User talk:BlueRobe

on Anarchism
Hello, you said on libertarianism talk page: ''Anarchism is the absence of non-consensual government. In theory, an Anarchist society would be made up of an array of geographically-determinate political entities, each with their own distinct political systems and laws, among which each person could find one to join by their explicit consent.'' This then is a 'community'. Government means something which 'governs' all within a geographical boundary. Besides, what is 'consent'? "Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have “committed suicide,” since 'they were the government' (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part. [For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto, Rothbard]" N6n (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the Holocaust was carried out without any legislative authority. Indeed, there is no paper-trail to prove that Adolf Hitler was even aware that the Holocaust was taking place, let alone ordered it. The Reichstag certainly did not authorise the Holocaust. Thus, the victims of the Holocaust (6 million Jewish people and 5 million non-Jewish people) were murdered.
 * An authoritarian society where the rulers don't learn of getting millions killed systematically? Maybe they didn't produce/destroyed the paper trail, but it is impossible to believe that the central authorities didn't know of it. N6n (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is substantial difference between a member of the Legislature knowing that the Holocaust is taking place, and the Legislature (as a body) authorising the Holocaust. For a contemporary comparison, there is a difference between a U.S. Senator knowing that crimes were being committed at the Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp, and the U.S. Senate (and Congress) authorising those "crimes" as a matter of law.BlueRobe (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If a government can't even stop genocide (eventually), what good is it for? The Nazi Germany did not "breakdown" during this period; it supposedly functioned quite efficiently. Who is responsible for Guantanamo Bay? I believe it is the "government". It is certainly not me! (If you agree, then notice that this is an argument for the illegitimacy of governments--the govt. does not represent me; "we are the government" not.)N6n (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The agents of the American government who committed crimes at Guantanamo Bay were from the Executive branch of the US Federal government. Those crimes were committed without legislative authority. Those crimes were ultra vires (outside the jurisdiction) of the Executive branch of government. This is why the crimes committed at Guantanamo Bay by the American military (and law enforcement agencies) are being challenged as being unconstitutional in the Supreme Court of the United States. Again, US Senators and Congressmen may have been aware of the crimes being committed at Guantanamo Bay, but they did not authorise those crimes as a matter of law. As the Holocaust, Guantanamo Bay and countless other examples in history have shown, it is a sad reality of government in the real world that governments cannot be trusted to obey their own laws, even those laws prohibiting genocide, and that is one more argument for a minimalist State. BlueRobe (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless, there is substantial jurisprudential debate regarding whether it is even possible for some rules to constitute legitimate laws. For example, it is argued that some rules - such as those that are purported to legitimise genocide - are so morally repugnant that they could never attain legitimate legal authority. This argument had early recognition at the Nuremburg Trials. BlueRobe (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Couple of points, not necessarily relevant. (i) Is this repugnance universal, or only in 'educated' people. If universal, why has it not shown itself before; in particular, if the rank-and-file of the Nazis could commit genocide (with or without the backing of the central authority) why would they not vote for such a law in democracy. (ii) In the Nuremberg Trials one valid argument for defense was that "the Allies did it too". If I remember correctly a Nazi general got a British testimony that "they too sunk ships using submarine", and thus got acquitted. (the exact details may be wrong, but the general point is correct) (iii) I suppose you are pointing to a way to get to some sort of Natural Law. As the history of Natural law (and 'common sense') shows, 'could' and 'should' are different. In particular, however much the theory is developed, there will always be a temptation for the foolish to blame their failures on some other people--it is just too easy. If these foolish are powerful, theory is not going to stop them!N6n (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a Legal Positivist. I referred to the argument, that some rules are so morally repugnant that they might never legitimately attain the force of law, as a mere discussion point. And yes, I agree with you that such an argument leads to some version of Natural Law, which is anathema to the Rule of Law. BlueRobe (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You say that you can't see how there can be no State on the libertarianism page. That is because you are sticking to Legal Positivism, which indeed requires a State. Enter the world of Natural Laws, which, morphing into Common Law, can do without the State! Also note a tangential point: progress in Law has (only?) come due to Natural Laws. The Declaration of Independence is based on Natural Laws -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". And anyway, what is the basis for Positivism if not Natural laws? (Without Natural Law basis, you can cook up all sorts of monstrosities.) N6n (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even under a system dominated by Natural law jurisprudence, there persists a need for, at the barest minimum, a judiciary. The judiciary - judges - are a branch of government. There is no law where there is no government. BlueRobe (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * “For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority[Joseph R. Pedea] on ancient Irish law has writ­ten: “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforce­ment of justice…. There was no trace of State-administered justice.” How then was justice secured? ... (link has full relevant extract from For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto, Rothbard) N6n (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 *  As indicated above, for example, the entire law merchant was developed, not by the State or in State courts, but by private merchant courts. It was only much later that government took over mercantile law from its development in merchants’ courts. The same occurred with admiralty law, the entire structure of the law of the sea, shipping, salvages, etc. Here again, the State was not interested, and its jurisdiction did not apply to the high seas; so the shippers themselves took on the task of not only applying, but working out the whole structure of admiralty law in their own private courts. Again, it was only later that the government appropriated admiralty law into its own courts. Finally, the major body of Anglo-Saxon law, the justly celebrated common law, was developed over the centuries by competing judges applying time-honored principles rather than the shifting decrees of the State. ... The glory of the centuries-long development of the common law is testimony to their success.  (ibid) Btw, I haven't studied these issues to my satisfaction. My point of view is that this looks very promising, and thus deserves interest. N6n (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While that is a very interest read, (and definitely deserves a closer look), I suggest that it describes a working example of Anarchism, rather than Libertarianism. BlueRobe (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but that is a separate topic. I think this concludes our discussion "on anarchism" for now. Ping me when you wish to discuss political issues in future!N6n (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot would use it, if they could see any chance of meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to. [Lysander Spooner]N6n (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the relevance of this quote. That said, it does constitute an excellent argument against the legitimacy of a Democratically elected government. More specifically, it shows that a citizen is not necessarily consenting to the authority of a democratically elected government simply by virtue of having participated in the democratic process. BlueRobe (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Talk:New Zealand. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. wiooiw (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:Talk - "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject". Aside from sounding completely gonzo, your additions to Talk:New Zealand were not discussion of the article, they were general conversation (vaguely) about the topic. It's not how wrong your theories sound that are having them removed (i.e. it's not censorship), it's the fact that they are not about the article. If you want to spout rubbish without sources, you can start a blog, but keep it off the Wikipedia talk pages. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It was the censorship of an intelligent, albeit politically incorrect, contribution, pure and simple. BlueRobe (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Controversies of Jersey Shore (TV series), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  15:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources? I described a scene from the Jersey Shore program itself. It doesn't get more reliable than that. BlueRobe (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Talk:New Zealand. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without  further notice. Grutness...wha?  12:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Grutness...wha?  12:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

libertarianism
i suggest we revise it back correctly. on aug 24, all mention of anarchism, socialism, and left anything will be removed from the libertarianism article lede paragraph. a discussion is underway in talk. so far 3 are for, and only 1 against. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads-up. There seem to be a few threads going on simultaneously. Which is the thread were this issue is being addressed directly? BlueRobe (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * i am in europe, so my 24th, is most peoples 23rd.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#the_lede_will_change_on_august_23rd   Darkstar1st (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing and OR
Posting your personal thesis all over the talk page, with absolutely no source is disruptive. If you continue to refuse to work strictly from reliable sources and discuss the views in reliable sources (that you can specifically cite), I will pursue intervention against the disruption. Please review the policies, in particular: WP:NOT and WP:NOR. I am aware that you will not take kindly to this, but please do consider it. BigK HeX (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * disagree, bigk has leveled this same charge against many editors, among other wp policy he cites, while he constantly clutters the same page with off topic discussions with other editors about editors he opposes. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BigK HeX, I did not post my so-called thesis "all over the talk page". I posted it once, in relation to my "narrow" vote on a rfc. Further more, you and Carol (et al) have asked us for those comments so it's a bit rich to have a whinge when you get them. And as for reliable sources, my comment was rife with links to sources. BlueRobe (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

libertarianism rfc
"that is a singularly dishonest representation of the discussion.": I don't understand it. The rfc was about what should be covered: whether only 'right-libertarianism' (which apparently means only minarchism to you), or all that we have RS for.

Your argument was that the others, even when there are RS, are "sabotage" of the term libertarianism.

As far as I understand, even if you could find some RS saying that the others are "sabotage", the others should be covered, simply because they exist. (And you did not even supply such a source.)

