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)

You seem to be confusing appeal to authority with appeal to false authority. While the latter is a logical fallacy the former is a valid inductive argument. The differentia lies with the qualification of the authority to whom one is appealing. For instance, it is not fallacious to appeal to Albert Einstein on matters of physics, while it certainly would be to appeal to Sarah Palin. Secondly, I thought I was being clear that when I said that utilitarianism is a dominant philosophy I meant among ethicists, not the general public nor their governing bodies (politicians). Most people will never study ethics to any real depth; rather, the public's morality has historically been sourced to religious and cultural norms (in the descriptive pragmatic sense) moreso than academic ethical study. I imagine that if everyone lived by the maxim that an act is good one that maximizes happiness among the greatest amount of people "if, and only if, it produces at least as much utility as any alternative action when the utility of all is counted equally" (Donald C. Hubin 2010) then the world would be a better place. I don't disagree that the world needs a wake up call, but you are, without reason, managing to blame a widely accepted ethical theory among experts on ethics for the downfalls of a planet that doesn't generally accept those ethics. You made the claim that utility is a "failed" ethical system and backed up that claim by pointing to the shortcommings of a people who don't follow that ethical system. So I ask again: considering that utility is both widely accepted by experts on ethics and that it is not the dominant public moral philosophy which has lead to the ills of the world, how is utilitarianism a "failed" ethical system?

Lastly, I'm not sure what your point is regarding the precautionary principle. Although I am not familiar with it, at first glance it does not seem to contradict utilitarianism (or even to really be related to it since it doesn't appear to be a competing ethical system). The lead reads "The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action." This seems to be perfectly in line with utilitarianism as the point of it is to maximize the good and minimize harm; certainly the principle that we should with hold a potentially damaging act until it is demonstrated not to cause harm is in line with minimizing harm and maximizing the good. Sædon^Talk 20:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

To add: while the precautionary principle doesn't seem to be an objection to utilitarianism, there certainly are objections to utilitarianism. Many of these objections come from utilitarian philosophers (it is common in philosophical discourse to outline weak points or objections in the subject about which one is writing). As of yet humans have been unable to find a unifying theory of ethics and so all ethical systems lead to conclusions that may be absurd, unintuitive, or counter to other prevailing attitudes about morality. I recommend James Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy for a good introduction to the varying ethical theories, their applications, and shortcommings. Sædon^Talk 21:38, 3 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)

It's never enough until you get justice

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:

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:

Grievances by users ("Administrator abuse")

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.

Disputes or complaints

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 "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)

Since part of your complaint on Wikipedia in general is the DR process....you may have painted yourself into a corner. Just say'en.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Still. 4 years ago another editor and I crossed swords. To this day he is the only editor I truly despise. Every now and then I run across him in action and I am amazed he can still get away with it. If I'm envolved somewhere and he arives on the scene, I leave. Even if its an important topical thread that is of extreme interest and fire to me. I leave. When I think of him my blood boils and I get stressed...and it carries into the RW. So....I don't think of him. You have attracted more attention and support from Quality editors than I have ever experienced. Don't throw their efforts into the toilet just 'cause some admin stepped on your foot. Stand down, holster your weapons, smile and have a sandwich. Forget What-ever-his-name-is.....See how really easy it is? ```Buster Seven Talk 07:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOJUSTICE is an essay not a policy, and a bad one at that. Contrary to the claims made in this essay, Wikipedia is all about justice, namely the democratization of knowledge. The purpose of Wikipedia also aligns with the original intent behind the personal computer, whose purpose was, according to Steve Wozniak

...to bring computer technology within the range of the average person, to make it so people could afford to have a computer and do things with it...a world—a possible world—where computers could be owned by anybody, used by anybody, no matter who you were or how much money you made. We wanted them to be affordable—and we wanted them to change people's lives...Everyone in the Homebrew Computer Club envisioned computers as a benefit to humanity—a tool that would lead to social justice. We thought low-cost computers would empower people to do things they never could before...

And while "demands" for justice will most likely be met with deaf ears by the administration, justice is and always has been a part of Wikipedia and the very computers it runs on. Telling editors that there is no justice here and no fairness is a flat-out lie. We are the very embodiment of justice. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Justice ends when we give up on it. What I will not do, even at threat of an indef ban, is pretend that TP's actions were the least bit fair or reasonable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to do that and it is pretty clear to me that this ban was excessive. Sometimes though, you just have to accept that bad decisions are still likely to be upheld. At this point it might just be better to see if TParis would suggest some alternative to the article ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas actually made a number of excellent points. In fact he seems to even echo the same sentiments of many on a number of RFCs involved in civility and reforming the full DR process, currently underway. It would appear Stillstanding-247 that you are actually at an opportune moment at Wikipedia. Here is my question to you. Are you here to improve the project, grow as an editor and improve your Wikipedia skills...or are you here to make a point, that no matter what...you will still be standing? I ask this as a serious question, not just to play devil's advocate. Are you raising the issue of your topic ban as a personal issue or as an issue for the Wikipedia community to help with? I don't know where you are with regards to your current opinion of the DR process. I can only go by your past statements and they seem to be negative. So you can actually turn this around in the right way or you can remain steadfast and stubburn and continue to discuss the admin that sanctioned you. If I am not mistaken, you feel there was not sufficient explanation to why you were given a topic ban while reverting a percieved BLP issue. Namely - a supposed BLP issue from Paul Ryan article that is currently under article probation and has the following warning: "This article is under a community general sanction until 11 December 2012. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT."

