User talk:Arationalguy

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Faith
Look, I don't want to chase you away from the George Wythe University article. There haven't been too many people interested in editing it, and every article benefits from having more than just one editor. Of course I feel a sense of ownership since I have made a lot of edits lately, but that's something I can get over. Please be patient with me on that. Can we agree to be civil going forward, and assume good faith? You know my bias on GW -- I stated it right in the talk page. Your bias is obvious as well. I have never claimed to be unbiased. But that doesn't mean I can't make npov edits, which is always my goal. Can we assume good faith going forward? --TrustTruth (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My own bias is simply toward neutrality and fairness. I'm naturally a pretty trusting person, and my inclination is to first assume the good faith of those I meet. Unfortunately, your edit history pretty much speaks for itself, as do your own words on the talk page. I will always be civil even while upholding the standards and integrity of WP -- as well as my own -- but civility does not mean compromising doing the right thing. I'm sorry if the proper consequences are unpleasant, but I can't change that.--Arationalguy (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you involved directly with George Wythe University? What is your involvement with this organization? --TrustTruth (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm a big fan of Hillsdale and St. Johns College, despite having attended BYU myself. Westminster is the closest thing we have in Utah, except that they lean a bit to the left. From what I'm currently learning about GW through this editing and research process, it appears their recent changing of the guard may be deep enough and sufficiently beneficial to allow them to steer in the direction another of Hillsdale or St. Johns. Perhaps they should be given a fair chance -- that is, unless you don't like what they do at Hillsdale.


 * As I keep reading, I can see how DeMille and Brooks made some blunders, but as someone who serves on three non-profit boards myself, I also can also read between the lines and see how they are currently being politely "put out to pasture" to make way for more effective leadership and programs. I see no reason to punish them while maturing as an organization. As WP editors, surely our assumption of "good faith" should be extended to those who we edit about as well... shouldn't it?--Arationalguy (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question. What is your involvement with George Wythe University? --TrustTruth (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not part of GW.--Arationalguy (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that someone not involved with GWU would sign up for Wikipedia and edit virtually nothing but the GWU article's talk page. But there it is, and I will accept your assertion.

As for GWU's changing of the guard, the president is still someone with degrees exclusively from the school he's president of, one with a history of being, essentially, a diploma mill (I do not think GWU is currently a diploma mill), so I think that will continue to be a problem for them, accreditation-wise. Getting DeMille and Brooks out of the leadership was a good first step, but my understanding is that Brooks still has a significant role in marketing the school, and DeMille is still shaping its direction from the board. For me a sign that things have really changed will be when I no longer see DeMille's pedagogy (which has many logical disconnects and is rooted in 20th-century psychology--see whyidontdotjed.blogspot.com) embedded in the school's approach. Unfortunately, the structure of the new (and well-done) website, as well as Groft's president's message, indicates that is not the case: "George Wythe University is a unique institution focusing on a time-proven methodology [i.e. DeMille's pedagogy] which has almost disappeared from modern academia." No more name-dropping would help my perception as well. Seriously, Joan of Arc was illiterate. Another good sign would be if GWU began making Ph.D. students' dissertations available. If contributions to the academic literature began emerging from the school: published articles, white papers, etc. I would love to get my hands on a copy of Andrew Groft's dissertation so I could gauge for myself what his doctorate really means. Making his dissertation available--or even naming the topic and providing an executive summary--would go a long way toward establishing his and the school's credibility. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Very interesting points, as well as what I read in the blog. I'm quite impressed with how well researched and presented is is. Did you help with it? I'd be interested in learning more, and hearing their responses as well.--Arationalguy (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the blog is well-done. I didn't write it or help with it. You can post there and the author will respond. I do know that it's a he, and that he and his wife homeschool their his children. Other than that I don't know who it is. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TT, I gather then you do in fact have some real world involvement with the subject? DGG (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * DGG, I've read DeMille's TJEd book, and I know some people who homeschool their children and use the book as a guide. But I haven't studied it in-depth like the man who wrote the whyidontdotjed.blogspot.com blog has (I only know him from reading the blog; I don't know him personally). I also visited the GWU campus once back in 2002 with someone who was thinking of going there (we were passing through the town and decided to stop). I was pretty indifferent then. I do have another friend who's thinking of going there and have an extended family member who is a student there. That's pretty much my only connection to the school / movement other than writing about it (and discussing it with family members). --TrustTruth (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities
I really respect you for taking a stand on that GWU article. Maybe it's just a guy thing and I should be braver, but that guy kinda scares me from wanting to work on it.