Xerographica's sole argument was CNN/NPR and that is irrelevant. Darkstar's "only the most prominent form" is directly against WP's policies.

"the editorial community has "settled" on the broad solution is bloody condescending": We cannot keep on debating forever. As such, my claim was fair. In any case, I explicitly said that it was my "claim", which is an invitation to discuss the statement. But, I hope you wont. Lets move on to better things. N6n (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You, and your comrades, appear to be willfully blind to our constant commentary about the (ridiculously) Undue Weight given to fringe versions of Libertarianism. You insist that left-Libertarianism be given equal weight with right-Libertarianism on the Libertarianism page, despite the indisputable fact that left-Libertarianism is such a minor ideology that most Libertarians have never even heard of it. As you well know. Evidently, you have zero integrity. BlueRobe (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "You insist that left-Libertarianism be given equal weight with right-Libertarianism": Not at all. And you bring a new point about "zero integrity". If you don't want to talk, you don't have to go through holler-hoops, you can simply say so. N6n (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologise. I'm a bit irritable tonight, due to the willful campaign of obstruction that has been orchestrated to prevent us from fixing the woefully inadequate and misrepresentative Libertarianism page. BlueRobe (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Undue weight" is a valid point, and it may even be correct. But you have to prove that. How do we know that others are "fringe versions"? How do we know that "most libertarians haven't heard of it"? As far as my understanding goes, all the editors supporting the "broad viewpoint" are acting in good faith. You can convince them by producing RS making your point.
 * FYI, I proposed a lead along the lines of: "Libertarianism is the view that each man is the absolute owner of his life, to use and dispose of as he sees fit: that all man's social actions should be voluntary, and that respect for every other man's similar and equal ownership of life and, by extension, the property and fruits of that life, is the ethical basis of a humane and open society. In this view, the only — repeat, only — function of law or government is to provide the sort of self-defense against violence that an individual, if he were powerful enough, would provide for himself." However, I still think that the best idea till now has been "In order to get a more accurate idea, what we really need are sources that have reviewed the political landscape including regions outside of the US, and report what they say are prominent among the strains of libertarian thought." (BigKHex, ) As you see, the "opposition" does not consist of idiots or dramatists. (I accept your apology for the harsh words, this is making a separate point.) N6n (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * i like your lede. btw, the only libertarian parties, outside the usa, using the term in their name, are aligned with the lpusa.  not one left-libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, geo, trans anything in any office or race anywhere in the world.  these only exist in books.  Darkstar1st (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My knowledge is limited to Books. (I don't follow news, and don't watch TV.) To me books are everything. So, I wont hear anything against books! N6n (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility
No "threats" this time. Please review Wikiquette_alerts and respond, if desired. BigK HeX (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back!
I thought you may have been discouraged by the reports against you. Good to see you're still in the game. I hope you weren't affected by the earthquake earlier today. My thoughts are with those in that beautiful part of the world today. I hope not too much damage was done. I've visited Christchurch many times and love it there. Cheers and all the best! ShadowMan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.71.6 (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. Thankfully, the earthquake did not strike my home, (I live in Auckland, and the earthquake was centred near Christchurch). I didn't even know the earthquake until I saw reports on the news. BlueRobe (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, User:125.7.71.6 aka User:ShadowMan4444 has been banned as a sock puppet of User:Karmaisking, a long time sock puppet on Libertarianism page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc, I have long since learned not to trust anything you say. You have a long history of setting Reichstag fires around Wikipaedia. BlueRobe (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow the links. That's what cooperative editors do when given a heads up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikiquette alert
Please see this wikiquette alert which I have filed regarding your recent behavior at Talk: War crimes and the United States -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U
I have filed an RFC regarding your behavior. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * this is how wp is so slanted. people use endless wp:anythingthatsoundsgood to wear down the editor, then, when the editor can take no more, and reacts to the harassment, the file case and have you banned.  there is one way out, revert the offensive words, apologize, and live to wp another day.  you have been targeted for your beliefs and are now being followed by a pack.  it is not too late, consider the easy way out, and save your valuable keystrokes for the truth.   Darkstar1st (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is what Wikipaedia has become. BlueRobe (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC
These people are insane; why the heck are they leading crusades against you and DS1st? This is meatpuppetry at its worst; someone needs to do something about them.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  15:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that I think about it, we should counter-nominated BigK HeX, and see how they feel about that.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  15:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Their behaviour would make interesting reading for a psychology thesis. Jrtayloriv, in particular, shows many of the signs of serious mental illness. His sudden OCD regarding me is actually beginning to scare me. BlueRobe (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "They" [the infamous, amorphous Cabal] will likely feel fine about it, and I certainly am not worried in the least over the prospect. It's sad that the pleas and warnings have been taken as idle threats or some form of intimidation.  I hope editors learn from the sad actions that have been needed because of behavior, and I hope for this to be the last bit of scrutiny needed. BigK HeX (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice
I have opened an ANI notice involving you at WP:ANI under the heading "Incivility of User:BlueRobe.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * forget it wook, they won, he has given up, another editor driven out of wp, bravo. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. I realised this a couple of days ago, which is why I took the play-nice gloves off. I was quietly informed (ironically, by someone who is part of a New Zealand-based meat-puppet "gang") that my exclusion from Wikipaedia was inevitable due to the background petty politics that really run this place. Evidently, this is what they do when they conclude that an editor is causing too much damage to one of their causes.
 * Darkstar1st, thanx for your efforts on my behalf. I do suggest you stop bothering with the Libertarianism page - they're either grossly-obsessed ideologically-motivated fanatics or they are so incredibly stupid that NOTHING gets through to them. Either way, trying to reason with them is like trying to reason with disobedient children who are suffering from severe ADHD. And while I strongly distrust and dislike most of the left-wing gang, Jrtayloriv is one seriously disturbed individual. Watch your back with him - he has DEEEEEEP emotional issues (look how completely mental he became when I stopped responding to his petty taunts?) And Torchwood Who? is showing distinct signs of being one of Jrtayloriv's sock-puppets (what are the odds of two complete nutters starting to obsess over every detail about my Wiki history in precisely the same way and at precisely the same time?) Good luck. BlueRobe (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking other contributors, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Continued personal attacks may lead to being blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. WookieInHeat (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * is there anything i can do to try and help mediate the situation? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that a joke? I have suffered an ENDLESS array of threats, harassment and abuse from an organised group of ideologically-motivated cyber-bullies for days, and Wikipaedia authorities have done NOTHING to stop them. Indeed, Wikipaedia authorities appear to be encouraging them. I've given up on Wikipaedia. BlueRobe (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * thx Blue. i have more time in wp than most of them combined.  these new editors are versed on wp:policy, yet lack a balance in editing.  most of their time is spent policing others, while very little sources and text are introduced.  this style of editing is a recent phenomenon in wp.  i still hold out hope most of these editors will mature into productive members of wp.  perhaps i will implement a new rule in the future where a user may not have twice as many rejected complaints as accepted.  this has worked in the usa court system limiting frivolous torts, by billing the prosecution for the defense hours if a case is dismissed.   dont give up on truth, wp is getting a huge bath soon, a large chunk of $ came in to help cleanup articles recently.  this type of editing will soon be removed from wp.  Darkstar1st (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * wookie i recommend you run from this mess, however if you are up for jousting windmills, then look into the reports filed on both sides of this debate, soon you will uncover why blue feels this is an attack. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, what are the chances that an authority from Wikipaedia would actually bother to turn up and inject some common sense into this and put an end to their harassment of us? It's POSSIBLE, but I'm not putting any money on it. My guess is that WookieInHeat is yet another one of Jrtayloriv meat-puppets come to rub some salt in. BlueRobe (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, what are the chances that an authority from Wikipaedia would actually bother to turn up and inject some common sense into this and put an end to their harassment of us? It's POSSIBLE, but I'm not putting any money on it. My guess is that WookieInHeat is yet another one of Jrtayloriv meat-puppets come to rub some salt in. BlueRobe (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider this your final warning over civility. Even if you feel you are being hounded you must still abide by WP:NPA, if you cannot do that you may be blocked. If you feel you have been Wiki-hounded you should open an AN/I thread with diffs to show how you have been hounded and an admin will deal with it. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 08:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * t, your too late on this guy, he has given up. if you are interested in why, by all means take a look, but consider him one more intelligent editor hounded out of wp for his beliefs.  Darkstar1st (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for excessive personal attacks across a range of pages this morning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * you just got taken out by an amateurish prank, don't be so easily tricked when you get back. focus on the content, ignore taunts, be bold, cite sources, and add content.  after enough harassment, without the provoked response, your accusers will become the accused.  Darkstar1st (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Bluerobe, I haven't investigated what the above block is for, & it's not my concern, but I'd like to record my thanks for your input today at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. It was good of you to go the extra mile. Trafford09 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Provocation
you just got taken out by an amateurish prank, don't be so easily tricked when you get back. focus on the content, ignore taunts, be bold, cite sources, and add content. after enough harassment, without the provoked response, your accusers will become the accused. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Prank" or not, intelligent people don't take the bait, if that's why you actually consider to be the case. Educated people are typically above violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that they are already aware are beyond the social norms expected, and intelligent, educated people know to sign off, take a walk to the pub and have a pint when they're being sucked in. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All else aside, Darkstar1st's advice is pretty good. When people try to antagonize you, they're trying to control you by provoking a response, when you fail to respond as they wanted to you're taking away the only real power they have on the internet. It makes things a lot easier. --  At am a  頭 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blue, anyone who has read your edits knows you are educated and intelligent, your biggest flaw, is failing to read the 3,472 different wp:makesomethinguphere policy which when wielded by an experienced griefer, can twist the most basic truth into Orwellian doublespeak with ease. example, you were blocked for being uncivil, yet some administrators boldly advertise on their user page, "i dont give a f***",. hardly civil, intelligent, or educated use of the english language.  some editors in wp are on a power trip, as their offline lives probably consist of the lowest social caste, and unable to assert dominance anywhere but wp.  these types of editors rarely add content, sources or even civility, instead they lurk in talk pages waiting for a reason to file a grievance, like a bratty child in class pointing out the teachers misspelled word, while failing the class at the same time.  having completed some original research recently, searching the talk pages of articles you edit, certain users are quite prevalent in their accusations.  i am working on a project to warn/ban overzealous accusers.  take the total number of edits, multiply by the amount of wp:rs added, then divide by the number of accusations the user has leveled, thus the wp:noidfactor is determined.  for giggles, do search of some of the pages where you had issues and see if you can spot the editors who use their time in wp primarily as hall monitor.  once the users with a  wp:noidfactor below the accepted threshold can be established, a warning will be issued, and a block maybe implemented until the user is able to balance their use of the dark side, with the light.  for now, if you are able to avoid the noid, and let wp do it's magic, the very rule some editors abuse, will soon be their own undoing.  Darkstar1st (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Block over
Glad to see your block is over, BlueRobe. Anyhow, with you gone, the Anarchists have created their own 'definition' of Libertarianism (obviously an anarchist-slanted one), and are trying to get it added to the header. >_<  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Toa Nidhiki05. I saw that. It's ironic that one of the reasons given for blocking me was my suggestion of bad faith on the part of the left-wingers in the Libertarianism talk page, when they demonstrate blatant bad faith at every turn - one of them is a pathological liar who cannot be reasoned with on any level, another is an obsessed stalker who went on a 24+ hour Wikipaedia marathon to hound my every move until I was blocked, and the other one is just plain batty.
 * I showed the Libertarianism page to some members of New Zealand's Libertarianz Party and they barely recognised that it was even about Libertarianism. They thought it was an Anarchism page where someone at changed the word "Anarchism" to "Libertarian". Not only is so-called right-Libertarianism not given the predominance in the page that is so clearly appropriate, but it barely receives enough recognition to be noticeable among all the talk about Anarchism-in-Libertarian-clothing. It's pretty frustrating that such blatant sabotage of the Libertarianism page is, not only permitted, but protected by the powers-that-be. BlueRobe (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and what you just said above can lead to an even longer block. Care to retract using WP:Strikethrough, or did you enjoy your break? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * not all the powers, jimmy wales is a libertarian, and not the welfare state kind, or the kind that wants every man to be his own personal army. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * bwilkins, i think you guys missed the boat on blue, his ship sailed weeks ago. he is frustrated with the mess wp has become and gave up awhile ago.  wp could learn from losing intelligent editors like him and maybe real in some of the more zealous complainers and promote a few more moderators to stave off this kind of mess from happening to other articles.  Darkstar1st (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, I'm not even allowed to tell the truth in my own talk page now? Yeah, Wikipaedia's not broken *sarcasm metre explodes* BlueRobe (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said before, intelligent people don't take the bait and stoop to incivility and personal attacks. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 00:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It took you one hour to ambush me with a petty taunt and a needless power-trip in my own talk page. Don't you have anything better to do? BlueRobe (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "did you enjoy your break?" bwilkins is that really necessary? would you consider a voluntary break from editing here in the interest of harmony?  with as many fans as blue has made, wp will hardly need your help blocking him again.  Darkstar1st (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Darkstar1st. I see they've been hounding you (and a couple of new-comers) in the Libertarianism page. You've stood your ground well, despite the appearance that they've blatantly misinterpreted just about every word you've written.
 * There's no need to ask the powers-that-be to back off. I've already been informed that the decision had already been made, before my block ended, to ban me from Wikipaedia at the first opportunity (be it real or fictional). Although, for the sake of at least appearing to be objective, I thought they would wait a day or two before dropping the subtlety of their witch-hunt, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that; such a block would be unjustified. Just a quick update;