The edit that garnered you the topic ban was an edit war. At some point you stated it was a BLP issue [27]. It wasn't. Not really. You didn't just alter prose, you removed a reference that supported the text in order to justify your version as referenced to two other sources. However, when I check those two sources I cannot find the text that supports what you claimed. You replaced prose referenced with The Huffington Post article that did support the claim that you changed. Now...I am not a big fan of using the Huffington post, but as another editor pointed out at RS/N there are some instances where Huff is now using actual journalists to write original stories not picked up from a wire service and are not blogs. This was one of those articles. The fact is all three references were not as strong as one would like to see in a BLP article. The Huffinton Post[28], Salon.com[29] and Runner's World[30]? The only reference needed was Runner's World as they are the source of the story and the other two articles reference it and are considered "partisan". But the actual part you added was "..he later acknowledged that this was a misstatement and that his best time was slightly over four hours" Unfortunately none of the sources actualy say that. That prose was assumed and/or synthesized from Salon's article where the author (Joan Walsh) stated: "Before I read his remarks to the worshipful Hugh Hewitt, it seemed possible that he’d either mis-remembered or mis-spoken" and then she goes on with: "Then I read the interview. He neither mis-spoke nor mis-remembered; he boasted about the feat with specificity and swagger." In the edit summar you wrote: "That's a rather selective reading of the source. We can only use Ryan's explanation if it's fully attributed to him." Paul Ryan never made that statement in that article or in Runner's World. When we quote a person we must attribute them. This wasn't a quote. Also the other version that you reverted in part was: "that he forgot his actual time and was just trying to state what he thought was a normal time. His one official marathong time is recorded as slightly over four hours". This certainly was haphazardly written, choppy and a bit malformed, but wasn't really saying anything that was extremly far from your own change and was supported by the reference.

A single edit can be edit warring. You made such a single edit. Not only that, but your claim was not supported by references and was original research. The next issue appears to be that you claim TP is an involved Admin and has singled you out. OK, but he was uninvolved in editing the article, just doing administrative tasks such as adding pp templates and I believe added two content edits as "per requested". The policy is: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'." From WP:INVOLVED. You also were not singled out. In fact, (this is gonna sound harsh) you have a history of edit warring and began making this claim on TPs talkpage only when a complaint was taken to him over a DR/N filing from a dispute at Christian right. In respose to another administrator's comments you said: "It does matter if I've been singled out for doing much less than those around me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)"

The earliest post on your talkpage from TP is dated sept 11, 2012 and was a warning made in a neutral manner about the article probation[31]. He then gave you another neutral warning about BRD, reverts and using the talkpage[32] on the 15TH. You then recieved your final warning from TP the following day[33] and was told you were in danger of being banned from the PR article. Two weeks later you made the above edit and recived your ban and 1RR limitation[34].

I cannot see where TP has singled you out. In fact I see you singling him out as an attempt undermine his ability to work on the project. This may or may not be your actual goal, but it is a legitimate perception based on your continued berating of the admin for justified sanctions and warnings you recieved. It isn't about other editors Still, it is about your actions. It is my belief that you were not singled out. It is my belief that the sanctions were correctly and accurately applied. And , it is my belief that you are currently in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." You continue to discuss the contribuer and not the content or action itself. Another violation is: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." You have accused TP of being a conservative and using that ideology as reasoning to single you out. You are also in violation of: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki". These are very serious accusations being made and yet you refuse to follow proper procedure to address them.

So here we are. The next step involves informal mediation as we seem to have a number of third opinions here. But will you participate in such dispute resolution? I believe you will not based on your past actions. I hope you will attempt such, not because you are a great editor, but because you could be. But right now Wikipedia will gain more from a block of you then it will currently lose. As I said...this part was harsh, but it is accurate from what I see.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Long but well worth the read. Again, where do we go from here? I am seriously hoping Still will provide me the opportunity to mediate and discuss the situation, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings to have Amadscientist around, who I think has a excellent bead on the situation. It isn't necessary that you agree, Still. If you did, no discussion would be needed, after all. What is necessary is that you come to the table with an open mind, a polite manner, and just a tiny bit of empathy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You want to look at the big picture? Sure, let's do that.

In the big picture, we have a system where editors who are actively and sincerely trying to follow the rules nonetheless find themselves penalized for allegedly violating them. The reason this is possible is that admins have an excess of personal discretion. As a result, the issue shifts from whether an editor is following the rules to whether the admin enforcing them is being reasonable, competent and and unbiased their interpretation. In other words, the only way you can protest an admin ruling is to launch what Amadscientist interprets as a personal attack. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this statement, however, sometimes you need to step away from an active dispute and get a new perspective. The way to do this is to ask for input. You've done this on ANI and on your talk page. Unfortunately, there is not much more you can do this at this point rather than follow the DR steps described above. This is why I do not support the current form of administration and I believe it should be devolved and de-bundled in its entirety to all editors in the form of rights delegated by permission on request. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean “actively and sincerely wikilawyering about the rules”. It's patently obvious that (like several other people, some of whom were also topic banned) you carefully follow the letter of certain rules and then complain when admins use the “this isn't an absolute statement” clause to ding you for your wikilawyer edit warring anyway. You (and several other editors) are not following the rules. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  03:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Help me out here: how is your comment distinguishable from a violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? When you can answer that, I'll listen to your opinion. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

In which way is he not following the rules? Please be specific. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on. If you've looked at his history at all, you know damned well he edit wars all the time. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  03:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm an edit-warrior, then so are all of the people who aren't under topic ban. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously people, this is stupid. The whole situation is stupid and it isn't getting any less stupid by arguing over it. Why don't you all just zip it and move on to other things? No one's gonna wind up magically feeling better about this if it keeps going on this way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

And if I shut up, what good will come of that? Will it prevent TP from interpreting two edits within a 24 hour period as a violation of 1RR? Will it prevent an RFC/U based on this topic ban? Will it make Wikipedia policy one bit more fair? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one it will give you a chance to edit actual articles and not just your own talk page. You have an oppurtunity to help decide Wikipedia policy all the time, but you are making yourself look like someone who is not here to help.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Help? How can I help when any edit I make can be used as an excuse for undue punishment? Think that over. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If TParis makes more bad calls then it will catch up to him eventually and if he doesn't then you have nothing to worry about, easy peasy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

When he made the bad call of threatening me with a final warning, I correctly predicted that he would find some excuse to ban me. I was told to shut up about it, yet I was right. Now I'm predicting he's either going to find some excuse to block me based on the ban, or if that frustrates him, he'll try to extend the scope of the ban, perhaps all the way to indef.

He's been making bad calls for some time now without it catching up with him. Maybe it will one day, maybe it won't. In the meantime, I'll be gone. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have thought this through. Its your turn now Still.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

See above. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have looked above...now I am looking at you. So again, think about it.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. Now look here. It's a report about an editor who was previously blocked for edit-warring and spent all day today doing more of the same. They get to revert three times -- just short of the magic number so as to WP:GAME WP:3RR -- and that's not even including a deletion and some drive-by tagging. Each of their edits was quickly reverted, each time by a different editor, making the clearest possible demonstration that they were opposing consensus. I didn't even bother asking for a block, because it's so unlikely.

Now, for contrast, I reverted an article exactly once and got threatened with a topic ban. Later, I reverted once and actually was topic-banned. One revert. And each time, it was reasonable and needed, not edit-warring at all. To add insult to injury, today one admin suggested that I should be topic-banned in some broader way because I removed those drive-by tags.

Do we even pretend to apply a single standard to everyone? How can you expect me to remain silent?! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Good Luck, StillStanding-24/7. I hope you survive. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see how it goes, but I won't give in or remain silent. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Blindfold

One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that, when it's not about content disputes, it can be educational. In fact, it can even be educational when it is about content disputes. Just now, I was researching the Gun Powder Ma dispute when I ran into a funny anecdote, which I'll quote here:[35]

There’s an old joke that goes like this: Two Jews are facing a firing squad. The officer in charge of their execution asks if they have a last request. One Jew says to the other "I think I’d like a blindfold." The other Jew says "Let's not make trouble."

This perfectly encapsulates how I feel about calls for my silence regarding TParis' bogus topic ban. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I know analogies tend to break down when you stretch them too far...but are you implying here that your eventual block/execution is inevitable? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

In the long term, yes, I believe it is inevitable. Then again, the two characters in the joke would inevitably die of natural causes if nothing else killed them first. So, in the big picture, it's never a matter of avoiding death so much as delaying it so that you can accomplish some work in the meantime. That's my goal here, and remaining silent while TParis persecutes me does not further that goal. The risk is that, since the decision is (quite literally) arbitrary, my complaint is necessarily about the reasonability of the decision-maker, not the fine points of rules. As such, it can easily be misinterpreted as a personal attack and thereby used to justify further persecution. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well to quote Keynes, "In the long run we are all dead". But I'm talking about the shorter term. Do you believe that your Wiki-career will end in an indef-block? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends: I might get run over by a truck tomorrow, saving TParis the trouble of indef-banning me. :-) I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you think there's anything you could do now that would help you to avoid this hypothetical indef-ban? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

redactedI'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Posit for the moment that TParis has singled you out for persecution...why do you think he picked you? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's ask Arthur Rubin. Even if I agreed to redacted, I can count on Rubin to work towards indef-banning me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a serious question. Why do you think [insert admin's name here] singled you out for an indef-ban? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

These things are usually content disputes in disguise. I have developed, however unfairly, a reputation for pushing back against conservative POV in articles. Coincidentally, both of these admins are self-described conservatives who would quite likely prefer that I stop editing. Having said that, it doesn't explain why I was selected from among other editors with the same credentials. I'm going to suggest that some of that is personal. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things here...How do you know that TParis is a self-described conservative? His userbox identifies him as independent. Also, a point of clarification: do you distinguish between "pushing back against conservative POV" and pushing for Neutral Point of View? Lastly, as far as I know, when TParis took over patrolling the election-related articles, he didn't know you. What have you done that others haven't that could have made it personal? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt, you failed the spot quiz. If you read everything on this page extremely carefully and followed every link, and had perfect recall, you'd know that TParis outed himself as conservative/libertarian.[36] and defended the POV-pushing of WikiProject Conservatism. Not that this came as any surprise, given his uneven focus.

To remind you, I said it was an unfair reputation. In fact, my goal is to push for neutrality, not merely to push back against one form of bias as opposed to another. It's coincidental that, due to such things as WikiProject Conservatism, there seems to be an unequal amount of bias in conservatism-oriented articles. I also push back against non-political bias; check out my edits in the fields of science and philosophy. I do have them, even if they're buried under all of the fights over the color of Romney's dog. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I have read everything on this page, but I hadn't followed the WP Conservatism discussion. So TParis says he supposes he leans conservative (more Libertarian). Does that necessarily mean that he will edit and admin from a conservative/libertarian point of view? (Remember my earlier point about the Ad hominem fallacy.)

Thank you also for clarifying your view on NPOV vs. anti-conservative POV. I think many editors don't realize there's a distinction, and end up pushing POV under the banner of NPOV. (See WP:MPOV. You might enjoy reading the symptoms.)

You still didn't answer the question about why people might have it out for you personally. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't mean he will necessarily do any such thing. But when he does, it's a reasonable explanation for why. IF you have a better explanation for his bias, feel free to share it. In particular, the arguments he made in defense of WC show that he doesn't understand what neutrality is. He defines neutrality compared to what's in his head, not what's in our sources. It's a less extreme version of the MPOV that you linked to.

My personality is polarizing: some people love me, others hate me. I suspect that this comes from my habit of directness. That's unlikely to change. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of TParis (which I don't think is particularly helpful for this discussion) I personally haven't seen any evidence that his editing or adminning is being affected by bias. I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point.

On the subject of being singled out, based on our discussion above, I think we agree that their are many editors who edit from both anti-conservative and neutral points of view without ever being singled out by administrators, conservative or otherwise.

Finally, without asking you to change your personality, do you think there is anything you can do that will get you off the indef-block short list? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

(Note: I have other commitments right now, but would like to continue this conversation later if you're still up for it.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

With TParis, the problem isn't just his political bias, it's his inability to recognize it. He posted this chart, which is basically a reiteration of Lionelt's claim that Wikipedia is currently biased liberally and needs to be "rebalanced" towards the center by adding conservative POV. To someone like this, my attempts at actual balance are going to look like liberal POV-pushing, and thus generate a knee-jerk hostility. Someone like this is unqualified to referee the community probation on election articles. To be clear, TParis' political bias is just part of the problem; the bigger part is that he personalizes disagreements and has consistently poor judgement with regard to sanctions. Instead of looking at actual behavior, he builds up an inaccurate model in his mind and works off that.

The only way to get off the pending indef-block list is to stop editing. Oh, I guess I could still edit articles on things that don't matter at all, but any real editing is going to lead to the ban sooner or later. Probably sooner, since TParis and Rubin are both so eager for it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Told you so. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Grow up. You came here originally to POV push. Lots of folks do that and don't get indeffed. Your problem is you spent more time fighting with people over the "rules" and being a wiki-shyster. Despite far more attention than you deserved, many have tried to help you but you bit every offered hand. The fact that you are NOT still standing here anymore is your own doing. Try to keep that in mind when you come back under a different account name.23.22.41.47 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Grave-dancing bs & a violation of policy. (Who needs to grow up?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Homosexuality

Don't reinstate the grave-dancing, or you'll be blocked from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about so I'm going to ask you to be more clear and much more civil. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that hard to parse. The section you added to that page about LGR was gloating. I removed it. If you reinstate it, I will block you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming bad faith. There wasn't even a hint of gloating in that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume from your edit to Ed's talkpage that your intentions were good. The section came off looking a lot like you were "spiking the football". The best thing to do here would be to drop it and move on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The notice itself is inconsequential; the attempt to get me blocked over a misunderstanding of it shows a prevalent assumption of bad faith on the part of certain editors and admins. See above for what this will inevitably lead to. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I got wrapped up with the article itself I did forget that AN/I requires a notification. My aplogies.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Could you please explain why you changed "aims" to "purports" in the lead of the conversion therapy article? The two terms do not at all mean the same thing, and the American Psychological Association uses "aims". Hebradaeum (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page, I was reverting to get the pseudoscience comment back in (allowing me to add the new citation) and I did change "purport" back to "aim". However, I changed the second instance, not the first. Don't worry, 72Dino fixed it; now both instances just say "aim". In the future, please have these discussions on the article talk page. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is StillStanding-247_discussing_my_murder. Thank you. v/r - TP 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Massive battleground mentality, assuming bad faith, and worst of all, threatening violence. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Reaper left out "and a string of personal attacks" although I am pretty sure that is part of the reason. I would consider myself "involved" here, and would ask any admin to ping me before even considering an unlikely unblock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Still* is one of the nicest people I've ever met on WP. Civil, skilled. (Same fate as User:Penyulap? How sad for WP, which has no shame.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Christ, I've read the "charges", and evidence. (Is there a total lack of sense of humor on the Wiki?! I can see there is absolutely no scarcity of bad faith.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Still* put this on my User talk some time ago, perhaps I should have filed a complaint (he seems to be warning me about something extremely shady-sounding!?! -- should I have been afraid?!?):

My email is on, but I warn you: I only read the letters from Nigerian princes selling viagra! --I'm StillStanding (24/7), 26 August 2012

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This is silly. It wasn't a threat, not even a joke threat. He also jokingly suggested the only way he might not get indeffed is if he got hit by a truck. Obviously, no one considered that he was thinking about offing himself except maybe me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

You have been meantioned in an SPI here. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Sædon^Talk 23:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And closed as such. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Still open, and I can't close since I interact with both of them a great deal. I did note that the idea of them being the same person is completely absurd, and I do think I would be a good judge of that. Not alike in any way whatsoever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If this isn't a good example of when we should WP:IAR I don't know what is. I seriously doubt you'll catch any flack for making such an obvious closure. Your call, of course. Sædon^Talk 03:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. I said "closed" since the rest is just a formality. If Elen says no, no it is. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Saedon, if I thought it would help, or that no one else would have, then I would have. In this case, there wasn't going to be a shortage of clerks willing to close based upon the comments of many bystanders, one CU, and a lowly but involved clerk. Delaying the close won't change the outcome, so WP:INVOLVED trumps WP:IAR. In this case, it was speedy deleted under G6 by Timotheus Canens, something I surely could not have done being involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

subst:AN-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added 02:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The morning after.

We may be civilized people, but there remains a part of us that reacts at the gut level to threats of violence with a burst of adrenaline, a fight-or-flight reflex. Reason goes out the door, panic sets in, and centuries of civilization might as well have never happened. I get it; I've been cyberstalked. The mere thought that someone on Wikipedia would even jokingly threaten to track you down, much less to kill you is infuriating. It's deadly serious and unforgivable; anyone would demand immediate justice.

If there were any actual threat, then an indef-block should be just the first of many steps, the last of which involves a long stay in prison. Certainly, nobody would even half-heartedly defend an editor who threatened violence. Hell, I wouldn't even defend myself.

So what's going on here? Consider these partial, out-of-context, yet significant quotes from ANI and this page:

• Well, let's hold off on calling the cops, or calling these "death threats", as it was clearly intended as joking...
• I just think they're not... "legitimate" death threats... not that TParis is in danger...
• Even though it is obviously meant as a joke...
• While I think it's obvious he was joking...
• ...I seem to be in a minority of one in thinking the reaction to the so-called "murder threat" is way over the top. Leaving aside that the comment is clearly and obviously supposed to be a joke (if a silly one), it's literal meaning isn't even a "murder threat", and I don't even see an implied threat actually.
• But all the outrage of some of the posts and talk of reporting to "the authorities" seems to be a minor outburst of mass hysteria to me.
• I agree that others may be taking the threat more literal than the intent.
• ...interpreting [30] as a threat of violence isn't one of them.
• The incident does not need reporting, I agree with User:DeCausa that it wasn't an actual threat.
• Obviously a poor joke...why is this thread attracting such a bunch of "high fives" from the other admins? I thought WP:NPA was a policy, but it seems like that has become the entire goal of this thread. It is fine to collaborate on solving a problem, and even to commiserate as admins, but gravedancing seems a bit over the line. Does the thread need any more grinding down of the editor in question.
• Is there a total lack of sense of humor on the Wiki?! I can see there is absolutely no scarcity of bad faith.
• This is silly. It wasn't a threat, not even a joke threat.

Now, you might not believe them, and you certainly wouldn't believe me, but believe your own eyes. Look at this page and read the whole thread, at User_talk:StillStanding-247#Blindfold. I am absolutely certain you'll find that, as some of the clearer thinkers pointed out, there was never a threat, not even jokingly.

There was joking, but all of my comments were overtly opposing even the most hypothetical of threats. The gist was that there was no point in even speaking of how things might be without TParis gunning to get me indef-blocked, because he wasn't going anywhere and it was only a matter of time before he found some excuse. Oh, the irony.

At this point you might say that, while it's true that there never was a threat, these quotes were partial and at least some of those editors still supported an indef-block. Well, yes and no.

There's a psychological trick, a sales technique, called anchoring. It "refers to the concept of setting a boundary to outline the basic constraints for a negotiation. Subsequently, the anchoring effect in negotiations is the phenomenon in which we set our estimation for the true value of the item at hand." A typical example is labeling a $30 item as costing $50 and then offering to discount it "down" to $40.

Falsely claiming to be the target of a death threat guarantees that everyone who took that accusation at face value would call for an immediate block. Once it was clear -- based on the false claim -- that a block was in order, it was only a matter of arguing over a justification. Even when the falseness of the original claim was pointed out, people anchored on the indef-block.

To put it another way, TParis chummed for sharks, and once there was blood in the water and a block was fait accompli, there was nothing left to discuss. In fact, the whole ANI "discussion" took less than four hours in the dead of the night, and was closed before cooler heads could respond, much less prevail. The false claim created a lynch-mob mentality that still hasn't faded: when Ihardlythinkso defended me, he was falsely accused of being a sock. Sure, WP:SPI will clear him, just as actually reading this page clears me of charges of making threats, but the damage is already done, in both cases. I'm very sorry that my joke caused anyone distress, but there was never a threat, not even jokingly.

Let's be frank. If TParis had simply come to ANI without an emergency to stir everyone up, if he had simply said that nothing much had changed but he was sick of the fact that I still questioned his judgement and impartiality, still talked openly about the inevitably of him finding some excuse to indef-block me, what would have happened? Not a knee-jerk indef-block. Without the urgency, the next step would be an RFC/U, so that the claims of WP:BATTLEFIELD and (ironically) WP:AGF could be discussed by the community, not just whoever was around in the middle of the night and got caught up in the frenzy.

If, for the sake of argument, we agree that there is merit to the other two accusations -- not the death threat one, though; that's just false -- then the right answer is to let me respond to the concerns of the community in a public forum. This is the treatment that others in my situation receive; there's no reason why I don't deserve the same. Consider this to be WP:ROPE; if I really deserve an indef-block, then the RFC/U will prove that, and likely end in a community ban.

But I can't defend myself while I'm blocked. I am willing to accept restrictions, but I wish to be unblocked so that I can respond to an RFC/U. With restrictions, the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, and this is why you should overturn it. I think this is a very reasonable request that is in line with what policy tells us to do in this case. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

StillStanding-247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. Please read the "The morning after", above, for an explanation of why this is the case, and apologies in advance for the length. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The laundry list of reasons why you think the block was unfair is perhaps the best reason for declining your request. It is a classic example of how not to request an unblock. Here are a few of the reasons, in no particular order:

1. Instead of apologizing for the threats, you claim they couldn't possibly be perceived as threats. Even assuming they were not credible threats, they were at a minimum poor attempts at humor. When you've already made it clear that you have no respect for TP, it would be best to steer clear of comments that can be "misconstrued" as threats or attacks.
2. You shift the blame for your block to TParis. Indeed you've been doing that for a while, accusing him of political bias and an orchestrated campaign to get you blocked. You use the block as a self-fulfilling prophecy of your point, without accepting any blame for the initial accusations and attacks against TP, both as an editor and as an admin.
3. Moving away from your morning after list, you are not here to improve the project, except incidentally. From the beginining of your tenure here, you have injected yourself into only controversial articles. Moreover, you have spent far more time discussing the supposed political biases of the articles and the editors than you have in improving the articles.
4. In addition to attacking TP, you have also leveled accusations against Arthur Rubin. In a similar vein, you perceive both as having biases that are antithetical to your own biases, and your ostensible goal is to rid Wikipedia of these biases and to bring Wikipedia into some sort of StillStanding balance. In effect, you're a crusader. Your long discussion, to which you also refer in your list, in which you attack both TP and Arthur is a prime example of your mindset. I am impressed with User:Adjwilley's patience in discussing the issues with you, but I think you take a certain delight in these kinds of discussions.
5. In the short time you've been here (fewer than 3 months), you've made about 4,595 edits. Only 537 of those edits have been to articles. The rest have been to talk pages, Wikipedia pages, noticeboards, etc. Almost half have been to article talk pages. You are articulate and verbose, and you enjoy discussing the issues you think important regardless of how much time you waste of other editors' resources doing so.
6. This block is not punitive. It is absolutely preventive. There is no reason to believe that if unblocked you would not resume the same behavior, some of which is outlined in this list. Therefore an unblock is unjustified.

Bbb23 (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, it appears that you have been thinking things through. If you had just STOPPED pressing the issue like you said you would earlier then you would not have been blocked in the first place! If you can understand that then I will have no problem with supporting an unblock. Otherwise it is still questionable as you may still not realize why you were blocked in the first place. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 06:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like the opportunity to discuss these reasons in the context of an RFC/U. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblock is a matter for admin and I am not an admin, however, I have been blocked before and learned a few lessons that made me a better editor. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks (as someone was good enough to point this out to me at the time) Be sure and note to talk about yourself, not others, do not attack or accuse other users, do not excuse your actions with that of others, agree to behave and most importantly, be unambiguous with the aforementioned.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Fundamentally, the reason the block should be lifted is that, as I explained, the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. This phrase is taken directly from the policy article that you linked to. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

We have had are problems Still and should you be unblocked I have no doubt we may still bump heads occasionally. Such is the nature of our individual stubbornness. But I want to mention a few things I noticed about "The morning after". First, it isn't in the unblock request and is technically not a request unless added to the appropriate location (although, this is a matter for admin to decide...as is the request itself). You have yet to admit to what you did and, in fact, have stressed it was not a threat. This well may be true, however it was indeed threatening. The difference is subtle but means that, while you did not intend to do something, it still had the same effect. This shows that you have yet to truly understand where you went wrong and are attempting to make an excuse for the action by calling it a joke (you may note in the guide this is an example of a bad unblock request). We are all aware of the joke...just that it was not funny, appropriate or acceptable at any level. This is about you Still, no one else. I cannot stress this enough, so..again, talk about yourself not others. Yes, the phrase "the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption." is taken directly from Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. However, you may wish to look at the actual block reason, as you have not addresed it with that phrase. Even by apologising for what you said, and you should - there is still more you are not addressing and far too much that you are. Don't try to do this immediatly. Take some time to understand what has happened, how it happened and what you did to make it happen. I can't tell you what to say or how to say it. This must come from you and you must mean it and convince admin and the community of it. Good luck!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm long-winded enough without going into too much detail about the incidental accusations. I did touch upon them and I'm prepared to discuss them at length, but I don't think I can squeeze them into the little box. There's plenty of space to talk about them in an RFC/U. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure who is more long winded...you....or me! LOL! But as you are currently blocked an RFC/U seems very innappropriate and unlikely. Of all the times to use brevity, this would be it. The shorter it is, the more unambiguous it is. Also, following instruction is a part of the procedure to unblock.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that someone tried for a community ban against me on WP:AN#Proposal_for_full_site_ban_for_StillStanding-247. Obviously, a community ban is premature, so it's getting no traction at all. What's interesting and relevant is that it contains additional comments to confirm that there was nothing threatening about my comments.

Under more reasoned conditions, the ANI report would have led to an RFC/U, not an indef-block that fails to serve its intended purpose of preventing damage or disruption. I'm asking that we correct for the anchoring effect by going for the RFC/U now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record

1) I could not apologize for threats because there were none. I did apologize for any distress caused by the jokes, but that's as far as I can go. In much the same way, I am not the least bit sorry for assassinating JFK: see Innocent prisoner's dilemma. These comments cannot be honestly misconstrued as threats, so you are repeating a lie.

2) It is not unreasonable to note the unusual circumstances of the block. In fact, it's odd that I'm being blocked by TParis for saying that TParis is planning to block me. There's irony here.

3) It is simply false to claim that I have injected myself into only controversial articles. A quick look at my contributions shows a variety of interests outside of this. Insulting me and making false statements about activities does not reflect well upon you.

4) Arthur Rubin has, in as many words, told me that he's working to get me banned.[37] Just now, he suggested on this talk page that 'it would be nice if I died. [38] He's hounded me, insulted me and threatened me. That's ok, but if I mention any of this, I'm a bad, bad boy who should be punished.

5) I have worked tirelessly to improve articles and I'm proud of the work I've done.

6) The block is punitive as I am willing to limit my edits to the RFC/U. I do deserve an RFC/U, although you refuse to give me the chance to defend myself. I'll add you to the list of admins I cannot ever respect.

I'm going on vacation. You'll know when I'm back. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Um I checked your block log and TParis is not there. TParis may have been the one who initiated the ANI action which lead to you being blocked, but if you don't understand the diffence between someone blocking you, and someone initiating an action which lead you to be blocked, it sounds like there's major WP:Competence issues here which you need to deal with in some way. In any case, without commenting on this specific case, there's no irony in being blocked due to a complaint initiated by person A, if you continually harass and attack person A including saying they are going to get you blocked. That's expected, not ironic. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand again. OK, Arthur should not have made the comment that he did..which was parroting the comment the Devil's Advocate made (which also seems oddly out of place in a civil discussion and yet you make no mention of it), but he also struck it out. And I might also mention you were horribly innaccurate with your claim above. He did not say what you claimed. I won't add anything further because to be honest, this is getting to be tiresome. I suggest everyone allow Still Standing some space.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Still wasn't "harassing" TParis. He said that TParis was incompetent, that the ban from the Paul Ryan article over a completely harmless edit was immoral, and that TParis was biased. Actual harassment is far more ugly and intimidating.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously your moral compass has been miscalibrated because your inability to put away your biases shows a lack of competence in judging these WP:CIVILITY issues. Just criticizing, admins and editors are held to the same standards, so that means that editors are subject to criticism too, right? Not a personal attack. I mean seriously, have you even bothered looking at the diffs? It's cookie cutter edit warring. Stillstanding has mischaracterized it as harmless to victimize himself. What have I ever done to you that you're taking his word at face value but you completely ignore the actual diffs I've provided (note that StillStanding has given none at all.) What part of WP:NPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. is so hard to get? StillStanding has made serious, really serious, accusations against me without a single diff of evidence. The evidence provided by me and others shows he is clearly wrong. Yet you ignore every single diff presented and continue to take his description of the evidence at face value despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I just want to puke at how stupid these arguments in StillStanding's favor are. They're baseless, unsupportable, and just blatantly dishonest. Please explain to me, why? Is it that there are too many diffs to go through? Is it that StillStanding has been polite and civil to his friends? Is it that he has the balls to push a POV that you want pushed? What is it? I need to know why some people are so quick to ignore reality and live in imaginary fucking worlds. I'm tired of the blatant assault on me, which I kept my mouth shut for 4 days and just took the assaults while others tried to work with him over a completely justified topic ban, can be ignored. Really, it's obscene at this point but you paint it as daisies and roses. How much more do I have to take it in the ass by this guy before you acknowledge that he crossed a line? I complained on ANI because I'm at a breaking point. The guy has viciously lied and assaulted me for days. How would you feel if this assaults were directed at you? How would you feel if I casually joked about your murder? You have got to be fucking kidding me to sit there and justify this crap. Fuck this shit. You people just want to vilianify admins who are just trying to maintain stability. Fuck it if the admin is completely justified, cause I like the guy. Have you even bothered to research this guy's history, TDA, or is that just too much work? It's much easier to think the admin must be wrong to block my friend.--v/r - TP 16:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Lest you forget, I was the one who initiated the ANI thread about the Paul Ryan article that lead to the general sanctions on this topic, which were the basis of the Paul Ryan article ban you enacted against Still that prompted this entire incident. I am quite familiar with the circumstances. You accused him above of repeatedly trying to insert the claim that Paul Ryan is a liar into the article. The revert for which you had him banned from the article had nothing to do with suggesting Ryan was a liar and simply trimmed unnecessary material about what Ryan said. Whether Ryan forgot about his marathon time or not, it was definitely a misstatement and noting that he acknowledged this as a misstatement when he clearly did just that is not claiming Ryan is a liar and I don't think the longer explanation was necessary to be accurate and objective.

So no, you were not justified in your action against Still. Not to mention your comments elsewhere do not exactly suggest that you were or are treating Still in an equal manner to others. Remembering that discussion, now leads me to consider that you truly did "like" an incredibly incendiary accusation Amad made against Still on Black Kite's talk page and that I wasn't just misinterpreting. I think that you have a personal issue with Still and that this clouded your judgement regarding your actions against him. One thing I have found is that when people are repeatedly subjected to baseless, scathing, and incendiary accusations of bad faith they tend to lash out, as has happened with Still. Unfortunately, far too often Wikipedia functions like a gossipy small town where the appearance of a situation and word-of-mouth about that situation are regarded as far more compelling than the factual context of the situation. Hence people are far more likely to go after the person who reacts, rather than those who provoked the reaction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather than assuming bad faith, you could also look at the “like” in context and realize that he was probably referring to Vriditas's comment. Is it more fun to create a huge strawman with which to viciously attack someone? —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  18:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I had certainly considered that it was referring to that comment, which is why I said remembering the other discussion caused me to reconsider because TParis made comments of a similarly incendiary nature in a discussion on his own talk page about Still.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

User:TParis, apparently you need to whine & have an emotional outburst to find sympathy and understanding from perceived opponents and presumably those who've already shown you support at the ANI you opened which lead to Still*'s indef block,

I'm tired of the blatant assault on me, which I kept my mouth shut for 4 days and just took the assaults while others tried to work with him over a completely justified topic ban, can be ignored. Really, it's obscene at this point but you paint it as daisies and roses. How much more do I have to take it in the ass by this guy before you acknowledge that he crossed a line? I complained on ANI because I'm at a breaking point. The guy has viciously lied and assaulted me for days. How would you feel if this assaults were directed at you? How would you feel if I casually joked about your murder? You have got to be fucking kidding me to sit there and justify this crap. Fuck this shit. You people just want to vilianify admins who are just trying to maintain stability. Fuck it if the admin is completely justified, cause I like the guy.

but not only is the outburst unbecoming of an Admin, I bet it's against policy in several ways as well. But aside from that, you really do not know what you are talking about, and so I have absolutely no sympathy for your emotional needs and troubles whatever. (WP is NOTTHERAPY to make you feel better.) If you wish to discuss with me regarding anything or have any questions you were indirectly sending my way, please feel free to visit my User talk and time permitting we (just you & me, no drop-ins) can go over together point by point that still upsets you. Else, please quit your exaggerated moaning and complaining. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Observation

Still, you have done some good work, but you've also managed to rack up an incredible amount of collateral damage along the way. Speaking as the first person who opposed you being banned, and someone who has expended a great deal of time (and good will) to get you second chances without being blocked and try to help you learn how to work in this collegiate environment, I agree with Bbb23 and others that you need to stay blocked until you "get it", and I'm sadly aware that this may never happen, which is why I support the indef block. The problem isn't with your passion, it is with your ability to channel that passion into constructive avenues, and letting it overwhelm your sense of judgement and good taste.

You have a singular goal for being here, a political stand. This is fine as long as it doesn't interfere with the larger goal of Wikipedia, to build and encyclopedia. Many people are Single Purpose Accounts, or have obvious biases, which isn't a policy violation. Taking a battlefield mentality is, as is pushing it to the limit of personal attacks and bogging down the system with constant behavioral problems is. Many of us have given you an extraordinary amount of rope, much more than average I would say, and sadly, you have used it only to hang yourself.

At the end of the day, we are here to build this encyclopedia, and while patience and tolerance allow us to help others adapt to a collaborative environment, it appears you are using this goodwill to simply extend the period of time that you can cause problems. Your participation has been a net negative for Wikipedia, which is why you find yourself indef blocked by Reaper Eternal, and supported almost unanimously by the rest of the community. Whatever you do, I wish you well, but you should probably do it elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may add some commentary to the original points...

1) Whether or not you intended the comment as a threat, it's the perception of a possible threat that is important. None of us are in your head. None of us are even in the same room as you. You are responsible for every word you write, and if anyone can perceive something you typed as a threat (let alone a whole whack of intelligent people), then it's a threat - that's the nature of the written word. You will need to view the statement from the side of people who read it, not from what you say is your intent. Until you "put yourself in someone else's shoes", there's no way forward here.

2) No need to comment here, as you're not blocked by TParis.

3) No comment here, the original statement was mostly true (you HAVE injected yourself into primarily controversial topics) and saying so is NOT an insult - your edit history is permanent.

4) A-R's comments/actions may be inappropriate to a degree, but WP:NOTTHEM applies: you need to be responsible for your actions, and recognize how your actions led to someone else's actions. Let the community deal with other editors, if needed.

5) Tirelessly? I think that's a reach. You are judged by the totality of your actions, which means both behaviour and edits to articles. If you're proud of that totality, I'm sorry, we do require some degree of interpersonal skills

6) "Deserve"? You have no rights on Wikipedia. Your actions have been disruptive, and have created a battlground - this is not appropriate behaviour, and is damaging to the project. Because of that, the block was a minimum to protect the project AND its editors from that behaviour. There was no chance for an RFC/U because you forced the community's hand.

I do hope your "vacation" allows you to review your actions, and let go of the belief that you deserve something else based on your actions dangerouspanda 11:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Panda, I think you got that backward. "You will need to view the statement from the side of people who read it, not from what you say is your intent." People need to view statements by reading them, not by what they say or want to imagine is someone's intent. That's called misinterpretation. Did it ever occur to you that Still* collected several ill-wishers and their misinterpretations might be willful if it could do him damage? Your instructions that he be put in charge of others' perceptions is illogical, unfair, and inherently crazy-making since it sets up an environment that is purely unwinnable, where one is always at fault depending who wants to interpret any way at any time for any reason. And phooey on that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Errrrr what? If I run through an airport with a tube of Ointment yelling "I have a balm", it's not everyone else's fault that they misinterpreted "balm" for "bomb" - it's my choice of wording that got me arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay dangerouspanda 13:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Especially if, while running, you waved and yelled to a friend, "Hi, Jack!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it. My father's boss was named Jack, and my father occasionally had to pick him up at the airport, so I asked if he ever got in trouble for welcoming him.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

2nd observation

The reason for your indef block is not the "threat", which anyone familiar with you understands was not a threat, but for your wp:disruptive and wp:battleground behaviors, neither of which you have modified despite repeated request by the community (costing a considerable amount of time). The threat was only the final straw.

• Short of you convincing an admin(or Arbcom) that you will modify these undesirable beavhiors, you will not be unblocked.
• If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to own up to your actions without assinging blame to others. This means acknowledging and taking responsibilty for the behaviors which brought you here in the first place without pointing the finger at TP, AR or others. You should also suggest remedies on how you can prevent these behaviors from cropping up in a possible unblocked future. One suggested remedy would be to agree to change your username and signature to something that is not confrontational.
• Continued complaints on this very page about the why the block was wrong is also disruptive. Continue in this vein and your talkpage editing privilleges will be revoked.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  13:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Break

I think we should all take a break from commenting on StillStanding's behavior, both pre- and post-block. Tempers are getting a bit frayed, and I don't think using StillStanding's talk page as a proxy for ANI is helpful. StillStanding, within limits, has a right to post what he wants on this page. It's true that anyone can respond, and others can respond to the responses, but at some point such an exchange serves no useful purpose. StillStanding has stated that he's going on vacation, so apparently he doesn't intend to post until his return, if then. If he again requests to be unblocked, another admin can evaluate it, and god knows there's enough history here for the other admin to evaluate the request without further input, unless they ask for it. In the meantime, let's move on to other things.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah!XD

You are my type of guy,fearless.:D ~Tailsman67~ 74.178.171.167 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Sorry. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Still: If you have a concussion from your head hitting your desk too hard, I suggest seeing a doctor. —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

A nice cup of English tea for you from this side of the Atlantic. Chin up my friend. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 19:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Buster7 has given you some Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Koekjes are very tasty and have been known to calm even the most savage beast. Enjoy!

Waste of time.

I've been getting a ton of email. Most recently, I was told that TParis is back from playing his Kung-Fu panda so I should also return. Of course, as other emails have pointed out, there is absolutely no chance of this block being overturned before the election, as that was the the entire point behind it. Some further suggest that I wait it out and then lie by admitting guilt for everything bad under the sun and claiming to be sorry. Apparently, if I denigrate myself sufficiently, I might get unblocked.

Well, that's not going to happen. Whatever my own sins, the mistreatment I have received at the hands of editors and admins alike far outweighs them. I've put in hard work to fight bias in election-related articles and have received only hostility in return. So, in the balance, if there's a need for an apology, it has to come from Jimbo, not me. I'm posting this to inform well-wishers that, if you want me back, stop sending me email; you need to talk to Jimbo.

And, with that, I'm vacating again. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what Jimbo has to do with anything. He has no special power here and his status is in name only. He doesn't "own" WP and isn't really involved with the day to day disputes of WP editors. Sædon^Talk 01:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You're quite wrong about that. Jimbo has special power here like no other user - he just very seldom excercises it. But I have no idea why Still would want Jimbo of all people to apologize to him. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Winter Wonderland

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays to you and yours. Your continued absence is a victory for those who, in your eyes, worked against you. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And to Wikipedia, unless he accepts the WP:standard offer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

If you check the section above this one, it's pretty evident that he's rejected the offer preemptively. His only purpose for being here was to "fix some articles" [39] before the election (again, see above), so at this point it would appear that he really has no reason to return. Maybe in four years, I suppose. Belchfire-TALK 20:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:StillStanding-247/countering liberal bias

User:StillStanding-247/countering liberal bias, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:StillStanding-247/countering liberal bias and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:StillStanding-247/countering liberal bias during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)