Anyway, just thought you might want to look into WikiProject Universities. Since you seem to love liberal arts colleges and you look like you have a little time on your hands :) I think you could probably benefit the project. I joined it a couple days ago and have been doing research to clean up a couple different colleges' articles. It's been super interesting.  Just a thought . . . --4by40 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. Try not to be scared though... I don't think anyone can really hurt you here. Anyway, I don't really have that much time on my hands, but I do have a weakness for being sidetracked from time to time. The universities Wikiproject looks like it could be fun, so I signed up. Thanks! I noticed a number of projects for WP maintenance as well, such as NPOV. I'm tempted to join.... but wondering how much more I can afford to be sidetracked. :)--Arationalguy (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oliver DeMille
Given your interest in GWU, you may want to weigh in at the Oliver DeMille article. --TrustTruth (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/4by40 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Appeal
If you go into your preferences and enable e-mail for your account, you can contact the blocking administrator at. Beyond that, you are correct, putting the unblock template on your page does notify any and all observing admins that you have requested an unblock, and it is very unusual that either the blocking admin or a previously commenting admin will review your block, which normally serves to keep a set of fresh eyes open. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding and helping me see a little more how this works. Unfortunately, I can't find anything in my user preferences that indicates my e-mail is not enabled. It shows that I am an autoconfirmed user, displays my email address, and the checkbox labeled "enable e-mail from other users" is already checked. I saved those preferences again just to be sure though, but I still am unable to contact the blocking administrator, Jennavecia. Instead, I still get the same default WP block message. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, or if I'm experiencing a different kind of block. Any ideas?--Arationalguy (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mangojuice, I'm sorry you feel that way although I can see why you might. I don't expect many admins to have the time to investigate the full history to see why we did everything we did. For privacy concerns 4by40 and I had good reason to conceal our relationship from TT, which I have tried to explain here. And yes, we spoke with each other through our talk pages -- just like we do through google chat and email almost daily. What you saw here on WP was a real conversation. We communicate online frequently. But again, we had good reason for being wary around TT. We also had good reason to claim that TT was acting in bad faith, which I will stand by unequivocally. In no way was I attempting to merely distract -- especially since we believed we were not, in fact, sock puppets, and hadn't even learned yet there was such a thing as meatpuppets. The simple truth is, I had already alerted an administrator of TT's disruptive and tendentious editing and he had been warned about it. As a result, he had plenty of motive to shift attention, which he succeeded at. Meanwhile, we had legitimate and serious privacy concerns with TT which have been validated over and over. You would have to be familiar with the entire history of TT and his confirmed use of his attack blog in conjunction with Wikipedia, etc. Unfortunately, I realize that such a detailed investigation and actually contacting us personally for a genuine discussion is unlikely. I understand that you are doing the best you can with limited time, so I don't hold that against anyone. I doubt I would have the time if I were in your position, so I understand. Frankly, the hours I see volunteered here are remarkable.


 * As for the idea of putting this on hold for extra time, while that does seem arbitrary, it might be just fine as well. I'm not in any hurry and have no intention of creating another account regardless. The only drawback I foresee is taxing anyone with revisiting this after memories start getting rusty. It's a lot of information for anyone to have to spend time reviewing again at a later date.--Arationalguy (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: You are discussing TT's conduct (& your view of it is understandable)  How is that relevant? Are you planning to come back to fight with him? If not, what are you planning to do when you return? DGG (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I'll answer your questions in reverse order. Neither 4by40 or myself want anything to do with TT. Neither of us intend any personal fight with him. My own preference is to move on to other topics. After all, WP is immensely broad and I have many interests. If you look at the other editing I began elsewhere in the brief time I was here, I believe you'll see an evenhanded approach and a respect for authentic dialog among editors -- especially while genuinely seeking NPOV and dispassionate, encyclopedic quality of information. I invite a review of those edits and any guidance if I ever strayed from that ultimate goal. If there are any, I'm fallible, but also correctable. That really is, in fact, my nature. 4by40 shares a similar disposition and abilities, which is one of the reasons I respect her. Currently she is quite discouraged, but if she feels there is any hope, I know that she would be happy to voice her opinions on her talk page.