 * The left-wingers have rejected a good-faith attempt at compromise (moving page to Libertarianism (word))
 * One other nomination (mine), which would move the current Libertarianism page to Forms of Libertarianism and redirect Libertarianism to Libertarianism (disambiguation), is still open; it is a pretty radical, nuclear option solution, but it has potential for outside support. The nom is []. If it stays untouched for a while, I'll go ahead and move it.

 Toa   Nidhiki  05  01:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RE: "Don't you have anything better to do?" An administrator notifying a user that is falling into the exact same pattern that got the person blocked is already one of the "better" things we hope for the WP administrators to be doing. Suggesting that you still carry presumptions of bad-faith [i.e., "a pathological liar who cannot be reasoned with", "I thought they would wait a day or two", etc.] is not the most auspicious return from a block. BigK HeX (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless you feel the Wikipedia community will vindicate your comments and behavior, why not just use the tags and strikethrough your comments as a simple gesture of good faith.  It doesn't seem like you'd have anything to lose by doing so. BigK HeX (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BigK HeX, please keep your petty taunts out of my User talk page. They are beneath me, even as they are clearly not beneath you. (Why on Earth do you feel to compelled to come into my talkpage at all?)
 * Personally, I think it speaks volumes for Wikipaedia's powers-that-be that they are so eager to permit the deliberate on-going harassment and taunting of another editor - in his own talk page - as they wait to pounce on that user if he ever dares to bite back. BlueRobe (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. The "powers-that-be" are fairly loosely defined, so it's not as conspiracy-ish as you make it sound. You're perfectly entitled to delete comments off your talk page -- that's probably the best way of dealing with them. Gerardw (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gerardw, thank you for that information. I confess that I was completely unaware that I was permitted to delete the (blatant) trolling in my talkpage. Indeed, I was under the impression that deleting the posts of others inmy talk page was a blockable offence, lol. Now, where did I put my hammer... 02:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)BlueRobe (talk)
 * It doesn't even have to be blatant trolling. I think it may not apply to block notices but beyond that most comments on your own talk page can simply be deleted. Gerardw (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary
BlueRobe should not have to swear to a loyalty oath or commit public penance to be treated with the respect due any WP editor. If the comments here are "blockable" then there are some long standing editors who should go on the block list. There's no need to lurk on BlueRobe's talk page and jump on his venting -- if he resumes inappropriate behavior in article or article talk space some editor will bring him up again on WQA or ANI. The goal should be to have as many editors as possible working productivity on WP; unnecessarily re-engaging someone as soon as they come off a block is not conducive to that goal. Gerardw (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice
You have been mentioned in a formal complaint. You are invited to respon here if you so desire. BigK HeX (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the least bit surprised. BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And as you can see (most) of the "powers that be" are not giving the complaint much credence. Wikipedia happiness is focusing on what you want and ignoring stuff you don't care about. As long as you stay focused on content and avoid characterizing other edits life is good. Gerardw (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

the worm has turned
see what i mean about letting wp do its magic? 2 of your more harsh critics were all but silenced recently. your talk page should not be an ambush site to punish you for whatever reason. now it is time to really turn up the heat by following wp rules to the letter of the law, rise above the petty games your have refused to play, and defeat your detractors with a focus on content and oblivion to all else. you now have the high ground and will be able to edit in good faith without distraction. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really getting uneasy about YOUR wording Darkstar. C'mon, the goal here isn't to "turn up the heat" on anything and Wikipedia isn't a game with winners and losers. Encouraging BlueRobe to use policy as such is disturbing and counter-productive. I do agree that everyone should stick to content and that's an excellent sentiment, especially here. BlueRobe, remember that blocks are not punitive! They are done to prevent disruption to the project and no one is above them, it's not about gaming policy and Darkstar, I would hope you're not encouraging BlueRobe or any other editor toward gaming a system of civility blocking against a user or group of users to advance an editing POV. Please clarify that it isn't the case because it reads on a thin line of that; a very serious breach of policy. I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand you.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Torchwood Who? Seriously? What on Earth is inappropriate about Darkstar1st suggesting we spend our energies: "following wp rules to the letter of the law, rise above the petty games [...] and defeat your detractors with a focus on content and oblivion to all else." If anything, such sentiments are to be commended.
 * And if you disagree with obsessive Wiki-lawyering so much, (which is clearly not what Darkstar1st was suggesting), then I think you need to re-examine your own conduct a week ago, (and that of BigK HeX a week ago, and yesterday), when you spent countless hours pouring over my Wiki history to find every snippet of an excuse to get me blocked. And that was before we'd ever met in a talk page, lol! Pot. Kettle. Black.
 * Communication between the different parties would be helped a lot if you and BigK HeX could learn to appreciate a reasonable interpretation of what we say instead of rushing to the random destructive and nonsensical spin you constantly place on our well-intentioned and informative posts in the talk pages. Your deliberate misinterpretations - with the constant threat of punishment - are clearly breaches of WP:Harassment. Stop it, or log-off and go for a walk. BlueRobe (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found it's better and more fun in the long run to follow not only the letter but the spirit of "the law." And rather than "defeat" my detractors, it's simpler for me just not to have any. Oh, sure, there are people I disagree with but I just state my opinion and make my arguments. Ignoring mud slung my way takes way less effort than responding. Gerardw (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is difficult not to think about "defeating" my detractors when the same editors tirelessly ambush me with threats of Wikipaedian punishments every single day. The irony is, I usually get on very well with people I disagree with, (which is good, because people almost never agree with me in real life, lol). But, after a few weeks of trying, I have realised that there are a handful of editors in the Libertarianism talk page who are just too Machiavellian to be reasoned with, (and I can guarantee that even that little WP:ThreeWiseMonkeys will now be noted for the next round of complaints against me, lol).
 * Here's the greatest irony of all. I usually describe myself as an Anarcho-Libertarian, (there is a very subtle, albeit philosophically significant, difference between Anarcho-Libertarianism and mainstream Libertarianism), so my personal ideological beliefs have a lot in common with the ideologies whose prominence I want reduced in the Libertarianism page. But, I'm not here to push my own personal political agenda. I'm here to help maintain the integrity of Wikipaedia's articles. And I'm honest enough to admit that, as much as I personally embrace Anarcho-Libertarianism over mainstream Libertarianism, it does not deserve anywhere near equal prominence with mainstream Libertarianism in the Libertarianism article - and that is what this on-going dispute is all about. BlueRobe (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BlueRobe, I've been following this since it was at the etiquette noticeboard, then the RfC. I've never edited in your area and I'm trying to mediate. You would do well to note that I've also cautioned BigK on their talkpage during your block as I did with Darkstar. You should also note that I defended your position at this recent ANI. My goal is non-disruption and every time that both of the involved camps shoots at the other using sly language and inciting tones you don't do anything constructive, only destructive. As to my own behavior, I am not exactly sure why you suggest that I'm harassing you, but it's offense and I'd like it to stop. Also, as to your suggestion that I pored over your edit history, you are correct, I did, as did every involved editor at the RfC and subsequent ANI. I've never once made a threat of blocking toward you or even interacted with you, but if you keep tossing this hot potato of blame for your participation in an editing cold war then you're not going to get anywhere constructive on the project. IF you truly feel I've been uncivil and that I've harassed you, please bring it to the attention of a noticeboard and we'll discuss it there. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Torchwood Who? Last week was you being a neutral mediator? Crikey. What are you like when you're less neutral? BlueRobe (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueRobe, I didn't block you. I only examined a situation brought to a noticeboard. I agree where I agree and I disagree where I disagree. As you said quite clearly we never even met on a talkpage before last week, that is the definition of neutral. This has been further discussed at the ANI, if you want to talk about it there you may. I'm going to take my own advice and disengage from you. Good luck in moving forward I hope you and all the editors you are having content issues with find a way to express yourselves without battlefield mentality.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * blue, torch has been very helpful in the past, the current confusion is over a bit of slang i employed that does not translated well across the pond, apologies. as us yanks have butchered the english language, i suggest it be fair retribution for burning down our white house in 1812.   "turn up heat" means to improve one's game, not to be confused with gaming the system, which means cheating by the rules.  my words were offered as homage to the brilliance of wp, by focusing on the sources, you will defeat, or out-edit, or win edit wars, or not have your edit reverted, or be able to add material without being read the riot act, or simply use wp for its intended purpose, the distribution of knowledge.  gaming the system would involve incorrectly referencing wp:whatevergoeshere, as some many have done in the past, perhaps while reverting your edits, perhaps not.  you fault has been saying what pops into your mind first, like "The moon? The sun! It is not moonlight now" a no no in wp, since you are not a rs, instead, simply say whatever wp:whateverfitshere when other editors are incorrectly editing.  Darkstar1st (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Darkstar, I appreciate the clarification. As I said above, I wouldn't want it to be taken that way if it wasn't meant that way. With all the noticeboard use in the last week it's very important to couch your language carefully so a simple mistaken phrase doesn't end up wasting discussion time in mediation or admin boards. You can obviously speak your mind, but we all need to be mindful of how we do so when there is a lot of unneeded tension lurking around.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed. in the 5 years ive edited wp this is the worst ive seen, if the attitude doesn't improve soon, i'll stop defending wp in polite conversation around the table at thanksgiving.  i've grown tired of measuring every word, careful not to offend various cabal, or the overzealous admin.  after years of hear rush limbaugh, my family, and common street urchin explain to me wp is fiction because anyone can edit, i am near finished defending such a disagreeable crowd.  it seems to me, more time is spent reporting editors than editing, unless this focus on fracas is reigned in, i will log out for good, and leave you all to the mercy of those who devoured my zeal for wp.  Darkstar1st (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, I couldn't have put it better if you'd paid me. Well said. BlueRobe (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, I couldn't have put it better if you'd paid me. Well said. BlueRobe (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Patience
That the use of the term libertarianism is never used in the all-important current English secondary sources to refer to libertarian socialism or left-libertarianism is, I think, a new argument (at least expressed in this way). I think it's a sound reason to exclude references to those philosophies in the article, but let's let it sink in for a few days before we act on it to remove content, okay? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Indeed, good faith requires us to give editors time to consider proposed changes.
 * Believe it or not, I have never made any changes to the Libertarianism article itself (unless I corrected a minor grammatical error and have forgotten about it). Despite all their constant criticism of me, I have followed due process as I have tried to achieve some sort of consensus before editing the Libertarianism article rather than engage in a futile edit war. Alas, I don't think my gesture of good faith has even been noticed, let alone appreciated by them. BlueRobe (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Libertarianism. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. [diff] Fifelfoo (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be a Friday if I didn't receive at least three threats or warnings ;-)


 * Fifelfoo, out of curiosity, what "promotional" material are you talking about? BlueRobe (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * fifelfoo, your welcoming blue to wp is not helpful, he has been an editor for quite some time and given the recent drama this appears to be baiting. please consider striking your remark, and adjusting your comments to be constructive.  blue has already made it clear he has read the soapbox.  Darkstar1st (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh, c'mon - the basic level 1 Wikipedia template says "Welcome to Wikipedia" - the use of the lowest level template is as much of a sign of WP:AGF as you can find. Don't get your knickers in a knot over that.  Many editors (seeing a past history) would have started with level 2 ... can't you have a little goof faith yourself? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * understood, it just seems a little like baiting after blue quoted text from the soapbox article a few lines above, i got the same warning and haven't even added anything to the article in September. blue is a bit of an easy target, in his youth he drank some homemade liquor brewed from apricots and fijoa flowers, he has been right since.  i am confident he has given up on engaging the other editors as of a few minutes ago, and will focus his comments strictly on sources and text.  Darkstar1st (talk) 10:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was fairy juice laced with moon dust. The good news is, my left cheek has almost stopped twitching! Pretty flowers are pretty... ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, I see that Fifelfoo left an almost identical warning in your User talk page. At least, I think it was him - they didn't bother to sign it, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning on BigK HeX
I decided to give him a [|Soapboxing/Advertising warning] for his advertising edits for libertarian socialism, and he goes and does an AN/I on me. I think we can safely say he has no problem calling the kettle black. >_<  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh he is ridiculously trigger-happy with warnings, threats and AN/I etc. I'm pretty sure he's primarily here for that side of the discussion. The talk pages are little more than rich sources for his endless Wiki-litigation. There was a period of a few weeks where he issued at least one threat against me every single day, lol. It wouldn't be so bad, but, for some reason, a couple of the powers-that-be take him seriously. BlueRobe (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not ANI, that's WP:WQA...where incivility issues go at the very beginning. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

r.e. warning
That kind of behaviour is not appropriate - certainly not accusing me of vandalism. As I have mentioned on another talk page I take no stance on the content - that is something for you all to work out politely between you - but I do aim to try and keep everyone discussing content and providing sources rather than run around commenting on each other and templating warnings etc. it is not constructive and all it will do is lead to blocks and sanctions.... I'm willing to stick up for everyone here, but if you act uncivilly or treat this as a WP:BATTLE it is not going to work and I won't hesitate to take it to the community for sanctions. If you contribute constructively - which, to be honest, you seemed to be doing! - then I don't forsee any problems. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 21:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Errant, evidently, it is impossible to miss your blatant bias. FYI, I issued a formal warning against you before I had any knowledge that you were hounding Toa Nidhiki05 in a WP:WQA. Indeed, I only realised what was going on when I clicked on a link provided by Bwilkins, where I thought I would learn more about the WQA process. And STOP THREATENING ME. If you can't adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT then do not come into my talk page. BlueRobe (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise if you feel this is the case. As two editors have now disputed it I have asked at AN/I for people to review my actions. The discussion is here if you wish to comment, I am hopeful that everyone involved will be open to the idea of myself as some sort of informal mediator - but if this is discouraged by consensus then so be it :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 21:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that link. Personally, I have zero faith in your ability to be a neutral mediator. BlueRobe (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on why (at AN/I if you like)? if there is a conflict of interest or legitimate issue you can point out I would obviously be happy to consider recusing myself. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Please note i have struck your accusation of vandalism here. Lets try to keep WP:CIVIL and focus on content please mark nutley (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * TFD has no consensus for removing he POV tag from the Libertarianism article. Evidently, I see why people are concerned about you lack of neutrality. BlueRobe (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats quite funny :) have you seen TFD`s comments about me? Look at it like this, is he believes i`m not neutral, and nor do you than i must be as you all think i`m not :) lets just give it a go ya? mark nutley (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll give it a crack. Please excuse my cynicism - I'm met way too many bad powers-that-be in Wikipaedia. Some of them appear to be little more than meat-puppets rushing to help fellow editors pushing their political agenda. BlueRobe (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism
Removing a tag that has had no discussion and asking for an explanation before it is reinserted is not vandalism, in fact it is what any good editor should do. However accusing another editor of vandalism and putting a template on their page is assuming bad faith. I understand that your view of libertarianism differs from that found in reliable sources, but unfortunately for you policy requires that we use mainstream sources and ignore the views of individual editors. If you believe that the world has got this subject wrong and needs correction, then you should find another forum. However, it is likely that even among people who share some agreement with you, that you will find difficulty in reaching agreement with other people. TFD (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The appropriateness of the POV tag has been discussed, at length. With no consensus reached by the editorial community. BlueRobe (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the tag. Good. Dropping the post on the user talk page. Not so good. Gerardw (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Brownie points
Yes, I do appreciate that you are not editing the article.though you lost it now by going off topic on the thread, I kid, I kid! I started it There are no brownies :) but I found a cookie! Thanks for looking at the Ayn Rand stuff btw. Since coming of your block I have seen a lot more constructive approach (for others as well as yourself) - it didn't go unnoticed, perhaps we just crossed swords a little quickly earlier? --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 23:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read
I would like us all to reach a compromise. Can you accept this idea and work together to improve the page?  Toa   Nidhiki  05  02:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can. Indeed, I offered yet another compromise in the previous section (the RfC section). BlueRobe (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you are trying. :) I have asked BKH to now provide counter sourcing. Could you try and unwind from comments such as Crikey, we know we must have said something right when you kick-off on one of these Wikilawyering tirades. , which is commenting on other editors. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 13:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Btw, thank you for your efforts. I get the impression that I misjudged you earlier today, and for that I apologise. As for BigK HeX, he's just using his beloved "retreating horizon" strategy (yet again) where, the more we provide, the more he demands. In the end, nothing will satisfy him. I'm off to watch some TV :-) BlueRobe (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Roflmao I've been tagged for possible self-promotion in my own Userspace. Does that mean I looked in the mirror too many times? lol

A friendly suggestion
Sorry to intrude, but statements like "Soandso is allergic to intelligent thought." can only hurt your position ... if only by risking a ban that will remove your opinion from the pool. I happen to agree with your position on the article, and would hate to see such a post used against you. Fell Gleaming talk 00:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken. But, we've had months of this. It's like arguing with spoiled infants who are armed with machine-guns and too much coffee while they spray-paint over the Musée du Louvre. Some of us are just over the pointlessness of trying to reason with people who are clearly beyond all reason. BlueRobe (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * i see you are going to take the road you're on, a pity, your edits and comments have been some of the wittiest on wp, a shame most were wasted on a crowd unable to enjoy them. i am going to miss you in wp, as you are most certainly going to be banned in how ever long it takes you to make your next 10 personal comments on other editors.  after consulting the oracle, i was told the cabal is going to use volume rather than specific words to remove you from wp.  fortunately, should you simply zip it, they will be unable to proceed, however many thunderous and hardy harrumphs followed after i suggested you would be able to hold your tongue, including a narrow stream of milk escaping from the oracles nose, something which amused and frightened me at the same time.  what you say, may very well be thought by many other editors, but notice how none of them say it, and none of them have the heat you attract.  farewell blue, i will miss you very much, and hope you will create a new wikipedia where truth and honor prevail.  Darkstar1st (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueRobe --I was definitely spoiled as a child (after all: I am a white male, using a computer, and living in los Estados Unidos); and I am pretty certain that I consume too much coffee, amongst other things (dairy, eggs, etc.). And, while I'm neither armed with machine guns, nor spraypainting French museums, I can definitely understand where your last statement is coming from. I would really like to stop arguing too. How do you suggest we achieve that? What do you think is the cause of all of the fighting at Talk:Libertarianism? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Jrtayloriv, it is patently obvious where all the arguing is coming from. The Libertarianism article is a complete shambles and is ridiculously WP:Undue: We have Chomsky (an Anarcho-Syndicalist) over Rand, we have a ton of Anarchism (such as left Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism) but no Objectivism. We even have blatantly anarchist organisations, such as the Workers Solidarity Movement and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, dressed up as Libertarian organisations, (they are so obviously not Libertarian organisations that they don't even deserve discussion in the talk page, let alone inclusion in the main article!). Meanwhile, the content on mainstream Libertarianism (the topic that the overwhelming majority of people a looking for when they look up "Libertarianism" on Wikipaedia) has been so thoroughly reduced and hidden among the Anarchist content that it is impossible to find (it doesn't even have its own section, while the Anarchist ideologies do?! How is that right?).


 * ALL good faith attempts to fix the Libertarianism article with consensus achieved through compromise have been rejected. Indeed, some editors (especially BigK HeX and TFD) have made it clear - and boast about the fact - that they will not give an inch. Indeed, no one has tested the policy of WP:AGF like BigK HeX - he is the most blatantly bad faith editor I have ever encountered in Wikipaedia. We have been arguing for weeks, and NOTHING has been achieved because of a handful of editors exploiting the WP:3RR rule to prevent ALL improvements, no matter how reasonable they are.


 * The reason I am so belligerent in the Libertarianism talk page is that I have recognised, for some weeks now, that ALL good faith attempts to improve the article will be rejected out of hand, no matter what, by a few editors who are clearly approaching the discussion with zero good faith. I am completely over it. I am not the least bit bothered about being blocked, as I have discovered nothing but contempt for Wikipaedia as a result of the travesty that is Libertarianism and its appalling back-room politics. A pox on Wikipaedia. BlueRobe (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! Self .... shoot ... self ... in ... foot... Impressive! Yworo (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yworo -- These types of comments aren't productive. He is shooting himself in the foot, but there is no benefit it you making these sorts of comments. It just gives people like MarkNutley ammunition to make it seem like BlueRobe is a "victim" of "taunting" (this is exactly what has happened on the RFC due to one of your earlier comments). Please try to stick to suggestions for how he could improve his behavior (or perhaps just say nothing at all...). I realize that his behavior is frustrating, but it should be dealt with through the proper channels. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism

 * You wrote "I'm getting pretty sick of people trying to censor information on military/terrorist attacks out of Wikipaedia" on an AFD page. I just wanted to say that I agree.AMuseo (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There seems to be a deliberate campaign (on both sides) to remove all articles that are seen (rightly or wrongly) as hurting the editors' political agendas, which is why AfDs a full of such nominations. This strategy is not limited to political events related to Palestine or Iraq, but seems to be used as a strategy for censoring content about political conflicts all over the world. BlueRobe (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/I notification
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for one month. If you feel this is unjust you may appeal using. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am making this appeal on behalf of BlueRobe, an admin at ANI said this belonged here.
 * support, blue is a very intelligent editor how reacted poorly to the typical childishness so prevalent in wp today. since the user agrees to not comment on other editors (something only a block of this length could communicate), and since the article where much of the comments originated is now locked, please consider giving this very smart guy a chance to wise up.  Darkstar1st (talk) 08:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Point of Order. I know this is at ANI, but the unblock template is here, so - has BlueRobe actually requested or confirmed their interest in being unblocked? The editor's last contribution was blanking the block notice. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes i have contacted him via e-mail, he has given his word to abide by the conditions i set out and is waiting now to see what happens mark nutley (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Before an unblock is considered, it is my opinion that User:BlueRobe, himself, should visit this talk page and personally post his acknowledgment of wrongdoing, instead of having it posted by proxy. BigK HeX (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. BlueRobe must confirm the unblock request on-wiki, and will need to acknowledge their intent to edit within policy if unblocked. That would require, at a minimum, a pledge to be calm and civil in editing. An agreement to avoid certain topics, as proposed below, might not be a bad idea either. But, until BlueRobe edits here, I have to Oppose any unblock. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose I see ZERO reason to allow BlueRobe back into the heavily-contentious Libertarianism article at this time. Let him "prove his worth" elsewhere and merely observe how editors interact without the vitriol he seems prone to using when matters get heated.  If BlueRobe is unblocked, I request a topic ban from political ideologies remain in effect for the duration of his original block.   On another note, Marknutley's offer is generous, but Marknutley has already shown that his ability to mediate matters related to BlueRobe's incivility to be dubious.  Marknutley is currently involved in the same editorial conflict, and largely agrees with BlueRobe's POV.  I assumed good faith when Marknutley initially attempted mediation, but ended up disappointed.  Also of concern is that Marknutley's ability to stick to the exact meaning of sources has been problematic, and he may currently be under ArbCom General Sanction (see: General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive9).  It'd be troubling if Mark's penchant to misuse sources were instilled in another editor.  I do not mean to disparage Marknutley at all, but these are the facts and they have bearing on Marknutley's offer of mentorship.  BigK HeX (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the block was based on a long history of incivility, not just the examples provided, as can be seen from the two RfCs on the issue. Plus, procedurally, BlueRobe needs to make this request and give assurances directly himself on his own talk page and not via an involved proxy. Yworo (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Reduce block to two weeks and then bring in a strict civility rule per above.  Dealing with comments on his talk page is a part of learning to edit here so no restriction on other editors.  Mentor is key, but I suggest the mentor should be a more neutral person.  Agree that an acknowledgement by BlueRobe of the issue and a clear undertaking to change is necessary for any unblock -- Snowded  TALK  14:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Changing my mind, exchanges below indicate the user has learnt nothing and seems unwilling or unable to learn -- Snowded TALK  15:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded, I don't know where that came from. I gave civil and sincere responses to the concerns expressed by other editors. Que sera sera. BlueRobe (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support though as Snowded says maybe a block reduction might be better. However, I might suggest that the editors involved in the interaction ban really ought to be consulted first. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * with the exception of warnings, most of the other editors have stayed off his page and he off theirs after both sides receiving appeals for a cease-fire. an interaction ban is a great idea, who knows how well blue will be able to follow the ban, but why not give it a try, then block him more if it fails, the whole purpose is to correct the behavior, lets find out if it worked?   Darkstar1st (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I just feel it would be courteous to let them know and be able to comment before any decision is made, as it does affect them as well as BlueRobe. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a fan of the "interaction ban" as proposed [not really an interaction ban, since, apparently, he'll still be editing the article that he knows will be populated by those he supposedly doesn't want to interact with]. Also, I'd say this proposal on banning normal use of BlueRobe's user page seems to misundersatnd the purpose of user pages (per WP:NOT).  But, anyways ... a huge part of the behavioral issues in this matter center on BlueRobe's ability to work collaboratively.  If he's still not ready to do work colloaboratively, then, IMO, he's not ready to be editing contentious articles on Wikipedia.  More pointedly, I'd say that 95% of the comments on BlueRobe's talk page from the editors in this "(not-really) interaction ban" are simple warnings about possibly problematic conduct.  If he can't react in a positive manner to something as simple as that, then it really clinches the case that he's not ready to edit contentious articles where a spirit of collaborative effort is a necessity. BigK HeX (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck, I no longer feel comfortable supporting based on some of the conversations below. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from BlueRobe
BR, what you just did to the template is for administrators who have performed an unblock. What you need to do here is respond to the above, acknowledging that Mark Nutley is indeed requesting an unblock at your behest, adding whatever behaviorial promises you'd like to make. Yworo (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanx for the revert. I was pretty sure I was doing something wrong, but I had some weird prompts asking me to post that (it wasn't terribly user-friendly). BlueRobe (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have nothing against you as a person or an editor, only against your frequent uncivil behavior. You certainly have every right to be heard if you want to acknowledge the unproductive nature of that behavior and agree to change it. Yworo (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Response I agree with User:marknutley's account of the facts and I accept the conditions proposed in the application for my unblock. Further more:
 * I would like to request that the interaction ban be extended to include User:Jrtayloriv. I can't say why - every time an editor points out my faults, that is justified with the claim that they are providing a reason for warning/blocking me, and every time I point out the faults in another editor, that is labelled a reason for blocking me. However, it is worth noting that, some weeks ago, I was asking Wikipaedia administrators to prohibit Jrtayloriv (specifically) and a few other editors from commenting on my user page, (frankly, I have no idea why they feel the need to read/comment in my user page at all). Ironically, it was my declaration that I was disengaging from all communication with Jrtayloriv that set the first storm into motion, where, bizarrely, my disengagement from Jrtayloriv was listed as a reason for blocking me. The absence of an /ignore function in Wikipaedia is a grave oversight that needs addressing, imho. If a condition was added where Jrtayloriv and I were prohibited from engaging in ANY communication whatsoever, this would be eagerly accepted by myself.
 * I also note that it seems somewhat absurd that the very people who have been "battling" me in the Talk:Libertarianism page, and "battling" other editors who share my critical concerns regarding the appalling state of the Libertarianism page, are the people who appear to be sitting in judgement of my application for Unblocking. Indeed, their conflict of interest could hardly be any more obvious. Do the Principles of Natural Justice not apply here, or am I failing to properly understand this process?
 * As for the criticism from User:Jeppiz, his sole complaint stems from my rejection of his AfD nomination in a single thread, here. I am clearly the lesser of two evils when that conversation is read in its full context. Basically, he (a complete stranger) just kicked-off with an array of baseless incivility when I disagreed with his Nomination for Deletion and he got his revenge by commenting in the ANI which led to me being blocked.
 * I probably have something else to add, but it's 5.33 in the morning here... BlueRobe (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional Response from BlueRobe BigK HeX has claimed (see below) that I am "not ready to edit contentious articles where a spirit of collaborative effort is a necessity". In reply to which, I'll repost a reply I gave to Yworo:


