User talk:Keithgreenfan

Keith Green Edits
Hey Keithgreenfan. You added asterixes to the Keith Green Ministry Years page. What about the song "Walk and Talk" though?

Hi, Actually, believe it or not, "Walk and Talk" is the first song Keith ever recorded, before his first album, "For Him Who Has Ears to Hear". It's from the album "Firewind" which (I think) was a Christian musical. I don't own the album so it definately 'feels' like a new song to me too, but it's actually not!

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Keithgreenfan! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much !! Very kind. As you can tell by my username and prior edits, I joined a decade ago to edit one page and have only made a few more edits since then. Hopefully I’ll be able to contribute more soon! Keithgreenfan (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawing an RFC
RFCs typically run for a month or so. Per WP:RFCEND, an early close by a participant is for when the consensus is obvious. But your close summary seemed to indicate that you intended to continue arguing the issue. It would only be appropriate for you to close the RFC early if you planned to walk away from the dispute and accept the consensus of the other editors. MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Also says, “ There is no required minimum or maximum duration” . Please do not restart. Realized from further reading up on RFCs that this is likely not the most effective approach. Keithgreenfan (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Attempting to close a discussion that is going against you is extremely poor form. I'm going to give you a chance to self revert your latest edit - if you do not I think we will have to take this to WP:ANI as a user conduct issue. MrOllie (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not ‘going against me’ - no one was responding, except one user. Realized after reading up some more that an RFC wasn’t even the right approach to use in a situation like this. Keithgreenfan (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Keithgreenfan, please stop trying to close that RFC early. I understand that you're probably pretty confused about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is quite idiosyncratic in how it operates, so it's natural to make some mistakes like this. Elsewhere on the internet, you typically "own" whatever content you contribute, and nobody can mess with it. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a collaborative website, and nobody "owns" anything. We have rules on who can close an RFC, how long they last, etc. Nobody has explicitly told you not to edit war to close an RFC early, or what might happen to you if you continue to do it. So, I'm telling you now that you could be blocked from editing if you continue doing this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @NinjaRobotPirate, thanks. I’ve reopened the RFC. I should note I opened it in the first place, and closed it because (a) it was ineffective (only 1 responded) and (b) realized there was a better way to handle this. To me it’s urgent as the current edit has had flat out misinformation added to the lede since a week ago. To be honest, MrOllie and Sandstein appear to me to have an agenda and aren’t interested in a true collaborative discussion. I hope I’m wrong. (I think Loki, the new contributor, might be interested in a real discussion).
 * Any advice on how to promote this, or handle the situation? Another editor this week called it vandalism. I’ve avoided that term but in all honesty it’s pretty accurate. This isn’t a casual disagreement, it’s misinformation right in the Lede. Keithgreenfan (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that you're frustrated that you can't take back your own action. Sometimes you can do that on Wikipedia, and sometimes you can't.  Once other people get involved, it's no longer just "your action" – it's also there's, too, and you can't take back their actions.  This is a byproduct of being a collaborative project.  Although this makes Wikipedia bureaucratic and at times frustrating, the alternative would be to have little fiefdoms controlled by the first person to seize power.  Some people care deeply about the articles they edit.  There isn't anything wrong with that as long as they stay within Wikipedia's policies.  Other times, people can seem to have a strong agenda simply because they don't care.  If you care deeply about a topic, the dispassionate edits of a Wikipedia contributor who takes an axe to your beloved article can seem cruel and malicious.  This is one of the reasons why we have a guideline to assume good faith.  A lot of the time, things seem more important than they really are.  Wikipedia can be very frustrating if you think there's an emergency that needs to be solved immediately, but the rest of the community wants to let the gears of Wikipedia's bureaucracy to slowly grind.  There's an RFC open, so I'd suggest just letting that conclude.  Discussions aren't supposed to be fragmented into multiple dispute resolution methods.  If you think it's important, I suppose you could post a notification about the RFC at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard using {{subst:Rfc notice}}.  That might draw some people who are interested in resolving neutrality issues.  Using that template avoids the appearance of canvassing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments @NinjaRobotPirate. I’ve tried to believe good motives and honestly would still like to believe it, but so far actions are leaning toward otherwise. Again, I hope I’m wrong.
 * I get your point on the RFC. Thank you for taking the time to explain it. In this case, this is an article I had never edited that remained relatively unchanged for years. Then suddenly I see it has blatant falsehoods and misinformation right in the lede! It was alarming, and yes I did and do see it as an emergency. I hate people being misled with misinformation that can affect their lives. To me it’s no different than if a COVID-19 vaccine article began by saying vaccines are unsafe and ineffective.
 * Thanks for the tip on posting to the NPOV board. Believe it not, I discovered that tip when I opened the RFC and posted the template there. Was disappointed in only getting 1 responder. We now have a 2nd so maybe it will pick up. Keithgreenfan (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Accountability Software
@HTGS, thank you for explaining the thinking of Wikipedia editors. I've discovered that simply reading the WP: pages isn't enough as the practical application doesn't match what is written. Your explanation of how my 'zealousness' is being taken is helpful, as is the explanation of how RFCs are intended to be used.

If you have time, I'd love to get your take on my experience with this article. I have been an end user of accountability software for over 15 years. I recently googled 'accountability software' because I was considering switching providers. I scanned past the Wikipedia description, laughed, and thought, "Wow someone really vandalized that article!" I figured I would hop on real quick and fix it.

Let me pause and explain my reaction. To illustrate, imagine if the Wikipedia article on Norton Security Suite began like this:

"Norton Security Suite, or malware, is a software package designed to slow a user's computer under the guise of 'security'."

Of course NSS does the opposite. Arguments about it slowing a system should be covered, but of course that's not the software's purpose. If someone *believed* this lede, Wikipedia would have misled readers *away* from a potential solution to their malware issues.

I view the current edit of the 'accountability software' article the same way. It is, to me, not at all minor. It deceives the reader into thinking accountability software *causes* shame rather than being the key to *breaking* shame. It further deceives by implying accountability relationships are *primarily* one sided with authority figures in control. In practice, I've never seen even one example of that in 15 years, and I'm steeped in the culture of those who use this software. It is voluntary peer to peer. In fact, the church in the article violated policies of several accountability software companies.

The abuse of the software as described by Wired should of course be covered, but is is pure (and consequential) misinformation to make people believe the abuse of the software is its purpose. Actual *users* would react similar to me which causes no harm. My concern is for those trying to find actual solutions. They will be misinformed to think a *solution* to their problem actually *causes* the problem. Just google 'porn and suicide' to see why I think this is very consequential misinformation.

That's why I had such a strong reaction. If it merely made Wikipedia look bad I wouldn't be this passionate. That's just the start but this is already too long :). I'll pause and see if you have time to respond. Would love to hear your thoughts one way or the other. Thanks again for the earlier help. Keithgreenfan (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Fundamentally, I agree with you. The Wired article has a sprinkling of drama about the issue—calling it shameware gives the article more importance—and some other editors are interpreting it as straight. As others have said, it is one of few reliable sources on the matter, and we should lean on it, but sadly sometimes readers around here lean too heavily on the texts we have and what they say out loud, without reading into their subtexts. We have plenty of other issues around reading comprehension come up all the time. You do have to get used to it.
 * The best approach to changing something that you’ve been challenged on is softly softly. I think the best compromise for that particular page will be to remove the bolding from the word, and ideally emphasise that it is has been called shameware, rather than suggesting that it is known as shameware. Be aware that Wikipedia is still a place run and built by humans, so compromise and tact are just as useful here as anywhere else. Coming in and demanding that X be changed, or accusing Y of being a POV violation will get people’s backs up, and they’ll start wondering (consciously or unconsciously) whether you’re the owner of one of these companies, or whether you have other vested interests. At that point you’re going to lose people, and they’ll feel like they have to defend the article and make sure that people know that it’s shameware. Generally Wikipedians want the truth and they want to help our readers (it’s hard to stick around for long with malicious intent and go unnoticed). If you instead come at the issue with a stance like “the software isn’t really known as such, and maybe a note about how it’s known would be a better format for the lead”, you’ll usually have better luck. The fact that you do have an investment (of sorts) makes a lot of sense to me.
 * The thing about human-driven projects is that they tend to develop their own culture, and their own politics. Don’t worry about the politics if you just want to edit some articles here and there, but the culture does become its own thing. It’s not quite a workplace, but there are still the “ways we do things around here” that will catch out newcomers. Unlike a workplace, there isn’t an orientation, but I strongly recommend the WP:Teahouse if you find that you have questions—you’re welcome to ask me, of course, but I can tend to take a while to get back to you. — HTGS (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you @HTGS. Good advice. I have tried to be pleasant on WP during disagreements, including a back-and-forth over a year ago on the Babylon Bee page. But this felt very different. Let me continue my story. Again, would love your 'take' if you have time.
 * In the Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Accountability_software) under the section "Edits in September 2022", a discussion began between myself, Sandstein, and MrOllie. In the course of discussion they reverted both of my editing attempts (see below).
 * First attempt
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accountability_software&oldid=1112140136
 * Second attempt
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accountability_software&oldid=1112494691
 * Initially the discussion went okay, but it grew more hostile. They resisted *any* change and *any* common sense arguments I made. I have no problem with disagreeing but they came across as if they didn't want to collaborate, they just wanted to 'own' the article and not allow any edits whatsoever. Would love another pair of eyes on that discussion to see if you agree or disagree with my perception. I'm sure I'm missing things, and I probably contributed to the issues as well.
 * My biggest takeaway was feeling like they were 'in control' and trying to bully and intimidate to ensure no changes were made. That's why I moved toward the dispute resolution processes, which ended up being terrible in both cases. I somewhat felt manipulated into them. THEY knew how those processes go and I had no idea. Anyway, I'll pause here and see if you have time to respond. I appreciate the help. Keithgreenfan (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)