User talk:BlueRobe

Welcome

Hello, BlueRobe, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

on Anarchism

Hello, you said on libertarianism talk page: Anarchism is the absence of non-consensual government. In theory, an Anarchist society would be made up of an array of geographically-determinate political entities, each with their own distinct political systems and laws, among which each person could find one to join by their explicit consent. This then is a 'community'. Government means something which 'governs' all within a geographical boundary. Besides, what is 'consent'?

Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have “committed suicide,” since "they were the government" (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part. [For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto, Rothbard]

N6n (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the Holocaust was carried out without any legislative authority. Indeed, there is no paper-trail to prove that Adolf Hitler was even aware that the Holocaust was taking place, let alone ordered it. The Reichstag certainly did not authorise the Holocaust. Thus, the victims of the Holocaust (6 million Jewish people and 5 million non-Jewish people) were murdered.

An authoritarian society where the rulers don't learn of getting millions killed systematically? Maybe they didn't produce/destroyed the paper trail, but it is impossible to believe that the central authorities didn't know of it. N6n (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is substantial difference between a member of the Legislature knowing that the Holocaust is taking place, and the Legislature (as a body) authorising the Holocaust. For a contemporary comparison, there is a difference between a U.S. Senator knowing that crimes were being committed at the Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp, and the U.S. Senate (and Congress) authorising those "crimes" as a matter of law.BlueRobe (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If a government can't even stop genocide (eventually), what good is it for? The Nazi Germany did not "breakdown" during this period; it supposedly functioned quite efficiently. Who is responsible for Guantanamo Bay? I believe it is the "government". It is certainly not me! (If you agree, then notice that this is an argument for the illegitimacy of governments--the govt. does not represent me; "we are the government" not.)N6n (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The agents of the American government who committed crimes at Guantanamo Bay were from the Executive branch of the US Federal government. Those crimes were committed without legislative authority. Those crimes were ultra vires (outside the jurisdiction) of the Executive branch of government. This is why the crimes committed at Guantanamo Bay by the American military (and law enforcement agencies) are being challenged as being unconstitutional in the Supreme Court of the United States. Again, US Senators and Congressmen may have been aware of the crimes being committed at Guantanamo Bay, but they did not authorise those crimes as a matter of law. As the Holocaust, Guantanamo Bay and countless other examples in history have shown, it is a sad reality of government in the real world that governments cannot be trusted to obey their own laws, even those laws prohibiting genocide, and that is one more argument for a minimalist State. BlueRobe (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, there is substantial jurisprudential debate regarding whether it is even possible for some rules to constitute legitimate laws. For example, it is argued that some rules - such as those that are purported to legitimise genocide - are so morally repugnant that they could never attain legitimate legal authority. This argument had early recognition at the Nuremburg Trials. BlueRobe (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Couple of points, not necessarily relevant. (i) Is this repugnance universal, or only in 'educated' people. If universal, why has it not shown itself before; in particular, if the rank-and-file of the Nazis could commit genocide (with or without the backing of the central authority) why would they not vote for such a law in democracy. (ii) In the Nuremberg Trials one valid argument for defense was that "the Allies did it too". If I remember correctly a Nazi general got a British testimony that "they too sunk ships using submarine", and thus got acquitted. (the exact details may be wrong, but the general point is correct) (iii) I suppose you are pointing to a way to get to some sort of Natural Law. As the history of Natural law (and 'common sense') shows, 'could' and 'should' are different. In particular, however much the theory is developed, there will always be a temptation for the foolish to blame their failures on some other people--it is just too easy. If these foolish are powerful, theory is not going to stop them!N6n (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a Legal Positivist. I referred to the argument, that some rules are so morally repugnant that they might never legitimately attain the force of law, as a mere discussion point. And yes, I agree with you that such an argument leads to some version of Natural Law, which is anathema to the Rule of Law. BlueRobe (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You say that you can't see how there can be no State on the libertarianism page. That is because you are sticking to Legal Positivism, which indeed requires a State. Enter the world of Natural Laws, which, morphing into Common Law, can do without the State! Also note a tangential point: progress in Law has (only?) come due to Natural Laws. The Declaration of Independence is based on Natural Laws -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident...". And anyway, what is the basis for Positivism if not Natural laws? (Without Natural Law basis, you can cook up all sorts of monstrosities.) N6n (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Even under a system dominated by Natural law jurisprudence, there persists a need for, at the barest minimum, a judiciary. The judiciary - judges - are a branch of government. There is no law where there is no government. BlueRobe (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