 * The last round of offers of a compromise, led by myself, Toa Nidhiki05 and North8000, are: here, here, here, and here. By and large, our offers of compromise have been met with silence. Although, BigK HeX did offer one uncompromising response here.
 * I am not pushing a political agenda in Libertarianism, (I'm not even a Libertarian - I'm an Anarcho-Libertarian, so my politics are significantly closer to the minor ideologies I am accused of attacking.) I have consistently sought to achieve consensus through compromise, which I have offered time and time again. Those offers of compromise have consistently been rejected or ignored or attacked as WP:OR. Indeed, a significant amount of my extreme frustration at the total lack of WP:COMPROMISE by certain editors is the main cause for me lashing out so inappropriately in the Talk:Libertarianism page. While that is no excuse, that is an explanation which some editors may be able to relate to. BlueRobe (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of why I was frustrated, I do recognise that I should not have responded with uncivil attacks against some of my fellow editors and that I should have addressed their clear breaches of Wikipaedia policy through the proper remedial channels that are readily available in Wikipaedia. BlueRobe (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: "I should have addressed their clear breaches of Wikipaedia policy..."
 * Oh ... please do elaborate. Since I seem to be a primary subject in your post, I'll ask if there are policies that I've "clearly breached"...? BigK HeX (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the words of the great philosopher, Admiral Ackbar, "It's a trap!" ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what trap there could be in asking you to elaborate on the supposed "clear breaches on policy" that seem to have plagued you. Seems being specific about these policy breaches can only help your situation here .... if they're not baseless claims, that is. BigK HeX (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BigK HeX, as you very well know, every single time that I have detailed the breaches of Wikipaedia policies and guidelines, by you or by one of your friends, you have used those diffs as evidence for warning/threatening/blocking me for breaching WP:AGF, WP:Civility, WP:NPA etcetera. Daring me to open myself to yet more allegations, by you (inevitably), is disingenuous. Please stop baiting, as per WP:BAIT. BlueRobe (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, your objections regarding some editors' "clear breaches of policy" have been used against you? If successfully used against you, then it sounds an awful lot like those accusations were blatantly baseless....
 * In any case, what would be disingenuous is for someone to try to further a shaky illusion that they've been some victim of other editors "clear breaches of policy", if the actual case were that the vague accusations regarding some other editors' behavior were baseless and only fabricated in order to shift blame away from one's own unjustifiable misbehavior. Refusing to detail specifically how you have been a victim almost makes the aforementioned scenario believable.
 * Lastly, asking you to elaborate on accusations that you have brought up unprompted isn't "baiting". BigK HeX (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BigK HeX, you don't appear to have addressed the concerns I raised in my post. BlueRobe (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st
blue is on a terrible internet connection, and got cut off before the part where he said he was sorry for the disruption he caused, and will not comment on other editors in the future. seeing how the article is now locked, there will be nothing to comment on anyways. . Darkstar1st (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX
Not a single explicit acknowledgment of fault, nor description of the civility remedies he plans. Moreover, his befuddlement at why other editors' pointing out his faults are "justified" seems to indicate that the weight of the situation has yet to sink in. Just my 2 cents. BigK HeX (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo
BR, I'm concerned about your use of "battling" with respect to other editors. The editors I believe you are referring to are (IMO) correctly insisting that WP policies about consensus, sourcing, and talk page usage be followed. This is in part evidenced by the response Xerographica received at AN/I from uninvolved admins. Before I could agree with your unblocking (not that it's up to me, of course), I'd need to see you acknowledge that perhaps you are in the wrong with respect to your interpretations of these policies and that enforcing them correctly is not battling. I'd also like to see an agreement to follow consensus, even when you disagree with it, and to work on improving the article within the bounds of that consensus. The consensus is currently that the article will represent a broad view of libertarianism. Are you prepared to accept that and go on to help improve the structure, balance, and lead summary of the article within the bounds of that consensus? If you cannot agree to that, would you voluntarily agree to a period of topic restrictions where you are disallowed from participating in Libertarian-related articles and discussions and work on other areas of interest for a while? Yworo (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueRobe has failed to accept the broad view based on the RS evidence (I explicitly pursued the point here). However, he has mentioned that he would accept it for the sake of argument in order to make his offer of stripping certain views from the lede and reducing most other mention to stubs, if I interpreted his "compromise" correctly. BigK HeX (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see that. Somehow the discussion has never really gotten down to that due to all the soapboxing from multiple parties. If there were general agreement to go with the consensus that the article should be an overview article, with proportional summaries for each subtopic and a main article link to the primary article, that'd be great. But it would need to be based on a reliable source or sources that give global population size estimates for the various Libertarian views, not on Google searches or any other original research-type methodologies. There must be sources for this sort of data out there somewhere.... Yworo (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was his compromise. I think essentially his proposal was to have the Libertarian article to reflect the practice of the United States Libertarian Party, with stubs for any viewpoints aside from this, no matter how well-sourced.  If you ask me, the "compromise" looked like another attempt (in a long line of many) which did little other than to POV push. BigK HeX (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I would support unblocking if that all the lip service he would give to the current consensus about the article breadth. I am open to him changing his mind about how to approach the current consensus, though. Yworo (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yworo, as a relatively new entrant to the discussion on Talk:Libertarianism, you may have missed the last round of offers of a compromise, here, here, here, and here. By an large, our offer has been met with silence. Although, BigK HeX did offer one uncompromising response here.
 * Yworo, I am not pushing a political agenda in Libertarianism, (I'm not even a Libertarian - I'm an Anarcho-Libertarian, so my politics are significantly closer to the minor ideologies I am accused of attacking.) I have consistently sought to achieve consensus through compromise, which I have offered time and time again. Those offers of compromise have consistently been rejected or ignored or attacked as WP:OR. Indeed, a significant amount of my extreme frustration at the total lack of WP:COMPROMISE by certain editors is the main cause for me lashing out so inappropriately in the Talk:Libertarianism page. While that is no excuse, that is an explanation which some editors may be able to relate to. BlueRobe (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BlueRobe, I looked through a lot of material on that page. I saw you proposed "compromises" that had no basis in any proposed source. You were repeatedly asked for sources, and you continued to insist that your hypothetical question be answered. Without a source proposed to base an answer on, neither you nor anyone else could do anything other than debate personal opinion on the matter. Just come up with sources that explicitly state your position. This seems to be an entrenched difference of opinion: surely this is reflected in the academic world? Surely there are academics that explicitly either exclude some things that call themselves "libertarian" from really being libertarian? Or which explicitly state the relative proportions or relevance? By not bringing sources to the table, you were wasting everyone's time. By being stubborn and not responding to requests to provide sources, you continued to waste everyone's time. Can you present a source here and now that will shed some light on the matter? Yworo (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yworo, this is from :
 * "Today, interpretations of right-libertarian ideological complex are most popular in the scientific literature and in the popular imagination. Yet, since the middle of 19th century – the concept of libertarianism had been used in a left political context, and only in 1950s its right ideological context use came into fashion."
 * Please note that I am not averse to providing WP:RS. I provide sources all the time. But, the effort frequently seems to be a complete waste of time, as was witnessed by the response to my draft proposal for a section on Ayn Rand (my first ever substantial contribution to a Wikipaedia article). BlueRobe (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, this supports the broad definition, suggests that there are differences in popularity in literature, but does not give any information about relative importance or distribution. Lacking some specifics of relative proportion of adherents, the article should cover all equally. It seems that other editors don't find your sources to be convincing support for what you'd like to do to the article. When this happens, you need to find better or more convincing sources, not argue more. Sure, it's disappointing when other editors don't find your arguments convincing. I've walked away from several articles myself when it became clear that my sources and arguments did not sway consensus. I even consider that I may have been wrong about what I was insisting was right. Sometimes I stick around and adapt, sometimes I just take the article off my watchlist. I may revisit it after a few months or I may not. Some tactics work better than others: once you start calling people names, I find that they stop listening even to reasonable arguments. I know I do sometimes. Yworo (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear that the WP:RS I provided supports the compromise that I have offered many times, (Mainstream Libertarianism (aka. right-Libertarianism) is the predominant ideology in the Libertarianism article and the lede. The minor ideologies of left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism each have their own sections, including a few sentences to note the features that distinguish those ideologies from mainstream Libertarianism, within the Libertarianism article). My frustration is not the result of failing to win support of those who disagree with me, (I love a good honest debate). My frustration is born of the realisation that certain editors have made it abundantly clear that they won't give an inch, in violation of WP:COMPROMISE, even if a nuclear WP:RS is detonated over their position. That is where the discussion in Talk:Libertarianism moved from civil debate to frustrated name-calling versus Wikilawyering. BlueRobe (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, people can reasonably disagree about that. Difference in popularity in literature does not necessarily translate into difference in popularity of belief. The same source makes it clear that the left political context is older and thus has more history, while the right context is newer and currently more popular. Thus, it's also reasonable to think that the explication of the older context may reasonably take just as much space to detail the history and usage as to detail the more elaborated current popular usage. A Wikipedia overview article is not necessarily supposed to represent only current trends any more than it is supposed to represent only a Western or Eastern or any other limited view. There are tags for both defects, "globalize" when the article is biased toward the view prevalent in one country, "recentism" when the article is biased toward the current state rather than the whole history. Taking a large view of the subject, is it really necessary to get so worked up about having the article be a particular way? It seriously needs better organization, let's focus on presentation rather than proportion. Yworo (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, therein lies the problem. ALL offers of compromise have been rejected. ALL our attempts to achieve consensus through compromise have failed because of the utterly uncompromising stance of certain editors to the Libertarianism page who, by their own admission, will revert all improvements to the article.

One of our compromises even went so far as to leave relative content as it is and rearrange that content so that people could distinguish the so-called variations of Libertarianism (left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Capitalism and mainstream Libertarianism) in the article instead of having all the variations mixed together throughout the article like an ideologically incoherent soup that contradicts itself in every other sentence. Even this generous offer was rejected, out-of-hand, (especially by BigK HeX). As I said, all offers of compromise, no matter how reasonable or generous, have been rejected. BlueRobe (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe it's the attitude of making "generous offers" rather than engaging in collegial collaboration that elicits that reaction. Who knows? All I know is that some people define insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. When you are unblocked, I suggest you simply try something different. Yworo (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In my efforts to successfully achieve consensus among the editorial community, I should try something different to generous offers of compromise ? I'm kinda speechless... BlueRobe (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe. To me, making a "generous offer" seems a bit condescending - that your position is definitely right but you're willing to hand out a tidbit to the inferior editors. Please note, I'm not saying that this is your actual attitude, just how it could be perceived. Rather than "generous offers", I'd rather see sincere back and forth discussion as a peer. Rather than focusing on the broad outline, perhaps focusing on a smaller area of the article that is most in need of work. For example, if the lead paragraphs could be worked out by consensus, then the outline of the article would naturally follow, or vice versa. Perhaps present an indented outline of how you envision the article structure along with relative proportions? Just some ideas. It is frequently better to make concrete proposals than engage in debate about broad concepts. Yworo (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a secret: IMO, none of your offers of "compromise" have been anywhere near "generous". Moreover, your compromises were largely pressed with a bargaining chip that was merely the threat that you'd continue to complain against consensus.  Instead you may want to try bringing us useful sources that directly support statements that are as strong as your claims (and not bring us original research or blatant exaggerations of material from RS). BigK HeX (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BigK HeX, I reject your claim that I "continue to complain against consensus." In the many weeks that I have been a regular editor to Libertarianism, consensus has never been reached on a single issue, per WP:CONSENSUS. Indeed, it is a source of considerable frustration for many of the editors that you (and User:TFD) continue to claim to represent the consensus of opinion for the Libertarianism editorial community when, clearly, there is a substantial and roughly-equal divide within that editorial community, (with roughly half a dozen regular editors on each side to virtually every dispute in Talk:Libertarianism, including the core dispute regarding WP:Undue Weight vis-a-vis the prominence of the minor ideologies within the Libertarianism article). BlueRobe (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes ... the apparent WP:IDHT from you is one of the largest factors in your behavior that editors have found to be disruptive. With regard to the proposals from the vocal minority, you continually cite a single RfC about an NPOV tag issue pushed by the vocal minority (which still failed), and you readily ignore the overwhelmingly clear rejection of the vocal minority's position in RfC's like these: Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_19, Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_22, Talk:Libertarianism ... all proposals premised on attempting to ignore the MANY reliable sources that describe the viewpoint where left-lib and right-lib are related variations of the same libertarian philosophy.   Rather notable is the fact that ~90% of the ~20 previously uninvolved editors that responded to RfC's have rejected proposals from the vocal minority -- there is NOTHING resembling a "roughly equal" divide.  I'd venture a guess that holding such an illusion will continue to be a source of trouble for you, should you cling to it. Learning to accept rough consensus that may not line up with one's preferred POV is a large part of learning curve for collaborative editing.  As Yworo has recommended, you should be able to tell us that you are willing to accept even a consensus that may not give you a lot fo what you want.  BigK HeX (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * BigK HeX, as I have already noted (above), I have consistently endeavoured to achieve consensus through compromise, (see here, here, here, and here). All offers of compromise have been rejected or ignored. I do not recall you making any offers of a compromise in order to help achieve consensus.


 * You appear to be ignoring the fact that we have, for the sake of building consensus among the editorial community, conceded that Left Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism have a place in the Libertarianism article, (see here). Indeed, every single one of the compromises we have offered include substantial sections for those ideologies, and, consequently, the discussion has long-since moved on to the issue of the WP:Undue Weight that is currently afforded those minor ideologies in the Libertarianism article. Please stop throwing that Straw Man at us.


 * As to consensus, given that there are generally half a dozen editors who reject just about every proposal made for the Libertarianism article, in a page with around a dozen regular editors, there is clearly no WP:CONSENSUS or even a WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS for any position. Please stop claiming that consensus exists within the Libertarianism editorial community, and that you represent that consensus, when that community is so thoroughly divided.


 * Regardless, as your post is a rather passionate breach of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BAIT, and you already appear to be entering WP:Battle mode, I am disengaging. BlueRobe (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Dubious accusations of policy breaches (such as the ones you've listed here) are unproductive and don't bode well for an unblock -- a review of WP:GAME may (or may not) be helpful here. Let me know if you're willing to continue the discussion and work towards congenial consensus-building.   BigK HeX (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeppiz
As I've been mentioned a few times, I'd like to make a few comments. I will assume that Marknutley is just being a careless reader when he claims that BlueRobe never called me an "angry freak" in the diff I provided. I can only invite him to read it again, as it is clearly there at the bottom of the page. As for BlueRobe, he continues to claim, in his reply above, that I attacked him. I did point out that it looked as if he had not read the nomination I had written, and I stand by that. (The nomination made it very clear that the subject is notable, but that the reason for nominating the article on AfD was that it is a newly created copy, a POV-fork, of an article that already exists. Given that, BlueRobe's comment that the article should be kept because it's notable, with which everybody agrees, completely ignoring the whole issue, that is is a copy, made me think that he had not read it.) It is entirely up to Marknutley and BlueRobe to decicde whether they feel my questioning BlueRobe's reading of the nomination is sufficient reason to call my response an "absurd rant", urge other editors to vote against me not because of the issue at hand but because of what he (falsely) supposes are my personal motives , say that I'm "ranting and raving"  and call me an "angry freak". As for the matter at hand, BlueRobe's block, I will leave that to the administrators but my personal opinion is that it could well be shortened down to two weeks as proposed.Jeppiz (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For anyone who is interested, the entire discussion between Jeppiz and myself is here. Just read it and judge for yourself. As far as I recall, that thread is the only interaction that Jeppiz and I have ever had, (not counting his subsequent comment in the ANI that led to me being blocked). I maintain that my admittedly inappropriate and snappish comments in that thread were provoked by Jeppiz's inexplicable breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Interestingly, the only other vote in that AfD thread was from User:LK, who is also a regular from Talk:Libertarianism, who also made a vote to Merge, (my vote was "Keep or Merge"). BlueRobe (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think BlueRobe is correct in saying that the AfD is the only interaction we've had, and I can only agree with his suggestion that anyone can read it for themselves. As I already said, I don't think that my question whether BlueRobe had actually read the AfD was a personal attack, and I don't think it justifies vocabulary such as "absurd rant", "ranting and raving" or "angry freak". BlueRobe's continued insistence that he thinks this was justified makes me question whether he will change his behaviour. Jeppiz (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz, regarding your comment that, "BlueRobe's continued insistence that he thinks this was justified...", my precise words (one post ago) were, "...my admittedly inappropriate and snappish comments...". BlueRobe (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand correct, my apologies for that.Jeppiz (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. It happens to all of us :-) BlueRobe (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's understandable that you would have missed his one line of "apology", considering that it was situated amongst dozens of lines of justifications for his behavior. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jrtayloriv, the phrase in question was one sentence out of the five sentences in that post. Please adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:BAIT. BlueRobe (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And yet another Clayton's Court is used to censor the voice of liberty. BlueRobe (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Jrtayloriv, I don't know what you said and I have deleted your post. I've long since learned to ignore everything you say. While I may disagree with what many editors say, and I recognise that [personal attacks redacted] BlueRobe (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of others and violations of WP:NPA. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing [mailto:unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org unblock-en-l], but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Block extended to indefinite
Please feel free to submit an unblock request which addresses the subject of how this is an edit by an editor who is a net positive to Wikipedia. Thank you, Black Kite (t) (c) 19:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To think at one stage I'd hoped you could be unblocked and helped to work contructively... Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * blood do you think the Libertarian article is npov? if not, slanted in which direction?  do you feel the majority of people searching the term are finding the material they sought there?  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point, anything to do with the article is a red herring: WP:NPA and WP:CIV are not optional. Slant or now, there are standards of behaviour here, and BlueRobe is breaking them. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For reference
Running a disruptive sock puppet here -- Snowded TALK  06:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked, article semi'd. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also User talk:122.60.93.162.- gadfium 05:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)