Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 8

Article suggestion
Hi folks, someone should write an article about Mark DeMoss, "Mitt Romney’s evangelical ambassador". There was an interesting profile of the guy on CNN.com yesterday. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding removal of verified content, change in scope, NPOV
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:You didn't build that. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Due to continued attacks upon myself, both personal, and claims against my conduct, I have stopped watching the article which I created 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech. I ask others to attempt to keep the article neutral, per WP:NPOV, if if others believe that NPOV means creating an article that is anti-Romney. My regards.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is this article in wikiproject conservatism? What does the article have to do with conservatism? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no rule saying that only "conservative" articles can be listed here that I know of. In fact the LGBT project lists a number of people who are not LGBT as an interest of that project, etc.  All that matters is that some member think the article is of interest -- as I am not a member here, I do not try to tell the members what to do.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But I think it's a good question. The page, apparently, is specifically about a speech by Barack Obama, who clearly is not regarded by mainstream sources as a conservative. It's really less a matter of whether or not the page is included in the WikiProject, but rather, why the Project's talk page, as opposed to for example WP:NPOVN, would be an appropriate place to seek editors to address a POV dispute. There is an appearance that the intent is to attract editors with a particular political POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd presume it is tagged because of how conservatives have turned it into a campaign argument and how it has become a major talking point.  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the page name is now "You didn't build that". That explains the tagging as part of the Project, but not the use of the Project to attract more editors for a POV issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see no one has responded to his request, so what is the issue? I don't have the page watched and really have no intentions to.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that looks a lot like vote-banking. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan needs our help!!!
Just when you thought there was nothing for WPRight members to do this election season, David Axelrod says that Ryan is a "certifiable right-wing ideologue." LOL. Colleagues, the 2012 campaign has taken a decidedly sharp turn to the right and it's time for us to get off of our asses. Did you know that Obama's article is FA? And Biden and Mitt are GA? Guess what Paul's article is... C!!! Yikes. Who wants to plaster a shiny green plus on their userpages? It's time for a collaboration!!!– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 07:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sign here for Paul Ryan GA Team
 * 1) – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 07:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Never tried to improve a BLP to GA-status but hopefully I can help out.  Toa   Nidhiki05  16:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to extend a warm welcome to all of our Team Ryan GA members and a special welcome to Toa. Toa has bagged 33 Good Articles and a couple Featured Lists: his experience will be an asset. I cannot overemphasize there is nothing more important than promoting Paul Ryan to Good Article . In order to accomplish this we'll have to leave our personal differences at the proverbial door. This will be only the 2nd collaboration of WikiProject Conservatism, and I can't think of a better topic nor a better time. Please review the GA criteria WP:GA? at your convenience. I for one am eager to get this party started! In accordance with our wikiproject nomination requirement I officially certify the Paul Ryan WikiProject Conservatism Collaboration!– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 04:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest as the first order of business that we check each citation - that way we can identify questionable ones as well as fix errors. From what I've seen the citations are a mess, using different date formats - in my experience, consistency in citation formatting is a major issue for GA reviewers. We need to have a uniform system of dating for all citations. Making sure publisher and work fields are chosen correctly is important, as well as linking all applicable pages. Barelink URLs should be replaced with citations templates as well. What the Good article criteria are not is an excellent resource as to the bare minimum of what is required. I'd volunteer to check all the citations and note any errors, and hopefully we can work on them from there.  Toa   Nidhiki05  02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When a certain editor signed up I initially had my reservations, but I decided to put the pedia first and ask everyone to "leave our personal differences at the proverbial door." Well a recent series of confrontations with the certain editor make it impossible for this team to proceed as assembled. I am therefore forced to reluctantly withdraw from this effort. Good luck to Toa and IRWolfie.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 04:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noting for those looking to improve this article I have provided an initial review with a list of suggestions for meeting up to the GA standard.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the coming days I'll try to work through the suggestions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I started doing some of the improvements suggested a while ago but decided to wait till after the election due to the edit warring/sys protecting etc etc which is present at present. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proper understanding of "help"
Improving the page is an excellent goal, and I don't mean to find fault with that. However, what David Axelrod said has nothing to do with it, nor is any implied intention to argue against what Axelrod said. In fact, depending upon how the sourcing lines up, it might even be appropriate to quote and cite Axelrod's statement, so long as it isn't given undue weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing of Paul Ryan reported in the media
Both of these stories mention this diff by User:Ccchhhrrriiisss with the summary "Removed unnecessary statement from Early Life about prom king or '"Brown Noser.' This is not needed in article is not common in such brief survey". Interesting stuff. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Paul Ryan, 'Brown Noser'? The Wikipedia Edit Wars Begin for Romney's Running Mate", August 11, The Atlantic
 * "The Paul Ryan Wikipedia edits begin", August 11, Politico

NPOV edit requests
A listing for an article to be checked for NPOV should not indicate in what direction the article is considered biased--doing it here amounts to lobbying. It is better to ask for attention, and let the editor judge for themselves when they see the article and the discussions. The place for specific concerns is not this project, but the individual article talk page. I have changed the listings according. This is a place to improve articles on conservatism, not to correct perceived liberal bias more generally. As Vargas is not by any account a conservative, I have removed his article from the list.  DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 Toa   Nidhiki05  21:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also note that I have been watching as well, and would remind participants that the goal of any project is to improve articles, not to insure any article has a particular perspective in them. I am forced to do a full review in the near future as I am concerned. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Add my name to the growing list of admins who are becoming concerned. It appears as though some members of this project have lost sight of the fact that the goal of Wikipedia is to report neutrally on subjects, not promote them. As such, your goals should be to ensure Conservative articles are accurate, NPOV, well sourced, and well written - not that they are written from the conservative viewpoint. I appreciate that to everyone, their view seems neutral and correct, but try a little more writing from the sources, and writing for the enemy and a little less writing from the Conservative POV. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 11:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just adding my name to that list. Just a month or so ago, I thoroughly reviewed the founder of this project and raised significant issues with the worst of his editing habits. I know that one editor does not make a project and having reviewed other editors, I've not found the same issues in all members, but as a whole I do see problems with POV pushing and lobbying. Think very carefully about what the goal and scope of this project is, if you want it to remain in the future.  Worm TT( talk ) 11:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't the position of this project to give any particular POV to articles - our stated goal is to identify and improve articles related to Conservatism (broadly defined), ultimately with the goal of creating articles with a proper balance and neutral point of view and improving them to FA status. While such a goal is lofty, from a practical standpoint, such a classification would be impossible if articles were slanted to a conservative point of view, as FAC is an extremely strict and difficult process. Similarly, achieving GA and FL status for biased articles would be difficult barriers as well due to their criteria. Ultimately, members should strive to represent views in proportion and to create articles which lack a political slant in any direction, and I feel the vast majority of the members of this project comply with that.  Toa   Nidhiki05  14:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a problem is that there are articles that are written not with a neutral POV, but with a POV that is biased towards certain POVs (more often than not, not conservative ). Therefore, to highlight this, not to advance a conservative POV, but to provide a more balanced and thus neutral POV is important. Others may see this as advancing a conservative POV, but that is not the case. If articles are written with a non-neutral POV that should be highlighted.
 * Moreover, as  Toa   Nidhiki05  has said, like other Wikiprojects goals of this wikiproject are also to improve articles that fall under its scope and increase the quality, as well as create articles that fall under its scope.
 * The comments that this Wikiproject is here to advance a POV is not the case, IMHO, and this accusation needs to be buried.
 * Imagine if we were to say this about other Wikiprojects such as the Barack Obama Wikiproject or any others, it would be laughed at and not taken seriously and brushed off on its face; yet here it is taken seriously?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually matters very little whether the project members are coordinating to combat what they perceive as a "liberal bias", or simply coordinating to push a right-wing POV. The practical result is the same: this project organizes editors along specific ideological grounds, and coordinates their efforts to advance that ideology. A WikiProject which explicitly organizes editors by partisan political ideology, while not categorically forbidden, has an immense potential for abuse. Not only have project members failed to address that potential constructively and proactively, but they've consistently and stridently refused to believe that any such potential for abuse exists. The more Wikipedians observe this project in action, the more expressions of concern (like those above) you're going to receive - because the way this project currently functions is inimical to Wikipedia's policies and best practices, and there appears to be zero desire on the part of active project members to grapple with good-faith concerns. Instead, in keeping with the general battleground mentality embodied in this project, the response has been to bunker down, circle the wagons, and hit back aggressively at any concerns that are voiced. MastCell Talk 17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not have said it better. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mast, I'm not sure why you decided to respond like that - I responded civilly and respectfully to the admin claims, which were made respectfully and by editors in good standing. You have been involved here before, all the way back to when we had an MfD filed against us (that was soundly rejected), and I'm not sure what exactly you add to this discussion by making the claims you are making. In contrast to the straw-man you set up, (at least) I have acknowledged some editors are problematic and might try to make articles slanted - however, I noted that such articles would not pass FA or even GA, which rely entirely on outside examination. I'd prefer you discuss the issues in a way that isn't accusing us of being evil, horrible editors trying to disrupt Wikipedia - because that is essentially what an active, willful violation of policy is.
 * Part of the reason why our project is skeptical of outside probes is the repeated attempts to destroy or forcibly change it (particularly scope-changing discussions often launched by non-members in violation of WP:PROJGUIDE). Almost all were launched by the same group of 4-6 editors and all of them rejected by the Project - most of these attempts were either to delete, rename, change the scope, or split the Project. Essentially, the demand was we either cut out all the American articles or all the non-American articles.
 * Since those attempts to change the scope and limit the project to national varieties of conservatism ended quite a while back, the project has instead been accused od 'vote-stacking', 'POV-pushing', and other major violations. Instead of focusing on the editors that might actually be doing these, outside editors have utilized their membership in this project to collectively accuse our 80+ editors of major charges without any diffs. The fact is, the vast majority of our editors have done nothing to deserve being leveled with charges of that magnitude. We are more than open to suggestions and constructive advice - however, we are not going to just sit down and let people kick us. Give us solid advice, or maybe join and try to help out - if you have good ideas, they may well be accepted. We aren't unreasonable people, and good faith advice is always welcome. But don't accuse innocent editors of violations. The way you present your claims are key - I'd rather have a discussion, not a battle.  Toa   Nidhiki05  18:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your civility, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. You mentioned my involvement in the MfD, so I went back and looked - and I expressed the same concerns back then as now (so at least I'm consistent, I guess; and I remember failing to be reassured by your argument that "WikiProjects are essentially places for people of a similar bias to join together on that common bias.") In terms of concrete suggestions, I have a very simple one: this project needs to make an effort to police itself. That should be a pretty straightforward response if you recognize the potential for abuse embodied in an ideological WikiProject. And it's not hard to find places to start: one thread up there's a blatant example of a project member engaging in inappropriate canvassing. But the project response was: "As far as I can see no one has responded to his request, so what is the issue?" I think that if there were at least a token effort by project members to proactively address obvious abuses, the concern about painting all members with a broad brush would evaporate. That's my suggestion. MastCell Talk 19:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an entirely legitimate and reasonable request, but a major issue exists with refactoring or removing a talk page comment without the consent of the other person. A WikiProject is the proper area to alert project members of a discussion such as an RfC or deletion request, although the request did not come off as especially neutral. Perhaps a system can be made where such messages can be delivered in a neutral and non-partisan tone.
 * As a side note, the response (which was mine) was not on behalf of the Project - we have no real leadership so no response is 'official', per say. My other remark from a year ago was also ill-spoken - my intent was to say that a WikiProject is a place where people of similar interest can work on and collaborate to improve articles on that interest. I equated 'bias' with 'interest' and the wording was rather poor, IMO.  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't want to take your words from the MfD out of context, and I should have clarified that by "project response", I meant that you were the only project member to respond. I don't think it's a matter of removing or refactoring other peoples' talkpage posts. Just a simple response stating that the request was inappropriate would help delineate things. MastCell Talk 20:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't really take them out of context, I just wanted to clarify the very poor wording. Its my fault the wording is poor, not yours. Aside from that, your proposal is fine - if nobody objects, I'll add a section to the FAQ that will read accordingly:
 * "Q: I feel WikiProject Conservatism and its members should be alerted of something. Can I post it here? A: Per Canvassing, it is perfectly acceptable to notify WikiProjects of major discussions (for instance, RfC, AfD, GAN, FAN, or FLC discussions) on articles within their scope. However, the intent of your post should be to improve, not slant, discussion, and your post should be "polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". So as long as you follow those guidelines, it is acceptable to notify WikiProject Conservatism of discussions on articles within our scope."
 * Toa, I think that addition would indeed be helpful, with the understanding that the concerns raised here really focus on "neutrally worded with a neutral title", and not on "polite". If you (collectively) look at the corrections that DGG made to the listing, that's really what people here are talking about.