 * In answer to your first question, the way TT's conduct is relevant is: what you are seeing today in his willingness to even post links to this talk page, post my first name (from here) on his blog, and then draw attention to how anyone can potentially identify me by combining "Dan" with my Wikipedia avatar because I use it elsewhere on the web (as he says) -- this is the very concern I sensed when he initially interacted so alarmingly with us in our first days here at WP (as I described in my first appeal). This sense that I needed to be guarded grew quickly when I looked into his edit history to see what I was dealing with, concerns that were further heightened when discovering he owned the attack blog against GWU. This is precisely what caused both 4by40 and myself to hesitate in revealing our personal connection to each other outside of WP in the first place. Being intimidated by him from the outset initiated a vicious cycle we regret, but we felt trapped. We are now simply seeing our original fears being confirmed further. This is additional reason for us to not want anything to do with him. At the very most, solely for the record, we would want to explain ourselves for the benefit of WP admin and other editors -- and move on.--Arationalguy (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, i see in the editing only the typical brief attempt to establish oneself as an actual editor, with a range of topics before launching on a crusade. So presumably you agree to edit none of the pages connected in any way with  GWU or ODM? You realize that should you do so after this there is not chance that you will ever be unblocked?   I am by now too involved to be the one to unblock you, but your  answers here will be of interest to other admins in making a decision. DGG (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see why TrustTruth initially began his "alarming" initial interactions with you. Your changes to the pages were very large. Editors are not supposed to make such vast changes to an existing wiki page. Had your approach been different, you probably wouldn't have been in that negative interaction (or cylce as you describe it). By the way, the spouse card is too common among sock puppets. Trms (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was about to answer DGG's post, but this brief intrusion is of note. The above post by new user Trms mentions "spouse card." I have never said spouse anywhere. Only TT has done so when he posted it on his blog. Also, what vast changes prior to TT's initial aggression? The diffs plainly show that I had made a single post in the GWU discussion page, and not a single change to the article when TT first pounced. Further, nearly every change I made was discussed openly first. The above editor has clearly never viewed the diffs during his 8 contribs (half on his user page, half GWU related) but somehow knows to come to view this page and has heard a different story somewhere else.... while suggesting he knows a great deal about what is "common" in administrative issues. This type of disingenuous collaboration further raises privacy concerns. Is this somebody else's attempt to discourage me from even wanting to return to WP? Is there a private place we can continue this discussion? Since the committees use private means of discussion and correspondence, isn't is possible we could find a way to do the same thing here? Perhaps one of the admins has an idea. Thanks.--Arationalguy (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never had any communication off-wiki with the admin who made this block, or the ones who have declined it.
 * It is, however, only fair to say that Trms does appear to be a new single purpose account DGG (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, yah. I have not changed any actual wikis except for a brief edit on a jazz guitarist. Count down from 10, take a deep breath, and relax. I have no real interest in George Wythe College. Also, your talk page was what pointed me to the "attack blog" that mentions the spouse card. Also, because you are a proven sockpuppet for 4by40, your changes were large enough to prompt such interactions - either as 4by40 or arationalguy. It made no difference. By the way, I don't think that his postings showed aggression. I research aggression, and I see none there. Sorry DGG for these interjections. I am relatively new to wikipedia.Trms (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On several levels, I don't think this post needs a response.


 * Back to DGG's question. If the block is removed, I invite anyone to follow my contribs. You will see that the work I began elsewhere in WP will grow and discussions in topics where I edit would be enriched. As I already have volunteered, I am quite happy to not edit pages related to GWU. 4by40 is equally content with that.--Arationalguy (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum
The RfC on Fascism has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:


 * Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.


 * Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism.