up by screwing everyone over. Nobody has explained under what reasonable basis my single, reasonable edit constitutes reason for a topic ban. Nobody. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Delightful! Did you just start editing yesterday? :) :) Admins defend admins, rain or shine, come hell or high water. They take no responsibility and there is no accountability; plus, they are elected for life. Welcome to Wikipedia! :) Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've participated mostly through the talk page. This is my first edit to the article in days and I stayed at 1RR to avoid any reasonable claim that I was edit-warring. Guess that being reasonable is no longer relevant. As I said on ANI, TP is biased and incompetent. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You are new, aren't you? You can't be competent and an admin. Viriditas (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. I won't deny that there are all too many incompetent admins on Wikipedia, but there are also plenty of exceptions. The problem is that Yeats had it right:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Such is the case with admins. The most reasonable are often so reasonable that they seem inactive. The ones who are quick to act are almost always the ones who shouldn't have a sysop bit in the first place. Consider TP. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at the stats: most admins aren't active, and most editors who are active and want to be admins (My76Strat, etc.) can't. The "shit-stem" doesn't work. "Adminship" only exists for one reason—to lord dominance over the rest of the primates. As I've been saying for years, it needs to be deprecated and replaced with a simple delegation of rights that can be requested and handed out easily, and removed in a moment. Need protection rights? Request it. Need to delete pages? Request it. And in any case, 90% of admin duties can be replaced with bots. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I notice that a lot of people seem to be editing solely as a campaign to become admins. They fill their user page with their editing accomplishments, put in their time reverting random vandalism and try to act as if they're already admins. To be blunt, these are the same people who should under no circumstances have their sysop bit set. Nobody who really, really wants to be admin is sane enough to deserve it. It's only those who slid into the role despite themselves who are qualified. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Lord Acton, etc. We need to return to the basics, to the marketplace of ideas and knowledge. Those who have the best ideas should be in positions of leadership, not those who carry the biggest sticks. Seen any admins with good ideas lately? Of course not, once you become an admin you toe the line. See how this runs counter to good decision making? Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@Viriditas: That's funny. 76Strat crossed my path just today and I instinctively assumed they were an admin. After reading your comment I had to go check. (Perhaps I had confused them with Mr. Stradavarious...dunno.)

Strat ran for RfA[9] but didn't pass. I supported him, but not enough did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

@StillStanding, remember what I said about ad hominems. If you really want to convince people, don't attack your opponent ("biased and incompetent") but their argument. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd love to attack his argument, but he doesn't actually have one. Apparently, he doesn't need one, since no admin is willing to undue the huge mistake. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Still, I understand your frustration, more than you know. But at ANI all we can look at is whether or not it was allowed under policy. If another admin wants to reverse it, they can, but in this case, it really is within policy and admin loathe reversing another based solely on their "opinion", rather than policy. I accept the fact that I am much slower to take action than virtually every other admin, but I don't go around reversing them, imposing my will on them. Had it been against policy, or he met the criteria for involved, I would have said as much. I am sincere when I say if you just give it a day or two, let things calm down, we can go talk to him and assure that the goal isn't to inject bias into the article, and he will reconsider. Doesn't guarantee anything, but I'm serious when I say my experience with him has been that he is reasonable. We agree on some things, disagree on others, but it has never been an issue and he isn't one to normally dig in. But stretching it out and laboring it won't change the outcome, I promise you. I would like to think you know I will always try to be fair and honest about things and not take sides, and I'm not taking sides here, just saying that policy does allow this, and trying to find a way to minimize the duration, which is the best solution for you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I made exactly one edit, and it was a good one. If policy allows a topic ban for this then policy is wrong.

And, to be frank, I do not expect TP to ever be reasonable where I'm concerned. He never has in the past and he won't start now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

He was considering your talk page edits as well, you know that. Again, it puts me in the position where I have to say what he did was within policy. It doesn't everyone would have done the same thing, only that it is allowed. You might be surprised, he isn't as much a hard ass as you might think. He is very principled, but that isn't a bad thing. Again, sleep on it, pull back for the evening, don't throw more salt on the wound, we can talk tomorrow. I've stayed up way later than usual here, gotta get up in a few hours, so I need to get some sleep for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Its just a short term topic ban. I don't see the big deal. There has been a lot of discussion. It didn't come out of the blue. SS-247 is a good editor and has value as an editor. This is supposed to discourage edit warring not editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It can't discourage edit-warring because I wasn't edit-warring. I made a single revert that conformed the article to BLP restrictions. More deeply, because this is not a reasonable ban, it's not going to do anything positive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright; I am starting to see beginning of disruptive behaviour from BOTH of you!

Seb az: Seriously? You bait users and then drama-whore about it on ANI? Newsflash: You are NOT Malleus; that shit is NOT going to go down well when it comes back to bite you on the ass!

StillStanding: Stop pressing the issue. It's obvious that the admin corps has already come to a consensus on this and if you continue to push it you may end up blocked for the duration of the RFC.

In case it is not obvious I have left this same message on both of your talkpages. I will be watching both pages so there is no need for a talkback template. Both of you need to stop arguing and fighting so you can resolve the issues you are both facing. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As SudoGhost pointed out, contrary to the statement Seb made, Wikipedia policy does in fact require admins to explain their actions. I would like TParis to explain precisely what it is about my one, reasonable edit that merited a ban. I am still waiting. Seb has nothing to do with this; it's all about TP. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally; you might want to take a wikibreak for a few days. Let the stress of these events out of your system. It works wonders for me. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I find that, whenever I'm not around to defend myself, I get blocked. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, that may not be happening because of why you think it's happening. Just get into the habit of taking wikibreaks BEFORE you do stuff that gets you blocked and you'll be surprised how much of a difference it makes when you no longer have any actions that do not defend themselves! Just look at the restrictions I used to be under as proof of that! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a funny history on Wikipedia. You see, I've been blocked exactly once, only because I wasn't around to point out that the 4RR report was false. When I did point it out later, the blocking admin decided that it didn't matter.

The edit I made to Paul Ryan does defend itself. It's a single article edit -- the first in days -- and not followed by any attempt to revert back to it. Moreover, the goal of the edit was to ensure WP:BLP compliance, and other editors have commented that my version was indeed an improvement over what I removed. Despite all this, I'm caught up in a topic ban launched by TP to cover for the edit war he himself caused by his bad policy call. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I myself have a bit of a funny history on wikipedia. Did you know that I was just a minute or so away from an indef block due to similar behaviour at one point? Now 18 months later my indefinite topic bans from noticeboards and contentious articles have been lifted and I have not been blocked since they were lifted because I figured out how to make my actions defend themselves enough to avoid being blocked. You may see it as just one edit, but put yourself into the shoes of the admin; frustrated with an ongoing edit war. That edit just sadly happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back. As for the 4RR report; don't worry about it! Admins are also humans (AFAIK anyway!), they make mistakes! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I did put myself in his shoes, and it was obvious to me that:

1. TP should never have incited the edit-war by telling people it was ok to edit on the topic of the RFC while the RFC was still running.
2. TP should have simply protected the article, not punished the people he set up with his incompetent ruling.

As you said, people make mistakes. However, those who consistently make big ones that undermine their credibility as admins should voluntarily step down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Those issues sort themselves out in time. Have a read of WP:ROPE and you should see what I mean. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

According to that page, TP should simply unban me, content that I'll either stop doing whatever it was that got me banned in the first place or I'll repeat my offense and get a no-nonsense ban. Problem is that nobody -- including TP -- seems to know what the reason for the ban is. The one edit I made to the article was entirely reasonable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Read beyond the obvious. What is that essay saying when you remove all referances to users under blocks, bans or other sanctions? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, given time and opportunity, people reveal their failings. Problem is, it's taking forever for anyone with authority to notice how badly (and consistently) TP is screwing up. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As the old adage goes: "You can't rush art." It may take more time than you are comfortable with but no matter how slowly the cogs turn, the fact remains that they are still turning. Each time a person screws up they are more likely to have their errors catch up with them. Some people just need a higher probability than others to be caught out. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 09:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm the opposite of TP: I can get "caught" without even bothering with the middle step of screwing up! It's a special talent. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as you don't let it get the better of you then you should be fine. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean like getting topic-banned for making a single, reasonable edit? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Again; don't worry about it! the cogs are turning! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As Viriditas suggested earlier, best thing I can do now is step back and let the community commune. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. If you do that more often and a little bit sooner then next thing you know it; you'll not have to worry about stuff like this! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain, discretionary sanctions are a funny animal and admins are given a large amount of rope to implement them. The solution isn't to call TParis names or question his competence, it is to step back, try to understand his reasons (many have explained them) and even if you don't agree with his conclusions, make it clear that your intentions are to participate in a neutral and fair manner. Bludgeoning it from atop a soapbox will only hurt your case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Its become obvious that you Question Authority. Not a bad trait but one that will definitely land you in hot water. The trick is not to let it turn into steam which will scald and endanger your promising WP career. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that StillStanding questions authority. That is probably why I empathize, as I'm not the biggest fan of accepting authority at face value either. This is why I'm not shy about reverting other admins or taking a stand. But there is no justice here, and I really mean it. ANI is particularly bad about that, by design. It is about solutions, not fairness. This is why I keep saying to just back off a day or two, let the dust settle, so we can find a way to possibly modify the solution. It is one thing to stand up for what you think is right, which is admirable, but once you realize that you aren't going to "win", it is wise to take a different tact in order to achieve your goals. If your goal is to edit the article, laboring the issue on a soapbox is not going to achieve those goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Psychotherapies ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Psychotherapies and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My condolences

Sorry to see the fuck-job you've gotten. WP:BLP is probably the most important policy we have; it is just about the only thing here that is (supposed to be) entirely non-negotiable. An editor should NEVER, EVER be sanctioned for enforcing WP:BLP. But while BLP may not be trumped by IAR or community consensus, it is sadly trumped by administrative infallibility. It's unfortunate, but admins simply don't make mistakes. Ever. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is fine to disagree with the sanctions, but to paint every administrator with the same brush isn't accurate, and you know this, or I hope you would, based on our previous discussion. And not just admin agreed with the TP being within policy. Piling on vitriol isn't particularly helpful. I certain didn't come here to tell Still how wrong he was, but to try to help him seek a solution, but that starts with acknowledging the consensus of the previous solution. Otherwise, it is moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, you know I have a great deal of respect for you. But I stand by what I said. I didn't say all admins are bad; I said they all are infallible. Which they are. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confused. StillStanding has not once but several times inserted directly into Paul Ryan that he is a liar. Feel free to read the talk pages and get more informed before slinging mud at me.--v/r - TP 19:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well the casual reader only sees this, which is actually more neutral than the previous version. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The casual reader would miss his comments on the talk page where he insists Ryan is a liar and we must characterize him as such and that it is conservative POV not to: [10], [11], [12], [13] and these edits (two of which use the actual word 'liar' or a form of) [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Characterizing StillStanding as the defender of the BLP is a complete misunderstanding of the situation and a botched investigation of the diffs.--v/r - TP 19:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm far from insisting that he's Paul Ryan's defender (and I'm far from a StillStanding defender, who is far too combative and I was extremely close to blocking), but let's examine these article edits. The first diff is the one I referred to above. The second is a relatively neutral account of Ryan's speech at the RNC, which was noted by nearly every media outlet as being rife with factual errors. It's not biased or non-neutral to state this. The third one is the same as the second. The fourth one is the same as the second. The fifth one would have been much better as a quote (I assume). The fifth is the only one which proves your point. People can say whatever they want on talk pages, but we don't sanction them for just one poor article edit. Combative talk page posts, yes; mostly good article edits, no. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, which is why I said on ANI that the edits were not BLP violations. The point I wanted to make was that Stillstanding was not 'enforcing WP:BLP'. On a side note, the second and fourth are separate edits.--v/r - TP 20:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I didn't realizing you were referring to the comments above mine! I was a bit too quick in reviewing the edits; you are right that the fourth one is a bit stronger with "lies" quoted. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Two quick notes, to Joefromrandb: I am fallible, that is certain. I am mistaken often enough to keep me humble, thank goodness. As to the next point, discussing it here on Still's page is a good idea. ANI determined that TP was within his rights to make the decision, it was a technical decision. Now I would suggest everyone who disagrees with his judgement politely express why, assume good faith, get passed pointing fingers and focus on what is the best solution now. It is fine to disagree, but not fine to be disagreeable. It looks like this has already started, hopefully it will continue in a reasonable, peaceful and calm manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Why TParis does not deserve to be an admin

Nobody can deny that it's absolutely vital for admins enforcing a rule to actually know what the rule is. In the case of WP:BLP, it does not say that criticism, even harsh criticism, of the biographical subject is disallowed. Rather, it says that we must stick with what our reliable sources say, no matter what. Here's the entirety of the BLP subsection about public figures:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

In the case of Paul Ryan, he is very much a public figure and we have many "reliable third party sources" that call Ryan's big speech inaccurate and dishonest. In fact, our sources aren't even that kind to him: some just call him a liar. Take a look at this edit and note that it had eight citations.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]

In other words, when TP accuses me of bias, he is proving that he himself is not only biased but grossly incompetent. He doesn't even understand WP:BLP despite being charged with enforcing it; instead, he plays Ryan's defender by punishing me for following the rules he himself does not comprehend. TP does not deserve to edit Wikipedia, much less have admin rights. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a friendly piece of advice, SS: if you continue to pursue this topic you're going to end up with an indef block in short order and it's going to be hard to overcome. Your only regress at this point is WP:ARBCOM since ANI found no consensus that TP acted inappropriately. Not telling you it's the right thing, but these are the circumstances in which you find yourself. Act wisely! Sædon^talk 02:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, he gamed the system. He at first refused to participate, hoping it would dissipate. Then he waited until I wasn't around, made a huge block post full of cherry-picked diffs and had the report closed down before I could refute them. As you can see above, it's easy to refute him because he doesn't know policy. Now, if I get blocked for pointing out that he's not doing his job, then Wikipedia is a crappy place that deserves people like him in charge. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if what you're saying is 100% true, you will accomplish nothing by continuing to discuss it outside of Arbcom (also, I don't recommend Arbcom, I recommend dropping it and focusing on the bigger picture). WP has no means of desysopping in the manner by which you're attempting so it can literally accomplish nothing. Look, I've been here long enough to know how these things play out and you'd be foolish to ignore my advice. You may consider WP a crappy place if things end up working as you predicted above, but the fact of the matter is that you want to be here (otherwise you wouldn't be!) and if you want to continuing being here you're gonna have to soften up around the edges a bit. Again, not talking about what's right, just pointing out the circumstances in which you find yourself. Sædon^talk 02:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not pursuing anything: he came to my talk page to post more accusations. Do I have a right to defend myself? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say that you're asking the wrong question. There is no justice on WP and what's "right" from a...I guess you could call it almost a deontological perspective, means very little here - it's just not that kind of place. Dennis touched upon this idea when he spoke of justice vs. solutions. Sædon^talk 02:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll say to you what I said to him the last time he said there was no justice here: there's no justice anywhere except when we choose to create it. This isn't a passive thing. Each and every admin who fails to overturn TP's ban is guilty of enabling immorality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that's like asking water not to be wet. Please water, don't be wet! He wants you bend down and kiss his ass. Pucker up! Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

In reality, there are those of us with ethics and morals, who do have a sense of right and wrong. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and some are even admins, but they tend to lack the courage of their convictions, so they're not willing to act. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's all well and good, and it is not to say that WP is amoral, but it tends to follow closely to a moral code that many people find to be counter intuitive. Sædon^talk 02:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not counterintuitive, it's a failed philosophy. I much prefer the optimistic philosophy of Jack Harkness via Doctor Who: "An injury to one is an injury to all. And when people act according to that philosophy, the human race is the finest species in the universe." Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "failed;" it's one of the dominant ethical philosophies, is an area of active research (scholarly articles are published on utilitarianism on a regular basis) and I would be astonished if you found a philosophy department at a major university that didn't include a large utilitarian focus. Sædon^talk 07:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice appeal to authority. I mean "failed", as in, take a look around you. If utilitarianism is the "dominant ethical philosophy" in the world, then yes, it can only be described as a giant, abject failure. Forgive me if you are posting from a planet other than Earth, but here on Gaia, we need a new philosophy, a new way of looking at the world to get out of the hole we have dug for ourselves. I see that the precautionary principle of Hans Jonas has been offered as an alternative to utilitarianism. Viriditas (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to be rude but I cannot continue this conversation at the moment as I am off to dinner. Good luck sorting it all out. Sædon^talk 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And morality demands fairness and justice. When TP first gave me a final warning over a 1RR, I said in as many words that he is acting arbitrarily and it is impossible to avoid further sanctions. I was right: he's topic-banned me over yet another 1RR. If I can't ever revert, then I can't edit. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please know your audience. Most of these editors are teenagers and young adults who believe this is a libertarian paradise (like Somalia) where justice is irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That may be who's listening, but it's not my audience. I address only those who have a moral core. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

crickets chirping. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Some schools of ethics demand fairness and justice, Virtue ethics for instance. Others not so much so. Incidentally, virtue ethics has largely been ignored as a serious ethical theory for quite some while utilitarianism is widely accepted among ethicists. Take the academic opinion for what it's worth, and check out the trolley problem for a cursory explanation of why justice and fairness are not central ideas in consequentialism. Sædon^talk 06:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Consequentialists support fairness and justice, not for their own sake, but for the results. In this case, the injustice harms the victim and undermines confidence in the institution. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Confidence in the institution? The "institution" is the problem. They create conflict so they can rush in and do their admin deeds. Just look at the vandalism problem. It's completely self-created. Implement pending changes and it's gone. The whole thing is a distraction—sock puppets, vandals, trolls, POV warriors—anything to keep us busy from actually building an encyclopedia and providing people with good information. Look over here! Look over here! Viriditas (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thus consequentialism only incorporates fairness and justice insofar as it maximizes utility (this is a very general statement, utility is much more nuanced than that). This is one of the essential conclusions of the trolley problem, namely that justice and fairness are not absolute considerations of morality. Sædon^talk 07:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

@Viriditas: This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread...I noticed you mentioned pending changes, so I thought you might be interested to know that it's coming back on Dec 1, and there's an RfC currently running here to determine what it's going to look like. Incidentally I disagree that pending changes would get rid of socks, trolls, vandals, POV warriors, etc. They'd quickly find ways to adapt. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

My point was that there is too much time spent trying to "fight" what we perceive as negative behavior rather than focusing on improving articles and subjects and helping new users gain new skills. Wikipedia isn't a video game, but many of our admins and editors alike "play" it as if it is and always will be. StillStanding commented on this earlier in the discussion. You're assuming that people come here to engage in negative behavior, and I think that's a very small part of the community. But, instead of working with new editors and spending our time focused on content, everyone becomes a "suspect" and is treated like a potential criminal. This is the wrong way to run the site, and the page patrollers only make things worse and drive people away with automated welcomes, never following up with new users and deleting their first articles. This isn't retaining new editors, and frankly, why would anyone want to stay here? Need I say it? You're doing it wrong! Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Enough

I haven't read all of this, it is 6am, but you have taken it far enough Still. Let me clear up a couple of things for you. You are biased. Incredibly so. Amazingly so. You have gotten pretty good at editing in a fashion that usually is reasonably balanced and neutral and I know that you certainly try, but don't fool yourself into thinking you are the poster child of neutrality, because you aren't. To say any less is dishonest.

We all have our own biases in one area or another. There are a number of areas that I completely avoid because I realize that I am human and can't be unbiased. Politics isn't one of those areas for me, which is why I can get involved, such as Wikiproject Conservatism. You likely have no idea what my political leanings are. Even though I don't hide them, I don't wear them on my sleeve.

But enough is enough. He pissed you off but he did so within policy, so get over it and act like an adult. I've tried to help you here, sincerely help you by getting you to understand where you are wrong, and by trying to get the sanctions lifted quickly but you have climbed on a soapbox and have been as mistaken as you are insulting. It is starting to resemble a child-like tantrum. You aren't the victim, you aren't a martyr, there is no justice and you have no rights here, none of us do. We aren't a court of law, we aren't lawyers, we are just volunteers.

You are pushing your luck well passed the safety mark here. You would be wise to stop the insults, get off the soapbox and just go edit some articles. Not everyone is as patient.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I may be biased, but no less so than TParis, who openly identifies as conservative/libertarian and is now defending the bias of WP:WikiProject Conservatism at length.[26] Of course, I'm no admin, so it's not my job to be neutral, just to edit within the rules, which I have done. As I pointed out when TParis gave me that final warning, it was utterly impossible to predict that the particular single revert would be interpreted as edit-warring, hence it was impossible to avoid persecution. Now he's topic-banned me for yet another single revert that doesn't even deserve a warning. The whole thing is arbitrary from the start and TParis is too biased against me and against non-conservatism to do his job as an admin. I asked him to recuse himself; he refused. And now this is what we get.

You can try to defend him or even try to intimidate me into silence, but it won't work. And if you do anything short of overruling his completely unfair topic ban, you are personally complicit in it. I thought you were a better person than that; guess I was wrong about you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Still, while I agree that topic ban was excessive given the nature of your edit, it does not help you to respond in this manner. If you express your concerns in a civil and calm manner it goes a lot further. You aren't restricted from all articles regarding the election and it is only for the remainder of the RfC, which should conclude around the middle of the month, so I think at this point you should just roll with it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I consider my response to be measured and civil, particularly in light of my mistreatment. The topic ban is illegitimate. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Stand. The horse is dead. Stop beating it. You just shouted to the world that you feel a conservative admin is treating you unfairly based on your own/or his political ideology. I tried to tell you that the Conservative project had already been discussed extensively at the Project Council talkpage. While I did not leave you a link (I lost it, sorry) I did give you enough information to show that nearly everything you were bringing up already had a consensus. It certainly didn't help when a gay, liberal, Democrat (all things I have disclosed with userboxes and on threads etc.) said nearly the same things to you. So the admin may be conservative. OK, and you are not...OK. But that does not mean anything. One can still work WITH those editors to improve the encyclopedia. I'm not Christian but I try to work WITH those projects, not against them. As I told you before, it is better to join a group and work from within as editors that are not "Conservative" or "Christian" or whatever, may still join these projects and help improve articles under their scope. We have made our peace and I do hope it holds even after this, but really....I am asking you, respectfully, to heed Dennis Brown's words. While you may or may not care if you edit on here long term...some of us have invested a good deal of time interacting with you because we feel you are worth the effort.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not conservatism -- that's merely a contributing cause -- it's fairness. On two occasions, I made a single revert to improve BLP and got slapped down for it at random. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

SS247, please take the above advice seriously. Back away from the dead horse. Those of us who value your contribution would like to see you stick around, not flame out. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As my name suggests, I'm still standing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You got a raw deal, but it is honestly better to not engage further or to engage in a manner where people can't really come up with a good argument for further sanctions. The end result is only a disservice to you and a detriment to improving this project.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, except for the word "good". TP hasn't had a good argument so far, but that hasn't slowed him down any. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No matter what you think of TParis or his administrative actions, what you're doing now is clearly trolling and personal attacks, which is unambiguous grounds for further sanctions. You are giving people a direct policy reason for indeffing and washing their hands of you. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  05:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

From WP:ADMINACCT:

Administrator recall

Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.

I've been criticizing him within these bounds since at least as far back as his unjustified Final Warning over a reasonable 1RR and I see no reason to stop. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reason to stop:

Disputes or complaints

If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Dispute resolution process below). For more possibilities, see Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents and Requests for comment: Use of administrator privileges. Note: if the complaining user was blocked improperly by an administrator, they may appeal the block and/or email the Arbitration Committee directly.

In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgment or conduct issues), or dialog fails, then the following steps are available.

Administrator recall

Some administrators place themselves "open to recall", whereby they pledge to voluntarily step down if specified criteria are met.

The specific criteria are set by each administrator for themselves, and usually detailed in their userspace. The process is entirely voluntary and administrators may change their criteria at any time, or decline to adhere to previously made recall pledges.

Requests for comment on administrator conduct

Misuse of administrator access or behavior that is incompatible with adminship may result in an involuntary request for comment on administrator conduct. Administrators who fail to satisfactorily respond to community feedback are likely to become the subject of an Arbitration Committee review, for which see below.

Arbitration Committee review

This is an involuntary process. Generally, the Arbitration Committee requires that other steps of dispute resolution are tried before it intervenes in a dispute. However, if the matter is serious enough, the Arbitration Committee may intervene without a request for comment on administrator conduct or other steps. Remedies that may be imposed, at the discretion of the Committee, include warnings, admonishments, restrictions, and removal of administrator privileges.

Right now you are just attemtping to bash another Wikipedia editor in an attempt to undermine their ability to work at the project. I suggest that you use one of the routes prescribed. --Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The best reason is to stop is to reduce one's stress levels. Situations such as this are not worth the stress.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues which TP has conflated.

1. Does TP, narrowly interpreted, have the right to impose such sanctions?
2. Was TP showing good judgement in using this right?

He has repeatedly redirected complaints about his bad judgement into the irrelevant topic of whether policy permits him to act on his judgement. Policy does permit it, but [[it also lists|WP:ADMINACCT] "Repeated/consistent poor judgment" as a basis for sanctions and removal of authority, so this bit of handwaving is vital to his defense. If you look here, on ANI and elsewhere, you see a strong consensus that 1) he's generally allowed to issue sanctions but 2) he made a bad call. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)