 * I'd like to say something more about "editing for NPOV" compared with "editing to correct a systemic POV". When I first started editing, I began to notice a systemic pro-animal-rights POV (and anti-medical-research POV, which is what initially caught my attention) in articles under the animal rights WikiProject. I became interested in editing those articles for NPOV, and encountered some very intense editorial disagreements. Because most of my edits, especially in the beginning, were attempting to correct what I believe were a POV, those edits could, and sometimes were, perceived as carrying a POV going the other way, and I got some pretty nasty things said to me. But I think, today, that my edits are seen as having been constructive, and most of those pages are a lot better than they used to be.


 * I did things differently than does this WikiProject, and there are two ways I can think of that are significant for this discussion. First, I worked as an individual editor rather than as part of a project, and nothing I did could ever be mistaken for canvassing. Second, it became apparent as time went on that I didn't simply edit from one POV. I've made plenty of edits sympathetic to animal rights, against criticisms of animal rights, when I felt those criticisms violated NPOV or BLP, etc. I think that there have times when some, not all, members of this project have manifestly not edited in those ways. My constructive advice to everyone in this project is to make every edit you make as though you were expecting ArbCom to be reviewing your edits. In fact, that might very well happen, but even if it doesn't, it's just a good editing habit to get into. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that's a given? The advice the answer gives is to follow the guideline, which I condensed to a sentence that defines what such a post should represent. It needs to be short, concise, and neutrally worded. I've bolded the text for emphasis if that helps.  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I would hope that what I said was a "given", or at least common sense. But if you look at what DGG had to correct, I think that it needed to be said. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see very little has changed here since I last popped in. I tried to work very hard with you then to sort out potential issues. And they are just getting worse. I am not trying to antagonize the project at all, but that seems to be the way any suggestion given is taken. I think it is time that project understood that there is in fact a problem, and it has nothing to do with bias of other editors. Why should so many people see it, if it is not there? I am not saying the project is bad, wrong or otherwise. Just that these issues should be sorted, for the good of the encyclopedia. RGloucester (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You do realize I just took a suggestion and accepted it, correct? Your previous attempts to move the project and change the scope were in clear violation of WikiProject Guidelines policy on scopes and was thus illegitimate - add that to the fact the scope issue had been discussed numerous times and that we clearly were not interested in moving the project it is no surprise we rejected your ideas. Such a move would have abandoned our editors interested in foreign varieties of conservatism and would have limited efforts to help or improve them, and a smaller scope results in less members. The key to keeping a project alive is a broad scope that invites activity from a variety of editors.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you will remember, and as the archives show, I accepted that you did not want to eliminate foreign conservatism. Instead I came up for a proposal for a broad, but more clearly defined scope that could help eliminate some of the problems that are discussed here. Taken from the archives, this was my final proposal, which was created after dialogue and debate with others:


 * RGloucester's Modified Version of Will Beback's Version:
 * Project:Conservatism aims to provide coverage to all political and social topics that are either:
 * 1) Self-described as "conservative",
 * 2) Described as "conservative" by multiple reliable sources in the context of their nation of origin,
 * 3) Are commonly-held to be "conservative" in their nation of origin,
 * 4) Are otherwise closely connected to some form of conservatism.
 * 5) While doing this, the project recognizes the diverse interpretations of what the appellation “conservative” may refer to.