“For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority[Joseph R. Pedea] on ancient Irish law has writ­ten: “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforce­ment of justice…. There was no trace of State-administered justice.” How then was justice secured? ... [1] (link has full relevant extract from For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto, Rothbard) N6n (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As indicated above, for example, the entire law merchant was developed, not by the State or in State courts, but by private merchant courts. It was only much later that government took over mercantile law from its development in merchants’ courts. The same occurred with admiralty law, the entire structure of the law of the sea, shipping, salvages, etc. Here again, the State was not interested, and its jurisdiction did not apply to the high seas; so the shippers themselves took on the task of not only applying, but working out the whole structure of admiralty law in their own private courts. Again, it was only later that the government appropriated admiralty law into its own courts. Finally, the major body of Anglo-Saxon law, the justly celebrated common law, was developed over the centuries by competing judges applying time-honored principles rather than the shifting decrees of the State. ... The glory of the centuries-long development of the common law is testimony to their success. (ibid) Btw, I haven't studied these issues to my satisfaction. My point of view is that this looks very promising, and thus deserves interest. N6n (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While that is a very interest read, (and definitely deserves a closer look), I suggest that it describes a working example of Anarchism, rather than Libertarianism. BlueRobe (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but that is a separate topic. I think this concludes our discussion "on anarchism" for now. Ping me when you wish to discuss political issues in future!N6n (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot would use it, if they could see any chance of meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to. [Lysander Spooner]N6n (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of this quote. That said, it does constitute an excellent argument against the legitimacy of a Democratically elected government. More specifically, it shows that a citizen is not necessarily consenting to the authority of a democratically elected government simply by virtue of having participated in the democratic process. BlueRobe (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

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

Please see WP:Talk - "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject". Aside from sounding completely gonzo, your additions to Talk:New Zealand were not discussion of the article, they were general conversation (vaguely) about the topic. It's not how wrong your theories sound that are having them removed (i.e. it's not censorship), it's the fact that they are not about the article. If you want to spout rubbish without sources, you can start a blog, but keep it off the Wikipedia talk pages. Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It was the censorship of an intelligent, albeit politically incorrect, contribution, pure and simple. BlueRobe (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Controversies of Jersey Shore (TV series), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources? I described a scene from the Jersey Shore program itself. It doesn't get more reliable than that. BlueRobe (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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

libertarianism

i suggest we revise it back correctly. on aug 24, all mention of anarchism, socialism, and left anything will be removed from the libertarianism article lede paragraph. a discussion is underway in talk. so far 3 are for, and only 1 against. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. There seem to be a few threads going on simultaneously. Which is the thread were this issue is being addressed directly? BlueRobe (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

i am in europe, so my 24th, is most peoples 23rd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#the_lede_will_change_on_august_23rd Darkstar1st (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing and OR

Posting your personal thesis all over the talk page, with absolutely no source is disruptive. If you continue to refuse to work strictly from reliable sources and discuss the views in reliable sources (that you can specifically cite), I will pursue intervention against the disruption. Please review the policies, in particular: WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOR. I am aware that you will not take kindly to this, but please do consider it. BigK HeX (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

disagree, bigk has leveled this same charge against many editors, among other wp policy he cites, while he constantly clutters the same page with off topic discussions with other editors about editors he opposes. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I did not post my so-called thesis "all over the talk page". I posted it once, in relation to my "narrow" vote on a rfc. Further more, you and Carol (et al) have asked us for those comments so it's a bit rich to have a whinge when you get them. And as for reliable sources, my comment was rife with links to sources. BlueRobe (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

libertarianism rfc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Undue weight" is a valid point, and it may even be correct. But you have to prove that. How do we know that others are "fringe versions"? How do we know that "most libertarians haven't heard of it"? As far as my understanding goes, all the editors supporting the "broad viewpoint" are acting in good faith. You can convince them by producing RS making your point.

FYI, I proposed a lead along the lines of:

Libertarianism is the view that each man is the absolute owner of his life, to use and dispose of as he sees fit: that all man's social actions should be voluntary, and that respect for every other man's similar and equal ownership of life and, by extension, the property and fruits of that life, is the ethical basis of a humane and open society. In this view, the only — repeat, only — function of law or government is to provide the sort of self-defense against violence that an individual, if he were powerful enough, would provide for himself. [2]

However, I still think that the best idea till now has been "In order to get a more accurate idea, what we really need are sources that have reviewed the political landscape including regions outside of the US, and report what they say are prominent among the strains of libertarian thought." (BigKHex, [3]) As you see, the "opposition" does not consist of idiots or dramatists. (I accept your apology for the harsh words, this is making a separate point.) N6n (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

i like your lede. btw, the only libertarian parties, outside the usa, using the term in their name, are aligned with the lpusa. not one left-libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, geo, trans anything in any office or race anywhere in the world. these only exist in books. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My knowledge is limited to Books. (I don't follow news, and don't watch TV.) To me books are everything. So, I wont hear anything against books! N6n (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility

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

Good to see you back!

I thought you may have been discouraged by the reports against you. Good to see you're still in the game. I hope you weren't affected by the earthquake earlier today. My thoughts are with those in that beautiful part of the world today. I hope not too much damage was done. I've visited Christchurch many times and love it there. Cheers and all the best! ShadowMan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.71.6 (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Thankfully, the earthquake did not strike my home, (I live in Auckland, and the earthquake was centred near Christchurch). I didn't even know the earthquake until I saw reports on the news. BlueRobe (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, User:125.7.71.6 aka User:ShadowMan4444 has been banned as a sock puppet of User:Karmaisking, a long time sock puppet on Libertarianism page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I have long since learned not to trust anything you say. You have a long history of setting Reichstag fires around Wikipaedia. BlueRobe (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow the links. That's what cooperative editors do when given a heads up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikiquette alert

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

RFC/U

I have filed an RFC regarding your behavior. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

RFC

These people are insane; why the heck are they leading crusades against you and DS1st? This is meatpuppetry at its worst; someone needs to do something about them. Toa Nidhiki05 15:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, we should counter-nominated BigK HeX, and see how they feel about that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

ANI Notice

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

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. WookieInHeat (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

forget it wook, they won, he has given up, another editor driven out of wp, bravo. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I realised this a couple of days ago, which is why I took the play-nice gloves off. I was quietly informed (ironically, by someone who is part of a New Zealand-based meat-puppet "gang") that my exclusion from Wikipaedia was inevitable due to the background petty politics that really run this place. Evidently, this is what they do when they conclude that an editor is causing too much damage to one of their causes.

Darkstar1st, thanx for your efforts on my behalf. I do suggest you stop bothering with the Libertarianism page - they're either grossly-obsessed ideologically-motivated fanatics or they are so incredibly stupid that NOTHING gets through to them. Either way, trying to reason with them is like trying to reason with disobedient children who are suffering from severe ADHD. And while I strongly distrust and dislike most of the left-wing gang, Jrtayloriv is one seriously disturbed individual. Watch your back with him - he has DEEEEEEP emotional issues (look how completely mental he became when I stopped responding to his petty taunts?) And Torchwood Who? is showing distinct signs of being one of Jrtayloriv's sock-puppets (what are the odds of two complete nutters starting to obsess over every detail about my Wiki history in precisely the same way and at precisely the same time?) Good luck. BlueRobe (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking other contributors, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Continued personal attacks may lead to being blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. WookieInHeat (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

is there anything i can do to try and help mediate the situation? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that a joke? I have suffered an ENDLESS array of threats, harassment and abuse from an organised group of ideologically-motivated cyber-bullies for days, and Wikipaedia authorities have done NOTHING to stop them. Indeed, Wikipaedia authorities appear to be encouraging them. I've given up on Wikipaedia. BlueRobe (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

thx Blue. i have more time in wp than most of them combined. these new editors are versed on wp:policy, yet lack a balance in editing. most of their time is spent policing others, while very little sources and text are introduced. this style of editing is a recent phenomenon in wp. i still hold out hope most of these editors will mature into productive members of wp. perhaps i will implement a new rule in the future where a user may not have twice as many rejected complaints as accepted. this has worked in the usa court system limiting frivolous torts, by billing the prosecution for the defense hours if a case is dismissed. dont give up on truth, wp is getting a huge bath soon, a large chunk of $ came in to help cleanup articles recently. this type of editing will soon be removed from wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

wookie i recommend you run from this mess, however if you are up for jousting windmills, then look into the reports filed on both sides of this debate, soon you will uncover why blue feels this is an attack. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, what are the chances that an authority from Wikipaedia would actually bother to turn up and inject some common sense into this and put an end to their harassment of us? It's POSSIBLE, but I'm not putting any money on it. My guess is that WookieInHeat is yet another one of Jrtayloriv meat-puppets come to rub some salt in. BlueRobe (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider this your final warning over civility. Even if you feel you are being hounded you must still abide by WP:NPA, if you cannot do that you may be blocked. If you feel you have been Wiki-hounded you should open an AN/I thread with diffs to show how you have been hounded and an admin will deal with it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

t, your too late on this guy, he has given up. if you are interested in why, by all means take a look, but consider him one more intelligent editor hounded out of wp for his beliefs. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you

Bluerobe, I haven't investigated what the above block is for, & it's not my concern, but I'd like to record my thanks for your input today at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Danielwork_-_ignoring_consensus_.26_others.27_talk. It was good of you to go the extra mile. Trafford09 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Provocation

you just got taken out by an amateurish prank, don't be so easily tricked when you get back. focus on the content, ignore taunts, be bold, cite sources, and add content. after enough harassment, without the provoked response, your accusers will become the accused. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Prank" or not, intelligent people don't take the bait, if that's why you actually consider to be the case. Educated people are typically above violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA that they are already aware are beyond the social norms expected, and intelligent, educated people know to sign off, take a walk to the pub and have a pint when they're being sucked in. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

All else aside, Darkstar1st's advice is pretty good. When people try to antagonize you, they're trying to control you by provoking a response, when you fail to respond as they wanted to you're taking away the only real power they have on the internet. It makes things a lot easier. -- Atama頭 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Blue, anyone who has read your edits knows you are educated and intelligent, your biggest flaw, is failing to read the 3,472 different wp:makesomethinguphere policy which when wielded by an experienced griefer, can twist the most basic truth into Orwellian doublespeak with ease. example, you were blocked for being uncivil, yet some administrators boldly advertise on their user page, "i dont give a f***",. hardly civil, intelligent, or educated use of the english language. some editors in wp are on a power trip, as their offline lives probably consist of the lowest social caste, and unable to assert dominance anywhere but wp. these types of editors rarely add content, sources or even civility, instead they lurk in talk pages waiting for a reason to file a grievance, like a bratty child in class pointing out the teachers misspelled word, while failing the class at the same time. having completed some original research recently, searching the talk pages of articles you edit, certain users are quite prevalent in their accusations. i am working on a project to warn/ban overzealous accusers. take the total number of edits, multiply by the amount of wp:rs added, then divide by the number of accusations the user has leveled, thus the wp:noidfactor is determined. for giggles, do search of some of the pages where you had issues and see if you can spot the editors who use their time in wp primarily as hall monitor. once the users with a wp:noidfactor below the accepted threshold can be established, a warning will be issued, and a block maybe implemented until the user is able to balance their use of the dark side, with the light. for now, if you are able to avoid the noid, and let wp do it's magic, the very rule some editors abuse, will soon be their own undoing. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Block over

Glad to see your block is over, BlueRobe. Anyhow, with you gone, the Anarchists have created their own 'definition' of Libertarianism (obviously an anarchist-slanted one), and are trying to get it added to the header. >_< Toa Nidhiki05 14:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Toa Nidhiki05. I saw that. It's ironic that one of the reasons given for blocking me was my suggestion of bad faith on the part of the left-wingers in the Libertarianism talk page, when they demonstrate blatant bad faith at every turn - one of them is a pathological liar who cannot be reasoned with on any level, another is an obsessed stalker who went on a 24+ hour Wikipaedia marathon to hound my every move until I was blocked, and the other one is just plain batty.

I showed the Libertarianism page to some members of New Zealand's Libertarianz Party and they barely recognised that it was even about Libertarianism. They thought it was an Anarchism page where someone at changed the word "Anarchism" to "Libertarian". Not only is so-called right-Libertarianism not given the predominance in the page that is so clearly appropriate, but it barely receives enough recognition to be noticeable among all the talk about Anarchism-in-Libertarian-clothing. It's pretty frustrating that such blatant sabotage of the Libertarianism page is, not only permitted, but protected by the powers-that-be. BlueRobe (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

...and what you just said above can lead to an even longer block. Care to retract using WP:Strikethrough, or did you enjoy your break? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

not all the powers, jimmy wales is a libertarian, and not the welfare state kind, or the kind that wants every man to be his own personal army. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

bwilkins, i think you guys missed the boat on blue, his ship sailed weeks ago. he is frustrated with the mess wp has become and gave up awhile ago. wp could learn from losing intelligent editors like him and maybe real in some of the more zealous complainers and promote a few more moderators to stave off this kind of mess from happening to other articles. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So, I'm not even allowed to tell the truth in my own talk page now? Yeah, Wikipaedia's not broken *sarcasm metre explodes* BlueRobe (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, intelligent people don't take the bait and stoop to incivility and personal attacks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It took you one hour to ambush me with a petty taunt and a needless power-trip in my own talk page. Don't you have anything better to do? BlueRobe (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"did you enjoy your break?" bwilkins is that really necessary? would you consider a voluntary break from editing here in the interest of harmony? with as many fans as blue has made, wp will hardly need your help blocking him again. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Darkstar1st. I see they've been hounding you (and a couple of new-comers) in the Libertarianism page. You've stood your ground well, despite the appearance that they've blatantly misinterpreted just about every word you've written.

There's no need to ask the powers-that-be to back off. I've already been informed that the decision had already been made, before my block ended, to ban me from Wikipaedia at the first opportunity (be it real or fictional). Although, for the sake of at least appearing to be objective, I thought they would wait a day or two before dropping the subtlety of their witch-hunt, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that; such a block would be unjustified. Just a quick update;

• The left-wingers have rejected a good-faith attempt at compromise (moving page to Libertarianism (word))
• One other nomination (mine), which would move the current Libertarianism page to Forms of Libertarianism and redirect Libertarianism to Libertarianism (disambiguation), is still open; it is a pretty radical, nuclear option solution, but it has potential for outside support. The nom is [[4]]. If it stays untouched for a while, I'll go ahead and move it.

Toa Nidhiki05 01:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Unless you feel the Wikipedia community will vindicate your comments and behavior, why not just use the <s></s> tags and strikethrough your comments as a simple gesture of good faith. It doesn't seem like you'd have anything to lose by doing so. BigK HeX (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, please keep your petty taunts out of my User talk page. They are beneath me, even as they are clearly not beneath you. (Why on Earth do you feel to compelled to come into my talkpage at all?)

Personally, I think it speaks volumes for Wikipaedia's powers-that-be that they are so eager to permit the deliberate on-going harassment and taunting of another editor - in his own talk page - as they wait to pounce on that user if he ever dares to bite back. BlueRobe (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. The "powers-that-be" are fairly loosely defined, so it's not as conspiracy-ish as you make it sound. You're perfectly entitled to delete comments off your talk page -- that's probably the best way of dealing with them. Gerardw (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gerardw, thank you for that information. I confess that I was completely unaware that I was permitted to delete the (blatant) trolling in my talkpage. Indeed, I was under the impression that deleting the posts of others inmy talk page was a blockable offence, lol. Now, where did I put my hammer... 02:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)BlueRobe (talk)

It doesn't even have to be blatant trolling. I think it may not apply to block notices but beyond that most comments on your own talk page can simply be deleted. Gerardw (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary

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

Notice

You have been mentioned in a formal complaint. You are invited to respon here if you so desire. BigK HeX (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit surprised. BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And as you can see (most) of the "powers that be" are not giving the complaint much credence. Wikipedia happiness is focusing on what you want and ignoring stuff you don't care about. As long as you stay focused on content and avoid characterizing other edits life is good. Gerardw (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

the worm has turned

see what i mean about letting wp do its magic? 2 of your more harsh critics were all but silenced recently. your talk page should not be an ambush site to punish you for whatever reason. now it is time to really turn up the heat by following wp rules to the letter of the law, rise above the petty games your have refused to play, and defeat your detractors with a focus on content and oblivion to all else. you now have the high ground and will be able to edit in good faith without distraction. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm really getting uneasy about YOUR wording Darkstar. C'mon, the goal here isn't to "turn up the heat" on anything and Wikipedia isn't a game with winners and losers. Encouraging BlueRobe to use policy as such is disturbing and counter-productive. I do agree that everyone should stick to content and that's an excellent sentiment, especially here. BlueRobe, remember that blocks are not punitive! They are done to prevent disruption to the project and no one is above them, it's not about gaming policy and Darkstar, I would hope you're not encouraging BlueRobe or any other editor toward gaming a system of civility blocking against a user or group of users to advance an editing POV. Please clarify that it isn't the case because it reads on a thin line of that; a very serious breach of policy. I wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand you.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Torchwood Who? Seriously? What on Earth is inappropriate about Darkstar1st suggesting we spend our energies: "following wp rules to the letter of the law, rise above the petty games [...] and defeat your detractors with a focus on content and oblivion to all else." If anything, such sentiments are to be commended.

And if you disagree with obsessive Wiki-lawyering so much, (which is clearly not what Darkstar1st was suggesting), then I think you need to re-examine your own conduct a week ago, (and that of BigK HeX a week ago, and yesterday), when you spent countless hours pouring over my Wiki history to find every snippet of an excuse to get me blocked. And that was before we'd ever met in a talk page, lol! Pot. Kettle. Black.

Communication between the different parties would be helped a lot if you and BigK HeX could learn to appreciate a reasonable interpretation of what we say instead of rushing to the random destructive and nonsensical spin you constantly place on our well-intentioned and informative posts in the talk pages. Your deliberate misinterpretations - with the constant threat of punishment - are clearly breaches of WP:Harassment. Stop it, or log-off and go for a walk. BlueRobe (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've found it's better and more fun in the long run to follow not only the letter but the spirit of "the law." And rather than "defeat" my detractors, it's simpler for me just not to have any. Oh, sure, there are people I disagree with but I just state my opinion and make my arguments. Ignoring mud slung my way takes way less effort than responding. Gerardw (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult not to think about "defeating" my detractors when the same editors tirelessly ambush me with threats of Wikipaedian punishments every single day. The irony is, I usually get on very well with people I disagree with, (which is good, because people almost never agree with me in real life, lol). But, after a few weeks of trying, I have realised that there are a handful of editors in the Libertarianism talk page who are just too Machiavellian to be reasoned with, (and I can guarantee that even that little WP:ThreeWiseMonkeys will now be noted for the next round of complaints against me, lol).

Here's the greatest irony of all. I usually describe myself as an Anarcho-Libertarian, (there is a very subtle, albeit philosophically significant, difference between Anarcho-Libertarianism and mainstream Libertarianism), so my personal ideological beliefs have a lot in common with the ideologies whose prominence I want reduced in the Libertarianism page. But, I'm not here to push my own personal political agenda. I'm here to help maintain the integrity of Wikipaedia's articles. And I'm honest enough to admit that, as much as I personally embrace Anarcho-Libertarianism over mainstream Libertarianism, it does not deserve anywhere near equal prominence with mainstream Libertarianism in the Libertarianism article - and that is what this on-going dispute is all about. BlueRobe (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, I've been following this since it was at the etiquette noticeboard, then the RfC. I've never edited in your area and I'm trying to mediate. You would do well to note that I've also cautioned BigK on their talkpage during your block as I did with Darkstar. You should also note that I defended your position at this recent ANI. My goal is non-disruption and every time that both of the involved camps shoots at the other using sly language and inciting tones you don't do anything constructive, only destructive. As to my own behavior, I am not exactly sure why you suggest that I'm harassing you, but it's offense and I'd like it to stop. Also, as to your suggestion that I pored over your edit history, you are correct, I did, as did every involved editor at the RfC and subsequent ANI. I've never once made a threat of blocking toward you or even interacted with you, but if you keep tossing this hot potato of blame for your participation in an editing cold war then you're not going to get anywhere constructive on the project. IF you truly feel I've been uncivil and that I've harassed you, please bring it to the attention of a noticeboard and we'll discuss it there. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Torchwood Who? Last week was you being a neutral mediator? Crikey. What are you like when you're less neutral? BlueRobe (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, I didn't block you. I only examined a situation brought to a noticeboard. I agree where I agree and I disagree where I disagree. As you said quite clearly we never even met on a talkpage before last week, that is the definition of neutral. This has been further discussed at the ANI, if you want to talk about it there you may. I'm going to take my own advice and disengage from you. Good luck in moving forward I hope you and all the editors you are having content issues with find a way to express yourselves without battlefield mentality.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

blue, torch has been very helpful in the past, the current confusion is over a bit of slang i employed that does not translated well across the pond, apologies. as us yanks have butchered the english language, i suggest it be fair retribution for burning down our white house in 1812. "turn up heat" means to improve one's game, not to be confused with gaming the system, which means cheating by the rules. my words were offered as homage to the brilliance of wp, by focusing on the sources, you will defeat, or out-edit, or win edit wars, or not have your edit reverted, or be able to add material without being read the riot act, or simply use wp for its intended purpose, the distribution of knowledge. gaming the system would involve incorrectly referencing wp:whatevergoeshere, as some many have done in the past, perhaps while reverting your edits, perhaps not. you fault has been saying what pops into your mind first, like "The moon? The sun! It is not moonlight now" a no no in wp, since you are not a rs, instead, simply say whatever wp:whateverfitshere when other editors are incorrectly editing. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Darkstar, I appreciate the clarification. As I said above, I wouldn't want it to be taken that way if it wasn't meant that way. With all the noticeboard use in the last week it's very important to couch your language carefully so a simple mistaken phrase doesn't end up wasting discussion time in mediation or admin boards. You can obviously speak your mind, but we all need to be mindful of how we do so when there is a lot of unneeded tension lurking around.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

agreed. in the 5 years ive edited wp this is the worst ive seen, if the attitude doesn't improve soon, i'll stop defending wp in polite conversation around the table at thanksgiving. i've grown tired of measuring every word, careful not to offend various cabal, or the overzealous admin. after years of hear rush limbaugh, my family, and common street urchin explain to me wp is fiction because anyone can edit, i am near finished defending such a disagreeable crowd. it seems to me, more time is spent reporting editors than editing, unless this focus on fracas is reigned in, i will log out for good, and leave you all to the mercy of those who devoured my zeal for wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, I couldn't have put it better if you'd paid me. Well said. BlueRobe (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Patience

That the use of the term libertarianism is never used in the all-important current English secondary sources to refer to libertarian socialism or left-libertarianism is, I think, a new argument (at least expressed in this way). I think it's a sound reason to exclude references to those philosophies in the article, but let's let it sink in for a few days before we act on it to remove content, okay? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed, good faith requires us to give editors time to consider proposed changes.

Believe it or not, I have never made any changes to the Libertarianism article itself (unless I corrected a minor grammatical error and have forgotten about it). Despite all their constant criticism of me, I have followed due process as I have tried to achieve some sort of consensus before editing the Libertarianism article rather than engage in a futile edit war. Alas, I don't think my gesture of good faith has even been noticed, let alone appreciated by them. BlueRobe (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

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