Taken from here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism/Archive 5 RGloucester (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC) First off, why the heck did you tamper with my signature? There isn't any reason to do it. At all. Ever. Second, we had already discussed the scope far too many times. In the end, project members rejected your proposal. Why are you still sour about it? We didn't want your change, we liked the current scope and wanted to keep it.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Toa, that's a very useful addition to the WikiProject guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't add anything. I simply said:
 * 1) WikiProject Guidelines state is that the WikiProject has the exclusive right to define its scope. This automatically prevents scope and move-related discussions by non-members due to de facto change in scope. and
 * 2) The scope had been discussed a ridiculous number of times, each of them rejected by the Project. Which of those is 'adding to guidelines'?  Toa   Nidhiki05  02:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the signature bit. My computer automatically converts the typewriter quotation marks into the curly ones, without asking me, which screws up certain templates and things…it plagues me when editing, believe me. I don’t know how to shut it off. RGloucester (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, that's a bit odd; I knew a guy on another wiki who had a similar text-replacing issue, so I don't think it is unheard of. Have you tried using a different browser?  Toa   Nidhiki05  02:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Projects are not independent, but their actions are subject to the approval of the community. Projects define their scope, but we have never approved of projects trying to take over too broad a field. Indeed, since all of recent American (and Western European & possibly elsewhere) political life is divided according to the various flavors or liberalism and conservatism, the project could us a justification such as given above for labeling all articles on 1930_ American politics, economics, and and political history. Since some forms of conservatism (and liberalism) deal with all social and well as political issues, they could similarly label as their own all social issue, even the most general. This is a division of Wikipedia along ideological lines.
 * We do not counter liberal bias by introducing equal but opposite bias. NPOV does not mean we hold a debate between two positions--it means we write about every issue neutrally. Otherwise, this becomes not an encyclopedia but a debating society, or the sort of pro and con guides published for debaters. Some inherently partisan issue such as articles on election debates may divide in this fashion inevitably, but not most political topics. (I'm thinking here of some of the work on American history articles by editors whom I personally know to be very conservative, probably considerably beyond the majority of conservative editors at this project,  but I only know that because I personally know them--I would not have been able to tell from their edits.)  DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor points:
 * One WikiProject has more than one million articles currently tagged as being within its scope, and has never received a single complaint about that. There are about a dozen that have more than 100,000 articles that they support, and only one of them has ever had complaints about its scope being "too big" (and those complaints come only from tiny WikiProjects who thought their groups should be the only ones allowed to support "their" articles).  This group, with a mere 4,600 articles is nowhere near that level.  There really cannot be any serious complaint about them "trying to take over too broad a field" when they are supporting less than 0.5% of the articles supported by the WikiProject with the largest scope.
 * A WikiProject is a group of people, not a subject area. We have dozens or perhaps hundreds of WikiProjects that have no traditional subject area at all, like WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.  The community welcomes their help, even though these groups could properly tag every single article in the entire encyclopedia as being within their scope (if, in fact, that's what they wanted to support).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * When a project goes from coordinating efforts to improve articles that have a common theme (an accepted use), to the point of promoting a philosophy (an unacceptable use), then the community has no choice but to step in and correct the problem. It isn't good practice for a Project to promote or endorse editing in a manner that is biased, no matter how subtle the endorsement. I think DGG's edits here have been mild (too mild in fact) and I'm concerned that if the members (particularly the founder User:Lionelt, who has been off wiki for several days) understand the concerns, or if a formal review by the entire community is required.  While Project are given considerable leeway in determining their scope and purpose, they are not immune from policy.  Like editors, they are accountable to and operate at the pleasure of the greater community. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary sub section break for clarity
It strikes me that DGG's comment does not really represent practice with regards to notifications regarding bias. When someone leaves a notification regarding suspected bias at a noticeboard I would hardly expect anyone to take the claim seriously unless there was some mention made of the potential bias that needs to be offset. The article in question seemed fairly balanced at the time it was created, though reactions were organized in a manner that might give one the impression it was biased because it reads in a sort of point/counter-point style with criticism from one side dominating the first part of a section followed by the other side's criticism in the next part of the section rather than mixing it together. Looking at the edits made by Mast and others, however, it is pretty obvious Right's concern about a specific slant was within reason. I saw maybe one edit by Mast that did not strongly favor a view critical of Romney in that article and the edit summaries were loaded with partisan snipes, so it makes perfect sense that Right would perceive some editors as actively attempting to slant the article towards a certain partisan outlook. I think Mast's conduct in this dispute is rather troubling and exemplifies the very conduct he assigns to this WikiProject.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * a neutral wording on notice here indeed may not represent past practice here, but it represents proper WP practice. Consider the basic NPOV tag--it refers to the talk page to see the problems. Consider the standards for notifying editors about a debate. (I am not saying some other projects may never have done similarly, but most are extremely careful.) DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree 100% regarding MastCell. The linked diff follows the WP:LEAD guideline by expanding the lead section to summarize the main article points taken from independent sources. Before that, the lead section had only Romney and Obama reactions, not third party fact checkers. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding material about fact-checkers to the lede in itself was not the problem. The extent and form of material was a problem. Contrasted with Right's editing, it is pretty clear who is the more biased of the two.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter who is the morebiased of the two. If either have a bias, they should not show it. Saying "X is less biased than Y "is not a defense of X, but an confirmation that X is in error as well as Y. This discussion is not or at least is not intended to be about individual editors. I mentioned no names, nor do I intend to.   DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That mentality is terribly misguided and seems to arise out of the common misconception that bias is a behavioral tendency when it is actually a cognitive impairment. Since complete objectivity is a rare trait, if it exists at all, few people on this site fail to show bias in their editing to some extent on certain issues and their editing almost always focuses on those issues, so it is really a question of severity. If objectivity were in any way common on Wikipedia then consensus on the talk page would be unnecessary. Wikipedia often only works because biased individuals accept that they will not get anything done without making concessions or because someone who has no stake in that dispute gets involved. The real problem is when bias towards a certain position also involves bias against those holding different positions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bias is bias. Everyone may have biases, but they are expected to put them to the side when editing, and particularly when organizing or participating in a Project.  Bias is a form of COI, in part, and should be treated as much.  That means some people are able to set their personal feelings to the side and be objective, and others must simply avoid those areas where they have strong emotional concerns.  Most of us have areas where our opinions are too strong to be objective, so we avoid those areas.  The key is being wise enough to know the difference, or having others kind enough to let us know when we haven't.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 17:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you clearly demonstrate that you do not understand the way bias works. Having a strong opinion is not the same as having a bias. The key thing to understand about bias is that it involves an inability to accurately comprehend alternative views. As far as editing Wikipedia articles, what really matters when contributing to articles is bias regarding individuals. Productive contributions to Wikipedia require compromise, not objectivity. If you can tolerate the people on the other side enough to listen to their views you can compromise without being objective about their views. Opinions and beliefs are quite irrelevant as they do not speak to bias on their own.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is injecting that "strong opinion" in the actions and articles in a way that is counter to the objectives of building an encyclopedia, and encouraging others to counter what they see as a liberal bias to inject a conservative bias, in the name of balance. This is not neutral.  But I'm willing to take this to an RfC and more than willing to allow the community as a whole review, to determine if there is reason for concern that the project may be stepping out of the accepted role of informational, to advocacy. It appears that many others share the same concern, and have voiced their concerns here.  To simply dismiss them is not understanding the scale of the concerns.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 13:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not dismissing concerns about the project, but making sure we understand what we are talking about and suggest the right kind of action. Should admins start dismantling wikiprojects for alleged bias based solely on the desire of its members to counter a specific bias, and block or ban editors for making edits that are simply perceived to be biased then the result will be the heat death of the wikiverse. Most editors are biased and edit in a manner that reflects their bias. You cannot stop that as it would require a seachange in human psychology that is well beyond Wikipedia's ability to engineer.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The goal is certainly not to dismantle, it is to seek acknowledgement of the issues, pinpoint the particular issues, fix those issues, and gain an understanding of how to move forward so the concerns no longer exist. The goal is resolution using the least extreme method possible.  Sometimes this requires those at the Project to make it clear what is not an acceptable goal of a project, just as at WP:WER, we made it clear that we would not be pointing fingers at any editor or admin, and we would condemn any effort that resembled a witch hunt.  The goal was to bring people together, not draw a line in the sand between "us" and "them".  We need Projects in particularly contentious areas to add clarity, self-limits, to insure the participants understand not only what you want to do together, but what pitfalls you must avoid.  The solution can be as simple as adding clarity to the goals, and removing material (as DGG boldly did) that appear to be advocacy of a particular political position.  The best solution is for the participants to objectively looks at the policies and guidelines and self-correct, which is what I hope to accomplish.  If a Project can't do this themselves, then it forces the greater community to play a role.  But self-correction is always the first choice, and is still available now. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the material DGG removed referring to this? That may have been a poor choice of words, but I fail to see how it is in any way "advocacy" of anything. Reform is always the preferred route, but some of the participants in recent discussions of the wikiproject clearly express a desire to dismantle it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the issue isn't just the poor choice of words but the attitude exemplified by it and shown elsewhere. Specifically, this project sometimes seems to act as if it owns conservatism-related articles, such that edits by outsiders who are not conservative are seen as the opposition. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Devil's Advocate, I can only speak for myself when I say my goal is to see the Project take greater steps in engaging rather than dividing, to insure that every member understands the goal is about improving the quality of articles and not injecting any philosophy, and that there is no "them", only "us". If I were satisfied that the principal participants understood the broader nature of the concern (the single edit was just that, a single example) and they genuinely wanted to insure that advocacy of any philosophy was not endorsed, then by my very nature, I would be opposed to dismantling anything.  What I want is clarity, fairness, and an understanding that we aren't here to fix liberal bias by injecting conservative bias.  Projects are responsible for insuring they don't send the wrong message to editors, that they don't accidentally condone or promote activities that are counter to our larger goals.  First and foremost, my objective is to get the point across so a community wide discussion isn't required. If I fail at this, then the greater community will have to decide the proper action at an RfC or similar venue, but the status quo isn't acceptable.  I would imagine that others expressing their concerns here would agree with me, or could be persuaded if it was obvious the Project was going out of their way to promote neutrality and not ideology.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except fixing liberal bias does not inherently entail injecting conservative bias and that appears to be what is being said by citing, in connection with this wikiproject, Lionel's userspace essay, which reads to me as discussing policy-compliant ways to address a specific bias Lionel sees evidenced at articles.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We should expect political articles to accrue bias of all sorts, so a strange focus on one sort of bias is problematic. Also, while you're right in principle, this isn't what's happening in practice. As useful as it is to look at motives (or, at least, stated motives), actual results matter more. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Since I have concerns about my ability to remain neutral on this subject, I must regretfully decline to get involved in this project. I would note however, I think it would be proper to have cross-links between this project and WikiProject Politics/Liberalism and WikiProject Libertarianism.  Perhaps in a "See also" section.  Just a thought. —   Ched  ZILLA  19:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ched, about looking at the Liberalism project, you and others may find it illuminating to look back at, , , and . Draw your own conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, the Liberalism task force is rather toast. No “real” members, no activity at all. It may not be the best example. RGloucester (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that misses the point, at least as I see it. But then again, I invited everyone to draw their own conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are similar problems with similar projects, then of course we want similar fixes. But we start somewhere, and this is the most active, and where we start.  Unfortunately, I'm not seeing much engagement, and I'm hoping that a full RfC isn't required, but I suppose I will start preparing for one.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Should an RfC result, how will the RfC be "advertised" to the wider Wikipedia Community which may not be aware of the potential for bias manipulation. I ask that because most editors are not aware of the important issues discussed at the various RfC's. Will there be specific mention in the Signpost, for instance? Will canvassing be permitted? I'm sure the members of this project will be advised but how will a wider "Protect the Encyclopedia" audience be made aware?```Buster Seven   Talk  12:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is clearly not acceptable. I would suggest, in addition to WP:RFC, that WP:CENT be used, and a watchlist notice should at least be considered. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally think an RFC is necessary. My last experience of trying to “engage” with the project resulted in nothing but anxiety. I am seeing very similar, if not worse reactions here. I think this problem should be solved. Then the project can move forward, and continue to provide valuable contributions to Wikipedia, without all the nonsense. RGloucester (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the election silly season started, I've noticed a 'ganging up' by some members of this wikiproject at politically sensitive articles. I think that the POV rhetoric encouraged by the wikiproject is worsening unconstructive behavior. This is bad. FurrySings (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WADR...will editors please stop referring to this as "silly season". This is the most serious season in decades. And, as Furry notes, the rhetoric isn't silly. It endangers the encyclopedia.```Buster Seven   Talk  01:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to start an RFC, I think you need to spend sometime thinking about the question to ask and the answer you want to get. Most RFCs like this are best handled as a yes/no question, rather than an open-ended free-for-all in which people feel emboldened to say mean things about other people, usually based on their own pro- or anti-(whatever the subject is) bigotry.
 * The potential questions that occur to me after reading all this are unhelpful, e.g., "Should we all behave in a way that permits us to pretend that members of a group that works on articles related to a political viewpoint aren't likely to hold that viewpoint to some extent?" or "Shall we all pretend that if an article is reported here as having an inappropriate political bias, but with a strictly neutral, information-free message, that nobody here will be able to guess which way the article is biased?" or "Shall we refuse to let people work together in a group, unless they hold the Right political views?"
 * So since those are lousy questions, and I can't think of a good one, perhaps those of you who think an RFC would be at all useful should spend a while thinking about what you want to get out of it, and therefore what kind of a question to ask. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If RfC is to be held should it discuss all political philosophy wikiprojects, as was mentioned earlier by  Ched  ZILLA ? For instance there is WP:SOCIALISM, just one of several such wikiprojects (including this one). As the issue is can political philosophy wikiprojects be used to further a bias, and since it has been stated earlier that the concern is that since there is a potential in such projects to be used in the manor, shouldn't the RfC be regarding all WikiProjects within that scope? Additionally, as there are perceived existing biases, and as there appears to be differences on how NPOV is viewed in balancing or removing those biases, should that be discussed as well?—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There really is no Liberalism task force (the project became a task force of WP:Politics to avoid the very issue that we are talking about here). It has no members, and no activity at all. It might as well be marked as dead. The Socialism project is basically inactive as well, though it tags a few more articles. But it has few members, and little purpose. The Libertarianism project is ever so slightly more active, but still very small in comparison to WP:Conservatism. Herein lies some of the problem….this Project is huge. I’m not necessarily saying that that is a problem, but it does pose some questions about how deal with this situation. Also, none of the other projects have had the issues we talk about here. If they did, they would’ve been called out on it. And anyway, as I said, they really are somewhat non-entities on Wikipedia in comparison to the Conservatism project. Even so, anything we decided in an RfC would most likely apply to any future political philosophy projects, or any of the previous projects if they are revived.RGloucester (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the listed members of this project, like I am pretty much one of the listed members of a lot of projects around here. I can and do see that there may well be some reasonable claim to say that there may be a bit of a liberal bias in some media, although, clearly, not all, and, yes, there is certainly a conservative bias in some other media as well. New ideas tend to often be "sexier" than older ideas, and get more attention, and, honestly, conservatism is, more or less, about old ideas. It also, however, tends to be perhaps a bit more clearly written about in reliable sources, for pretty much the same reasons, which might itself make such a group a bit more active. Having said that, I too have reservations about any WikiProject trying to "promote" a viewpoint, although, clearly, most of the religion projects, sometimes I think deservedly, and some projects related to some form of philosophy, could also be accused of potentially doing the same thing. My own personal choice, if it mattered much, would be for pretty much every political philosophy group to be active, and, preferably, to have a rather clearly defined idea of what are the primary articles to its topic. I'm not entirely sure that any groups related to political theory do that. I can't fault a group from working on, effectively, promoting the philosophy of its core topic, because I think they all probably do that, but I might like to see maybe a bit more focus in them on developing articles directly related to topics of greatest importance to their subject rather than, maybe, creating a large number of comparatively poor articles. Maybe merging the project into a broader political WikiProject might be the best way to go, but I also think that I would be very happy to see Lionel, and maybe a few of the other more active editors of this project, chime in and maybe indicate any ways they can think of to address the problems this group is perceived as having. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This project is not going to be absorbed into a Project. The membership here has debated that and rejected it due to the loss of project resources. Further, such a discussion would have to be among the Project itself (ie. no non-member !votes) as it directly affects the scope of the project.
 * I'm open to improvements or suggestions, but forcing a merge is not going to do anything constructive - personally, I'd like to see concrete examples of problem areas rather than vague assertions.  Toa   Nidhiki05  19:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For any editors who might not be aware of it, the draft of a possible RfC has been moved to here, and that might be the place to give input into what should or should not be part of the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC) That page has now been deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Toa Nidkhiki05: Please indicate to me where, exactly, there would be problems arising from having the project merged. In general, that entails, basically, just using a single banner for all groups, which would still allow for separate assessment for each group, and that's about all, actually. I cannot see how there would be any real loss from doing so, and I honestly cannot see how there would be any potential "loss of resources." If anything, I think the incorporation into a larger topic might make it more likely that there would be an increase in the resources, and possibly increased activity, rather than any to my eyes unsupported assertions of "loss of resources." John Carter (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it entails it becoming a task force or sub project and losing any independence, becoming completely subservient to the 'main project' and its demands. The WikiProject Guide itself suggests that absorbing is best done when a new, large project is created and is not appropriate if it is not desired:


 * Simply put, this is an established project with over 80 members and a good deal of general activity. We have never wanted or asked to be assimilated or forcibly split. Now, I'll reiterate - I am open to logical suggestions as to how to resolve issues, as would most reasonable members. But I need concrete reasons, not vague assertions - simply put, give some example as to what the behavior is, why it is bad, examples of when it is happening, and what can be done to resolve it.  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A few points. One, you appear to be taking to yourself, and, so far as I can tell, only yourself, speaking for the entire project. On what authority do you, as an individual, do that? Are you sure you can speak for everybody, or do you simply assume that everyone will, necessarily, follow your own opinion? So far as I can see, regrettably, it seems to be more the latter than the former. If it isn't asking too much of you, do you think you might allow other members to express their own opinions, rather than having you, rather presumptuously, speak for them? Also, honestly, I would very much welcome you actually responding to the points I made, which you have not in any way done. So far as I can see, there is perhaps good reason to think that one person seems to be attempting to assuming that everyone agrees with him. That raises serious questions regarding WP:OWN and that individual. I was speaking as someone who has been involved in the creation of around have the projects out there, so I think I have some knowledge of the topic. I have very real concerns that the primary motivation here may be that what might be happening here is one individual editor with very strong opinions is, perhaps rather presumptuously, attempting to dictate to the entire project. Such behavior can be seen as very problematic. Would certain editors have any objections to letting others speak for themselves, rather than him trying to speak for them? John Carter (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Own applies to articles, not groups of editors.  Toa   Nidhiki05  03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no group, actually. The only person who seems to be indicating that he wants "independence" (something wikipedia clearly says no WikiProject has, by the way) is you. So far as I can see, this is, at present, a one person commentary, more or less exclusively by you, about how you want to be free of what you consider to be "left-wing" bias. Unfortunately, wikipedia doesn't work that way. I see very serious reasons to think that, perhaps, there might be sufficient grounds perhaps not for the project to be deleted, perhaps, but very possibly reasons to believe that one person, who seeks his much valued and frankly by policy and guidelines nonexistent "independence" of others might be perhaps found to be not so much here to build an encyclopedia, which is a collaborative effort, but seeking to do an end-around play around collaboration, based on a rather amusing POV that virtually everyone else in wikipedia, but not certain individuals tied to this pboject, are somehow "biased" in a way those editors are not. WikiProjects do not exist to promote a POV, and several of the comments I have seen on this page rather clearly indicate that this project, or at least a certain editor, is. That is extremely serious cause for concern. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
I agree with Toa, that integration of this project into another project is not only impossible, but unwise. This project is simply too large for that to really work, and it obviously won’t be very enticing to the members. As far as what the issues are, I will attempt to provide a brief overview:


 * Political philosophy projects have an inherent issue: they can potentially serve as platforms for promotion of one variety of opinion, hampering NPOV.
 * This particular project is very large, and its scope allows it to tag more articles than it probably should.
 * The project “on the whole” appears to have an American view of what conservatism is, to the exclusion of other varieties. This is “generally”. And it certainly does not speak for the whole project.
 * The roster shows some very aggressive reasons for join this project, which do not appear to be in live with NPOV. Examples:
 * Already marked as a problematic user, states his reason for joining "There is a verified view that there is a liberal bias on WikiPedia. Per WP:NEU, this bias needs to be worked on. And not that it directly relates to my editing…” Where is this verified view? What is a liberal? What is a liberal bias? All of these things are potentially dangerous.
 * Project member JohnAlbertRigali states his reason for joining to be “Focused on revealing leftists in the American and international sociopolitical scenes”. I think anyone would see why this problematic. What does “revealing leftists” mean? Does that sound like NPOV?
 * Another member, User:JohnChrysostom, states, “To boldly uncover leftist bias that no man has done before” - History of American Conservatism, Contemporary Conservatism (or lack thereof), Social Conservatism, Traditionalist Conservatism, Classical Liberalism and its offspring, Libertarianism. I’m a social conservative and a fiscal centrist, a Christian Democrat”.

These type of statements are worrying. In theory, it would seem good to “combat bias”. But I don’t think there is a consensus that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, first of all. And secondly, the rhetoric used in these statements is amazingly aggressive. Again, I’m not saying that this a problem with all members. I’m sure the project does make many good contributions to Wikipedia. But there is no way to tolerate this type of behaviour on a roster page. Quite frankly, it demonstrates one of the fundamental problems with this project: even if it has noble goals, it could very easily become a breeding ground for NPOV, or promotion. I think a lot of the users speaking on this page have noticed this, through various ways, and that’s why were here today. There have been plenty of examples provided. Now, I don’t have time to pull up more stuff right now, but I’m sure others can. Either way, as far as suggestions? Well, here’s what I’ve got:


 * Please, please, please, make a more clearly defined scope. You don’t necessarily have to “lessen” it, but it needs to be clearly, and coherent defined, to the letter.
 * When you members are making statements like those shown above on the members page, police them. Make sure they realize NPOV, and the goals of the project.
 * Conspiracy theories about leftist bias on Wikipedia do not help. When there genuinely is a bias, help out, sure. But do not err in the other direction.
 * Reduce the amount of articles the project tags. For an example, articles that would be better handled by another project, like, say WP:Politics, should be handled by them. As an example, why is Talk:First Thatcher ministry tagged with a Conservatism tag? It is simply a list of ministers in her government, that really has nothing to do with this project. These things are better handled by other projects, and should be considered outside the scope of the project.
 * Avoid antagonistic attitudes when dealing with outsiders. I understand it must feel bad to have outsiders coming in and trying to “dictate” things. But that isn’t really what is happening. Work with everyone. This applies to outsiders as well, they ought not be antagonistic. They should try and help, they shouldn’t try and destroy the project.
 * I think, above all, what needs to be done is that someone independent of the project leadership needs to be appointed to oversee the project, and police its member. Not to change the project itself, but to avoid incidents like those on the roster page. That way, we can be sure that these issues won’t arise.

That’s all I’ve got for now. Digest, and comment. RGloucester (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try to respond to all claims here:


 * Fair enough. The potential is there for any WikiProject, however.


 * Disagree profusely. It has been explained above that there are effective WikiProjects with over a million articles tagged, and 4,634 articles is not large in comparison. Our counterpart, WikiProject Socialism, has almost a thousand more articles tagged, and therein lies the answer - our project covers all forms of conservatism, just as WikiProject Socialism covers all forms of socialism. We don't divide on nationality or school of thought.


 * How do we have a view on conservatism? We cover all types. We don't discriminate on basis of type or nationality. The only reason we have more American articles tagged is conservatism is bigger in the US than almost any country. The US is also very large, which helps as well.


 * Fair enough, but other projects have the same issue - look at WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Islam, WikiProject Socialism, etc. This is not some isolated thing and singling us out is a bit misleading even that isn't the intent. If it is so intolerable, will you go to those pages and bring it up as an issue there?


 * Our scope is broad, but also specific - we cover conservatism, broadly defined. If the topic doesn't relate to some form of conservatism, it shouldn't be tagged. At the same time, WikiProjects have the exclusive right to define their scope and which articles they tag. The Guide recommends a broad scope to attract a wide variety of editors, which is what we try to accomplish.


 * How many of them are active participants? If it really is an issue this is one easily fixed, but if the members aren't active there isn't any harm done.


 * I don't think there is a predominant bias except in coverage, since Wikipedia has more nontheists and leftists than average and they would be more inclined to improve those articles. That's why atheism is a featured article and theism isn't, for instance.


 * Less articles tagged means less active editors. The more articles are tagged, the more we can work on and improve. Margaret Thatcher ran a conservative administration, so we tag an article that relates to that. What is the issue? There is nothing stopping other projects from tagging stuff - projects don't own articles.


 * Fair enough, but this project has a history of outside attempts to delete or split it by outsiders who had no intent of joining or helping it afterwords. While this has calmed lately and hasn't been an issue for half a month. We are more skeptical of outsiders because of this, as a great deal do not wish this project the best.


 * Interestingly enough, we don't have a leadership, so this can't be fulfilled. There is a common misconception that we do, but there is no hierarchy and no real leadership. We do have a sole founder, Lionelt, but he has no special powers or anything. The idea itself isn't bad, but project coordinators are only common in very large projects such as the Military History project, where there are multiple task forces and hundreds of members. Ours is relatively small in comparison, with no task forces. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but any project member should be able to run and only project members should be able to vote.
 * Alright, that should be all. Please respond civilly and respectfully.  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lionelt has about 90% or more of the edits to the main pages of the project, and founded it. It is very difficult to see how you don't consider that "the leadership".  Unfortunately, he has not edited since this discussion started, which is odd since I don't hardly see more than a single day without edits from him in his recent history.  But for all intents and purposes, the person that has taken the initiative to create and construct the structure and content would be considered the leadership, by virtually any definition.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You could certainly argue he is de facto leader due to his role as founder, but he is not de jure leader - we do not have any sort of official leadership capacity. That is what I intended to covey - there is no official leadership group or individual.  Toa   Nidhiki05  02:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, for my responses,


 * First of all, dealing with the idea that the Socialism project is just as big. No, this isn’t the case at all. It may have tagged many articles, but look at the talk page. The last “real” post by a member was mid-July of this year. It isn’t an active project. That’s really a fundamental issue here. Furthermore, Socialism is a different story as subject matter. Socialism was a “created “ ideology based primarily upon the doctrine of one person, with supplements of others (i.e. Mao/Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky etc.) for different versions of socialism. Conservatism is not a coherent entity. There is such a thing as “conservative communism”, i.e. Stalinism, but would your members consider that conservatism? Conservatism means about a billion different things, and this presents problems in defining the scope.
 * What I mean with the “American” bit is relatively simple. As I said above, conservatism is not a coherent entity. It means a billion different things. From what’ve gathered from the the project, the predominant view of the majority of editors is that conservatism is essentially the American version of fiscal/social conservatism. The reality is, conservatism can be more “leftist” than socialism. Fascism, for example, is rooted in a “kind” of conservatism. But so is constitutional monarchy. But so is Stalinism…etc. Conservatism is so amazingly hard to define that, when you have editors that are primarily American, or even primarily “Western”, you get misrepresentation of “conservatism” as concept. This, of course, proves NPOV issues, and possibly even problems of cultural imperialism. But nevermind.
 * I’ve read the LGBT members list, the Socialism members list and the Islam members list. NOWHERE is there aggressive rhetoric like there is here. The Islam members list even primarily seems to be made up of non-Muslims. The Socialism list is incredibly small, with no issues. The LGBT one had no aggressive rhetoric, and a thorough mix of people joining. The problem, here is the aggressive rhetoric. Wanting to combat NPOV violations is good, but when you combine that with comments about leftist bias and so forth, it simply becomes useless. There is harm done, because it allows the project be perceived as being aggressive, as a place the willingly harbors aggressive people that have the potential to easily commit violations of NPOV. I don’t think the project wants that reputation. It also implies to the any potential members that that type of rhetoric is okay.
 * The problem with over-tagging is well, complicated. As I mentioned, conservatism is hard to define, so that inevitably makes it hard to judge what to tag. The problem, though, arises when articles get tagged where they should really be better taken care of by another project. In the case of that article, it really has nothing to do with conservatism. It is a list of ministers. That is covered by another project. Overlap should be avoided, I think, to maximize efficiency and reduce the potential for incidents. And again, this poses the question, what is conservatism? You say Margaret Thatcher ran a “conservative” ministry, but what does that mean? Why isn’t Stalinism tagged? If I were to join the project and tag Stalinism, would that be a problem? Herein lies the problem. Again. WHAT IS CONSERVATISM? No one knows, because it doesn’t exist as a coherent entity on an international level or historical level. What is the “conservative movement” that people often seem to reference?
 * As far as outsiders are concerned, I understand entirely. I think everyone in this debate (project members or otherwise) needs to cool down a bit and understand that what people may or may not say is not meant as a personal attack.
 * I’m aware that there is no “official” leadership. Most WikiProject don’t have anything like that. But, as pointed out above, Lionel is clearly the “de facto” leader, and the driving force behind the project. It would be nice if we could have his commentary here. So, what I meant was…basically someone entirely independent of the project or the debate that could look after it, and make sure that everyone works out well. Since this is a difficult situation, I think it is warranted, even despite the size of the project. It is perhaps the least intrusive thing that could be done to help solve the problem, as it doesn’t involve merges/deletes/changes etc. Who would choose this person? I think a good place to look for this would potentially be the WikiProject Council. Again, it is all to be discussed.

I thank you for your willingness to engage. RGloucester (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because it is inactive doesn't mean it isn't as big - it was founded in 2009 and has more articles tagged. I would argue socialism is just as diverse, both in policy and in practice - communists are entirely different in goal and intent than social democrats or social liberals, for instance, while different groups disagree on which groups are the oppressors and which are victims (feminist socialists, green socialists, anarcho/libertarian socialists, religious socialists, state socialists, etc.). In fact, right-wing socialist ideologies such as national socialism define themselves as socialists, even if they differ in practice. Both socialism and conservatism are indeed diverse ideologies with independent and even contradictory goals, but both base around opposite concepts, and vary in concept and goals based on their interpretations of their base ideology.
 * Conservatism is an ideology with broad and even contradictory goals, as most political movements are. Our focus is on covering all major and national varieties, and the various subtopics that belong to them such as policies, programs, people, thinkers, and ideas. This single concept allows us to bring in an international group of editors interested in the topic.
 * I think you are wrong here, actually - granted, there aren't as many. But, plenty of editors identify as 'activists' (take that as you will) and I'll post a few other examples:


 * We don't own articles, anyone can tag them as long as their project agrees. We don't own them and I don't think we claim to.
 * I'm glad you recognize it - it has been an issue in the past, but for the most part this has been a logical discussion with little personal attacks or intent to harm.
 * I don't think I would agree to leadership outside the Project - the person should be elected by the Project, from inside the Project. Since anyone can join, this is a fairly loose idea. The leader would quite obviously need to be supported by project members (perhaps majority vote), and a truly neutral voice, and would need to be on a fixed term so as to easily replace inefficient leadership. I think we can all agree the vast majority of editors here are not problematic (hopefully this includes myself, I don't want to disrupt), and they deserve the assumption of good faith. While I do agree in principle that a leader might be a decent idea, and certainly preferable to an RfC/MfD/ArbCom case, I'm not comfortable with the idea of us handing off control to someone who isn't a member or even involved in the topic area, really, and that is what it boils down to. As for Lionelt, I'm not sure what he is doing right now - he may be busy or on a break.  Toa   Nidhiki05  03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn’t talking about appointing a leader. I think that would be too much. Merely an independent overseer. He/she needs to be outside the project, or else he/she isn’t independent. He/she also needs to be outside of this discussion. I think this is the critical aspect. A leader controls the project. That isn’t the goal. Just a neutral observer who makes sure that there are no incidents, and that everything is okay within the project.


 * The Socialism project really isn’t big. This project, here, the conservatism project, has a ton of content (to its credit, of course). Portal (a very well put together one), newsletter, many collaborations, many more members. It really isn’t a viable comparison. As far as Socialism being as disparate as conservatism, I can’t say I agree. First of all, pretty much all of “socialism” has roots in Marx, one way or another. It can be traced back to one person. Different people have added supplements, and different ways of getting to Marx’s goals, but they all held the same fundamental tenants. Conservatism doesn’t have a clear lineage. It really has none…Social democrats and Communists ultimately want the same thing, they just go about it differently. You can’t say the same thing for conservatism. What I’m trying to say, is this: if anyone from around the world sees the word socialism, they will know what it means. They will know the common threads. They will know Marx. If anyone from around the world sees the word conservatism, they will all say different things, depending on where they are from, that have no logical connection. By the way, pretty much all political scientists accept that “national socialism” is not socialism at all, and that it simply used the word socialism as a marketing tool to gain the favor of the working class. Perhaps that is why the article that you linked, Right-wing socialism is currently being considered for deletion. Socialism does have central tenants that can be defined. It has a manifesto. Its differences arise in how it is implemented, not the ultimate goal.


 * The examples you point out do not show aggressive rhetoric, other than the second one. The first one is an exception, because if you look at the Islam roster, most of the people in the project are not even Muslim. And no one has had issues with the Islam project. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t be told to take a look at that particular member.
 * The 1st person simply wants to place it in an article that someone was LGBT, when others remove the reference. That is genuinely combatting a problem that is documented all over the academia, and doesn’t involve promotion of one view or another, simply stating a fact. The last three you listed are in no way partisan, and are purely stating their intellectual interest.


 * Anyway, I hope you can see what the differences I’m trying to point out are. Again, I thank you for your willingness to engage. RGloucester (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine in theory but in practice I don't find it practical to find somebody, outside the project, who would be 'overseeing'. What does that entail; controlling decisions? Tiebreaking votes? Ejecting members? It is simply very vague.
 * I disagree on the roots of socialism - socialist roots are in the 18th century, really. Marx is a major figure, but he came along over a century after the term began being used, and even he argued socialism as only being a step towards his ultimate goal, and not all socialists would agree with him - religious ones would object to his goal to eliminate religion, while others would disagree with the idea of a stateless society. Socialists and communists have different theories, different ideas, but the idea communists are just socialists in a hurry went out the window when communist countries began oppressing and murdering their own people. Also, my example of right-wing socialism was merely to note that the term is broad enough for far-right groups to be able to attract other people with (part of why I think the political scale is a circle, not a line, but I digress), and it can be compatible with the traditional interpretation of conservatism as being supportive of a monarchy. Regardless, socialism is just as diverse as conservatism (perhaps even more so due to the sheer number of types, each of which claim a different oppressor group and a different group of victimized peoples)
 * It is still an issue, however. :)
 * OK, but what about the self-identifying 'LGBT activists'? Is that over the top?  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There isn’t anything with being an “activist”, as long as you aren’t aggressive and try to harm POV. And anyway, this comparison is moot because an “LGBT activist” is advocating for the protection of the rights of a minority, in the same way that the Black civil rights movement came about. Conservatism is a political philosophy, and so the situation is entirely different. Regardless, a “conservative activist” is not a problem, as long as they are not aggressive, and do not err from truth or NPOV. Stating what you are, calling a spade a spade, is fine. Again, the real problem was the aggressive rhetoric. Calling yourself an activist is not rhetoric, it is just stating a fact. As far as socialism is concerned, I’m sure I won’t be able to persuade you, so I don’t think we should waste time going back and forth. I’m sure many other editors would agree with me, and I’m aware that many political scientists do. I’d like it if more people chimed in…. RGloucester (talk)  04:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, telling the community of your views is a good thing as long as it is to inform, not present a bias. That is why I self-identify on my talk page as a number of things, such as enjoying certain types of music, being a Christian, and politically as a pretty right-leaning individual with libertarian leanings. Calling a spade a spade is fine and informative.  Toa   Nidhiki05  23:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2b

 * Haha, I am problematic? I would say persecuted, but that is my humble opinion. I understand that I have done some things wrong, and have disengaged, but apparently I was able to edit war by myself, and although I may have crossed a red line that doesn't mean that I am typical of other editors within this wikiproject, so please do not project two events upon the entire wikiproject.
 * As I said before, possibly elsewhere, there appears to be two greatly differing opinions regarding WP:NEU and attempts to bring balance to articles or reduce POV in them. Look at the essays, policies, and guidelines my statement links to.
 * WP:VER is a cornerstone of content. The liberal bias, or belief in its existence, is verified to exist. Editing neutrally, or to bring articles towards keeping with WP:NEU I think is something no one can object to. As such bias is believed to exist, or actually does exist, per WP:NOTDONE such articles should be worked on. Additionally, not all of my edits are on political issues, and for the majority of my editing it is not. However, if there are articles with blatant POV, shouldn't someone say something about it
 * Unfortunately, I think that since as Jimbo Wales has said, since the editing community is slightly more liberal leaning, that if there is a liberal bias it is not something that is as easily perceived. I can understand that if there is a conservative bias, it may make it harder for conservatives to perceive, that's fine I can understand that as well.
 * As others other than me have often said biases/POV is corrected by civil discussion and reaching a consensus, something that is difficult to reach when meatpuppets and tag teaming occurs, especially when those editors who believe they are doing the right thing openly state that they want to make an article bias or keep an article with its pre-established bias. This is something discussed in Criticism of Wikipedia, where due to self selection bias contributors drawn to a certain article may have similar POVs and thus can quickly gain consensus to bring about a POV or protect an existing POV.
 * That being said, that has little to do with the goals of this wikiproject other than to balance articles that fall within this wikiproject's scope by introducing balanced conservative, neutrally worded, content if there is an existing undue weight of other political philisophy POV already existing. As, if the other POV is attributed, it should be kept in some form per VER, perhaps its wording should be more neutral tone, or it's wieght should be reduced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That you believe yourself to be Persecuted is part of the problem. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is it "verified" that there is a "liberal" bias on Wikipedia? This sounds to me like the useless battle over which side the media in the US favors. 174.254.183.161 (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See #17. MastCell Talk 18:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Two observations about some earlier comments here: --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The fact that Atheism is an FA but Theism isn't doesn't come close to proving a leftist bias in the editorship. I make a lot of edits to Atheism and I also make a lot of edits to Religion. Does that make me an atheist, a religious person, or just confused?
 * 2) About the US tilt in the perception of conservatism amongst some of the active members here, I think that this shows the way that it sometimes manifests itself (equating "conservatism" with "modern American conservatism" until the community reviewed it).
 * To be fair, Atheism should be compared against Christianity, not Theism. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because the opposite of atheism is theism, with agnosticism in the middle. I'm not implying there is some left-wing bias (there isn't, at least on a project-wide scale), but that any bias would only exist due to the topical interests of editors - that is, editors tend to edit and improve articles they are interested in. That's why articles on current pop singers have incredibly well-researched and written articles by very talented editors, but older bands or indie groups might not have as many, for instance.  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3
I think RGloucester sums up my perspective and concerns better than I have. When a problem "editor" comes along, it is simple to deal with that editor, using one on one discussion, mentoring or sanctions when necessary. When a Project encourages problems (whether it is intentional in accidental) then dealing with the concern can't be one on one, and is a community duty. This is what we are doing here. Taking it personal is the same as taking ownership of the Project itself, which isn't necessary. The problems are real and are systemic, starting even with the name, which implies a different idea to different people, again, as RGloucester has brilliantly explained. This looks more like a group insuring the GOP perspective is represented and documented fairly when compared to the Democratic Party perspective. In other words, a conflict of interest driven by idiology, and by it's very nature, is problematic for an encyclopedia as those goals are not consistent with the goals of the overall encyclopedia, neutrality is. You don't achieve neutrality by adding equal amounts of bias on both sides because there are more than two sides. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to Toa’s most recent post, above: I’ll give you that, sure, interest-level in a topic will determine interest-level of editors getting involved in article (speaking to your example, I’ve written a few indie band/record label articles). I wouldn’t call this “bias” though. And, regardless, conservatism is an object of intellectual interest to many non-conservatives. It isn’t as clear cut as the pop singer example, because everyone more than likely has some contact with conservatism and some interest, where as indie bands are just obscure (this is actually debatable….no music arguments here…). Conservatism is inherently of interest to anyone interested in politics, or even anyone that watches the news, regardless of political affiliation. That kind of leaves little room for your argument, except for extremely technical articles. Why is Atheism the featured article of the two? To me, that is fairly simple. Theism is an incredibly broad subject, that is better covered in many articles, i.e. Christianity / Wicca / Zoroastrianism etc. Theism alone is not really the topic of interest. Atheism, though, is a coherent entity, and all atheists share the same belief that god/gods do not exist. Theism, on the other hand….the only thing that links theists together is that they believe in some higher power/s. They could be monotheist, pantheist, deist, christian, muslism, hindu, african traditional religion, etc etc etc. Atheist all share the same tenets, more or less. Most theists have less in common with each other than they do with atheists. Theism does not define beliefs. Atheism does. RGloucester (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not even arguing there is a bias - if there is, it would only be because of editors improving one area of interest. I think most active editors on this encyclopedia have good intent, by an far.  Toa   Nidhiki05  03:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I’m glad we agree. RGloucester (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And the majority of the editors listed as members in this project are participating in good faith, but that isn't the issue, the issue is the Project itself which may be fostering an environment that is counter to the broader objectives of the encyclopedia as a whole. As I pointed out, individuals we deal with one at a time, Projects require a community response.  That said, I was really hoping that Lionelt would have come here by now, and this ironically timed and first ever, and unannounced Wikibreak that he is taking, well, it is unfortunate.  His participation isn't required but it is strongly preferred, and might have avoided an RfC.   I see someone above has starting working up an RfC, so I won't duplicate their efforts, but I have no choice but to encourage the further development.  It puts us in an awkward position and limits our possible solutions if the primary contributors won't participate, however. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A WikiProject is nothing more than a group of editors, Dennis - if we are fostering a bad environment, that is a charge that does against the collective whole of the group. I will say that from a pure total of edits here I am the second most active contributor on this page, so you aren't talking to a nobody or anything - the next most active are listed here, but the next highest commenters are either not active members (Kleinzach, TFD), indefinitely blocked (Will Beback), or who did something to try and end the project via deletion (Binksternet). Interestingly, RGloucester is the next highest, and he isn't even a member. So really, a good deal of discussion is going on among active participants on this page.
 * Also, an RfC is unneeded and hasty - there are multiple issues with the one that is in the works, as I have noted on that page, but we are talking here. I'm more than willing to take suggestions or discuss, but it is up to you to give concrete suggestions.  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "not active members"? TFD (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As in not actively involved in project matters or space.  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't really up to those who have noticed the problems to solve them, it is up to those that are participating in the problem. As for RFC, it isn't like this problem was first mentioned a day or two ago.  As a matter of fact, it was brought up almost 10 days ago and has been talked about in great detail here.  The founder has yet to respond, and everyone within the Project has generally resisted the idea that there is a problem.  That seems like pretty reasonable timing based on a lack of progress or willingness, and I'm pretty sure a majority of people would agree on that point, if nothing else.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is really hard to claim we are stonewalling when I, the only project member actively involved in this dispute, am offering to field concerns and have only gotten a total of one person take me up on that (I supported the idea, incidentally).  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These concerns aren't 10 days old; they're at least a year old. I was told at the time by Lionelt that "partisanship has never been a problem, and never will be a problem", and that nothing needed to be done because I hadn't established a "pattern of improper behavior" (never mind that I'd listed nearly a dozen diffs of editors who explicitly viewed this project as a platform to do ideological battle against "leftism"). I wasn't the only one to express such concerns at the the MfD a year ago - exactly the same concerns that are being expressed now - and in the interim, those concerns have been blown off completely. That strikes me as stonewalling - after all, you can't address a problem whose existence you refuse to acknowledge. That said, I do appreciate your engagement in this thread. MastCell Talk 21:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, only this one particular thread is 10 days old, and yet has demonstrated there is a great number of concerned individuals, with varied and different backgrounds and experiences here. I also appreciate Toa contributing here, but if few others from the Project are going to ask questions or engage, you have to wonder why.  It isn't going to "blow over", and something will come of this situation, that is certain.  If only one or two people feel vested enough in the goals of the Project to engage and discuss, it doesn't look like the project as a whole wants to exist.  That isn't encouraging.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There could be a number of reasons - no individual notification, not wanting to get involved in wikipolitics, being scared off by a gigantic wall of text, etc. Once again though, I'd rather see concrete suggestions than vague claims. I can't offer much if I don't know what you all think is problematic.  Toa   Nidhiki05  22:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that others are wondering why other wikiproject members are not active in this discussion other than myself and Toa. There is not an an assumption of good faith of the wikiproject or of myself. Is it no wonder that members, such as myself feel persecuted, when a group of the same editors continue to attack an editor, not respond to the argument presented, and continue on with their original belief that something is wrong?
 * I have already stated that I have disengaged from the article where other editors have openly stated that the belief an unbalanced article is what is needed.
 * Another editor has already stated that my concern was justified, even if in hindsight I should have left the article long ago, as I have now, to what slanted POV status I know not what, even if those editors belief that it is in the best interest of that article to be slanted.
 * From that one event, and my statement of concern regarding the continued NPOV status of the article, is being used as an attack on this wikiproject as a whole.
 * Again, this goes back to not assuming good faith of the wikiproject and myself, who has been labelled as a "problematic editor", even when the VAST majority of my edits have not been in the many years that I have been active within Wikipedia as a whole.
 * Should I be concerned about NPOV in articles? It appears that it is other editors' views that if that means be introducing due weighted content that is conservative in nature, or bringing up my concerns and suggesting a reduction of other content (that may themselves hold a POV), that I shouldn't ... and thus the non-neutral articles should remain.
 * How does this impact this WikiProject as a whole? Is it wrong that a number of wikiproject members are concerned about NPOV? If it concerns us, shouldn't it also be a concern to other editors that there is this view, and rather than working against those editors efforts, to work with those editors to temper those concerns and bring about more neutral articles?
 * Rather, even though an other editor has linked to persecution complex, those concerns are brushed aside.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never commented once about any edit you have ever made. My concern here is about the Project.  Had I a concern about your edits (which I haven't looked at) I would have taken them to your user talk page or ANI, not here, I assure you.  Taking this personal serves no purpose.  The concerns started with me, and my note to DGG, who then took action, and it blossomed from there as we discovered a great number of people have concerns about the scope and direction of the Project.  It isn't about any one individual, it is about how we deal with POV within a Project, and how that fosters an inappropriate environment for an encyclopedia.  Insinuating that people who are concerned want POV in articles is a strawman argument, and misses the point.  The very fact that I (or we) haven't done anything except discuss here on the actual talk page of the Project, for 10 days, should be ample demonstration of good faith.  The objective was to find a way to create change, to gain compliance with standards of Projects, but again, it has only been met with resistance.  Perhaps you are assuming bad faith on the part of the people who say they have concerns about this project, or simply being unnecessarily defensive.  If the goal was to give blocks or destroy the project, this would be a poor way to do it, so obviously the goal is something other than what you think it is. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis, it has not 'only been met with resistance'. You know full well I have been discussion concerns with RG and have offered probably six times to field concerns and suggestions. If you have ideas on how to fix concerns you have, by all means tell them. I'd be more than happy to consider, discuss, compromise, or give a counter proposal.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to chip in too. I've encountered this project on multiple pages and it's always promoting conservatism and removing all opposition through dirty tactics or overpowering other wikiprojects rather than constructively discussing things on every occasion. That's all i recall but LGBT covers a broad range of topics so i doubt i have the most examples to share. Most or all of these examples include Lionelt and Belchfire although i'm not saying more on that. Also someone above mentioned this too - someone at Wikiproject LGBT Studies recently raised concern of editors removing LGBT tags from historical people who identified as such as trivial. That's a strange one to me and i haven't been able to see why. So no, the project isn't the problem, it's some of the editors. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is the Straight Pride article to start with, a WP:Synthesis, which i believe i recall at one stage members here tried to keep as the dominant article even with its notability questioned and discussed merging Gay Pride into, rather than the other way round. Multiple instances of "Heterophobia" and Straight Pride marches (or anything perceived as such) were then linked together to create a movement which the evidence showed there was none and no connection between the events.
 * Homosexuals Anonymous, an Ex-gay ministry...It took a painful amount of effort to get a mention of conversion therapy back into the article which Lionelt personally fought against and even removed multiple instances under WP:BLP violations, even when cited and later getting reverted by multiple people.
 * Exodus International, an ex-gay ministry and advocate for the "curing" of gays. Much the same problem again with multiple rewrites to the page and causing multiple issues (all of these should be on the talk pages too).
 * Chick-fil-a, A bit of recentism but also another one of these common occasions when quite a lot of this project and people with the same editing patterns as a lot of my examples show up to overpower any opposition. As has also happened at Homophobia where a certain editor for over 4 months wanted to rewrite the article without presenting a single citation and was a few times backed up by members here, again with identical editing patterns.
 * I'd like to respond, if you don't mind. Strictly speaking, you are correct: nobody has claimed that the entire project is full of editors behaving badly. And nobody has claimed that only those editors who are officially in the project are behaving badly. It's slightly more subtle than that.
 * Lionelt acts not only for himself but as leader of this project, and where the leader goes, the followers follow. As you said, they travel in a pack and work together to dominate articles, removing material they dislike under the banner of a false consensus. I don't actually understand their motivation; the things they remove are of the sort that are seen as negative or positive based on political background, not as universally negative. So, for example, the ex-gay thing has plenty of support among conservatives and is seen as a good thing by them.
 * The latest article to fall victim is Christian right, which has been cut to the bone, but the MO is the same. They use tag-team reverts (with each pack member plausibly staying under the 3RR radar), intimidation (including personal attacks and filing false reports to demand blocks) and constant stonewalling (including disrupting threads, refusing to accept reliable sources and ignoring previous discussions).
 * They do all this under the banner of the project and with the urging and direct support of its core members. Lionelt himself has been strangely absent as of late, but the shenanigans continue, which shows that the problem is structural, not individuals. It's not a few bad apples, it's a rotten tree. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, you refused to participate in the dispute resolution for that case, and they completely rejected your listing the GOP as a 'Christian right' party. Of course, you think DR is worthless but the neutral volunteers didn't agree with you.
 * Also, terms like 'rotten tree' and 'core members' are really vague accusations. I find it reprehensible you attack the 80+ members of this project, most of whom have done nothing wrong, without a single diff. It is very McCarthian and is not showing good faith towards them.  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my point. I avoided the DRN because it was packed with conservatives who led off by assuming bad faith. As predicted, it quickly became a circus. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are accusing a group of editors of having bad faith, and doing so in an ad hominem fashion. You might want to strike.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See for yourself. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice wall of text going on here. Is there any chance of getting a summary section where any editor can state & update their position in X words or less? I doubt you are going to get any consensus on any proposals if the problems (real or not) can't be summarized in a succinct manner. Threaded conversations are sometimes great, but some clarity is needed. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice wall of text going on here. Sarcasm, while perhaps well intended, rarely works in RL when spoken. In its written form, it loses all fragrance of collaboration. ```Buster Seven   Talk  16:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Little green rosetta will be expected to read the talk entries (which I don't think are all that lengthy) in order to have a voice in the matter. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read it, but I still don't see what the actual complaint is all about. Dennis said It isn't going to "blow over", and something will come of this situation, that is certain.  If an RfC is going to come of this, we will need a much simplier description of the percieved problem or nothing will come of this.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear what the actual complaint is all about. It's about the behavior of WikiProject Conservatism members and fellow travelers. Specifically, it's about their pattern of working together to violate policy by inserting conservative bias. Can I make it any more clear? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You should start an RfC about this then. Oh wait...   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's more than one way to skin a cat. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It takes two to tango SS. Why are project members any more guilty than you?   Hot Stop     (Edits)   21:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. There's the fact that I don't have a posse that follows me around and violates Wikipedia policy to back me up. That's one difference. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is a policy. And it takes a group of people to get that.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   22:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting into a pissing match isn't helpful for everyone stop it. There is more going on than on this talk page, just keep that in mind.  At the same time, the pace is slow enough to give every opportunity for the leadership to address the concerns.  It is a matter of good faith to proceed in this fashion, although we are reaching the end of patience.  I would like to see RGloucester as the primary initiate of an RfC as I think they have articulated the concerns in the most clear fashion, although there are no shortage of individuals willing to certify an RfC, should it take place.  My concern is that an RfC is more likely to end in drastic solutions, ie: deletion, something I came here trying to avoid, but if the founder won't defend his own creation and offer solutions, few choices are available.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC is needed or even justifiable at this point - to file one against the Project, you'd need to find proof that editors are misusing project resources to violate policy. Simply saying things or suggesting potential for misuse are not enough, and just because a few members might mess up doesn't make the rest of us guilty by association - there needs to be concrete proof (preferably through diffs) of repetitive misuse of project talk pages and resources. On the other hand, there are probably issues that can be dealt with by discussion and compromise, which I am more than willing to do.  Toa   Nidhiki05  23:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a minor point here: an RFC won't be against the project but on the project; i.e. the purpose of the RFC will be to solicit outside opinion as to the project as a whole and whether it is currently of benefit to Wikipedia and, if not, what needs to be changed about it. WP generally follows utilitarian and pragmatic principles, meaning that what matters at the end of the day is whether something has a positive or negative effect on the encyclopedia.  Fairness, justice and due process are secondary considerations.


 * My overall point is this: if, in the course of an RFC, the community determines that WP:C is a net negative, the community will attempt to make changes to make it a net positive; the standard of evidence required is only that which is sufficient to demonstrate said negative impact. The standard mentioned by you above regarding project resources and whatnot is a red herring because ultimately it only really matters whether we can fix the problem or not.  If we can't fix it and if the only meaningful course of action is to shut the project down then it is likely that this will be the case - even if it doesn't meet normal ideas of fairness.  Sædon talk  00:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And, as a co-signer of the previous RFC draft, I'd like to point out that closing down the project was explicitly stated as not being the goal. Let's avoid that sort of red herring as well. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Saedon, I respectfully disagree - project complicity is a major aspect of any potential RfC. Simply put, there may be a few bad eggs here - but to blame the Project, you need more than just 'x and y are part of z, so z is bad'. You prove there is a problem with the project, not individual editors, you need to find some sort of proof that project space or resources have been abused. Otherwise, the red herring is hitting the project, not the individual editors.
 * Also, RfCs are a non-binding, informal process - it isn't ArbCom or even MedCom.  Toa   Nidhiki05  03:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your response is misleading; an RFC is a necessary precursor to ArbCom. Likewise, Saedon was right that "net negative" is the only criterion that matters here; you don't get to raise the bar. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4
Having given a link to it earlier, I should note that the draft RfC that had been stored in Viriditas' user space has been dropped. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to inform, this is because they could not file it in the 30 day waiting-period that is allowed on the userspace.  Toa   Nidhiki05  23:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for adding that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Dennis Brown above the break. I would prefer not to be the drafter of any RfC that may result. I’d rather remain as a contributor, rather than such a role. Of course, if an RfC were to be drafted, I would be happy to assist. RGloucester (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I just have a healthy respect for those who are articulate. A great many admins have shown interest in the subject so finding someone shouldn't be difficult, or I could do it myself in a couple of days.  I'm still holding out hope. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RGloucester, if you think it would be helpful, I believe that an admin can allow you to view the recently-deleted RFC page. While I'm sure you want to do your own thing, there might be something you can take from it. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be perfectly clear here, the goal of some editors here is the ultimate deletion of WikiProject Conservatism?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, for some of them, it is. But that's really beside the point. What will determine the outcome will be community consensus, not the views of just a few editors – on either "side". I suspect that, following the RfC, subsequent dispute resolution will probably result in the banning of certain editors, but the RfC ought to focus on articulating problems and laying down what will be needed to fix those problems. It then becomes a matter of individual conduct, as opposed to some sort of collective conduct of Project membership. Individual editors who resist what the community seeks will find themselves on the wrong side of whatever will follow. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Deletion should not be put on the table. I don’t think that is fair, or viable. I also don’t think anyone here has stated any interest in deletion during this discussion. In fact, many of us are trying to avoid a deletion. The only way that would occur would be (in the event of an RfC) if the community found that editors with the project were not willing work with the community to resolve the problems mentioned here. This should provide extra motivation for members to participate here. I don’t think it should be a problem, as, at least in Toa we have a sane, rational and willing mind, who has committed himself to productive dialogue. RGloucester  (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I have the utmost respect for Toa and his willingness and capacity to, as you say, have a productive dialogue, I would hope that a broader spectrum of members will be active participants and voices of reason. Toa has been a member of this project pretty much from the beginning and has proven his capacity to support and stand-up for the Conservative Ideal thought (?) conservatism (as he see's it). Which is the point I wish to make...as HE see's it. In order to have a dialogue of any substance and lasting effect, more than the current half-dozen or so members will need to speak up. If the silent members voices remain quiet, the 80+ person membership is a false entity and is less a standard of a project than it would seem (or that it is promoted to be). ```Buster Seven   Talk  00:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but standing up for the Conservative Ideal is not exactly the solution to the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just wanted to acknowledge that staunch support of conservatism is to be expected from members of this project. It may even be a hindrance to mutual understanding between editors....but so it goes. My attempt was merely to shake the membership tree and harvest what fell. ```Buster Seven   Talk  01:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the complement (at least I regarded it as such even with the 'conservative ideal' thing, which I'm not sure refers to the project or politics) and overall cordial tone, I don't my political views really don't come into play here - my goal is to avert drastic measures by responding to ideas, concerns, and suggestions. I will say that I agree that members need to speak up, but that is up to them to find and notice it.  Toa   Nidhiki05  03:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll strike Ideal since it sends the discussion way off base. And I didn't mean to imply anything negative. Just two words that came together while I was composing. Maybe thought fits better. ```Buster Seven   Talk  04:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Better yet-->conservatism. ```Buster Seven   Talk ''' 05:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like everyone is talking themselves into holes, here. RGloucester (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To respond to Still's comment above about the need for an RfC, it isn't actually a necessary step to go to ArbCom. Given the level of controversy I doubt it would be difficult to get a request for arbitration approved. However, that would probably not be in the interests of any of the editors involved and I believe it would not be in the interests of the community either. All I can see coming about from an arbitration case is a massive culling of the herd on both sides similar to the climate change debacle.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be solved by topic bans and indefinite bans from regular admins, or it can be solved by ArbCom. I'm not sure what's worse, but some amount of force is going to be necessary. To be clear, if this project is -- as suggested above -- only intended for conservatives, then it violates the fundamental basis of Wikipedia already and must be radically changed. I bring up the concept of Decimation (Roman army) as our model. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Admins, individually, can block but cannot ban. Bans can be enacted by the community (through discussion at WP:AN), or by ArbCom. But anyway, it would be in everyone's interest that it not have to go that far. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but read what I said about decimation. Rather than disbanding the entire unit, they killed a tenth of its members. The analogy here is that, rather than shutting down the project, we figure out who the core individuals are who pull it into a direction that conflicts with Wikipedia's pillars. We can remove them instead of removing the project, as by giving them topic bans that keep them away from any article that's been tagged as part of WikiProject's Conservatism's domain. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would some amount of force be necessary? This Wikiproject, is open to all who are interested in the subject. There are multiple members of the wikiproject who openly state that they are not conservatives and are here for NPOV purposes. There is nothing wrong with that.
 * If there are organized users on of any political spectrum interested in NPOV, whether it be here or elsewhere, is that a bad thing?
 * When is it a good thing? When is it a bad thing?
 * As I suggested before, if there are editors who believe that there are biases, and thus articles that are not adhering to NPOV, shouldn't those concerns be addressed as to temper those concerns, and direct those editors energy towards a constructive manor of addressing those concerns to the larger community?
 * I have so far only seen a few non-wikiproject-conservatism-member editors state that there is this concern; others have stated that the wikiproject is being used as a tool to advance a POV, which from what I have observed (maybe I am not part of the alleged group that exist here that does it) is not the case of this wikiproject.
 * If we are to assume good faith of fellow editors, this would be a far more productive manor of addressing any issues rather than the topic bans, blocks, decimation, and cullings that I have seen suggested by some other editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Force will be necessary unless the members of the project can police themselves. Unfortunately, there has been no evidence that it even acknowledges the scope of the problem, much less that it's willing to fix things. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding future time stamp to prevent archiving for a while. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:00, 22 December 2012