User talk:Teledildonix314/Archive 2

The previous page is Archive 1 and contains the material during the original two years from the time i created my account on 2006-12-29 thru the end of 2008.

This page is /Archive 2 and contains the material from 2009-01-01 thru 2009-04-20.

During the first quarter of 2009, i made about a thousand edits, and finally began to "boldly" attempt actions beyond "minor" copyedits. As an inexperienced Wikipedian whose prior online experience was of the sordid MySpace/ LiveJournal/ fan forums type of stuff, i made many stupid and ignorant mistakes. I involved myself in an edit-war, then learned about WP:CIVILITY the hard way, as i was rude and abrasive to several people, and was temporarily blocked for one week as a result. On the bright side, i helped to expose two editors who were blatantly acting with Conflict Of Interest; i learned about all the pillars, policies, guidelines, and noticeboards; i learned how both informal and formal Mediation are conducted; and i found the interesting Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. If i could go back in time, i would avoid any of my unCivil actions, and i would be better about always keeping Good Faith in my interactions with other Wikipedians. Despite the negative impact of conflicting with those two people with COI, i had a positive learning experience about the limitations of my own skills, and the value of always giving people a friendly "benefit of the doubt".

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome to my Talk page

Hi Hi, thank you for visiting my talk page. My personal information may be found on my user page. If you would like to discuss anything related to Wikipedia, please click here to leave me a message in a new section below. If you'd like to discuss anything beyond Wikipedia, you can email me, thanks!

Tips for editing the encyclopedia

Open-mindedness - A look at some of the flawed thinking that prompts people who believe in certain non-scientific concepts to advise others who don't to be more open-minded.

Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language - APA guideline

User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior - interspersed with recommendations on how to deal with it.

User:Mccready - Editing principles for pseudoscience articles in Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Advocacy - Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Cooperate with other editors to neutrally summarize notable topics using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to minority views.

Citations

All parameter names must be lowercase. In text, dates given as [[2008-01-01]] will display as 2008-01-01. In citations, leave off the brackets for the same effect.

• Citation templates
• Websites
  • <ref name="NAME">{{cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = }} </ref>
• Books (documentation)
  • <ref name="NAME">{{cite book |title= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |page= |pages= |url= }} </ref>
• Publication
  • <ref name="NAME"> {{cite journal | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = | location = | date = | url = | doi = | id = | accessdate = }} </ref>
• News (documentation)
  • <ref name="NAME"> {{cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | work = | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}</ref>

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello Teledildonix314, 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. Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page 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 How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

---

Rick Warren

Apologists for despicable [professional] charlatans (i.e., christians and other religious people who can't distinguish supernaturalism from realism) managed to prolong an edit-war until it led to a lockdown on the article. Sadly, the bio reads like a puff-piece written by a minion of Warren's public-relations office, and his contributions to the deaths and suffering and denial of basic human rights to millions of people (in American and Africa, or anywhere else where his tentacles [money and influence and brainwashing] reach) will be judged by history as monstrous. It might appear polemic to point out the criticisms of the man while the news about his activities is still "controversial" (i.e., unflattering to christians such as Warren and his anti-humanist ilk); however, in the future, people will come to realize that only an apologist would write such a toadying article about such an odious [inflammatory] person, while forbidding any reports which cast Warren and the other anti-secularists in a poor light! Teledildonix314 ^talk 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed "reactionary" from the article. You have not provided any citation for any work that might support this characterization of Warren; it is something entirely of your doing, unsupported by anything resembling a reliable source. Further, as I look over the article for reactionary, I think it is clearly incorrect to say that Warren "seeks a return to a previous state." This would require some kind of false history in which Christians were running some kind of dictatorship here in the U.S., which has clearly not ever been the case. Warren and others like him often put forward this false notion that he is putting things back to where they were, when in fact they propose something completely new that has never existed before (and never could have, for that matter.) This is a ploy for legitimacy on Warren's part, falsely asserting a return to something that once was; I take it you would not be one to help prop him up and inflate his status (already overinflated as it is) by buying such a ploy.

If you are expecting other editors who support Warren to withdraw edits (such as the "America's Pastor" nonsense) for which they cannot put forward reliable sources, you will also have to abide by the requirement for reliable sources, particularly in this most glaring instance. You have today added some other material that also doesn't seem to refer to any reliable source but that draws associations and conclusions of your own. I will also eventually be removing those. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You (Mike Doughney) are clearly mistaken here, with demonstrable evidence and a most unambiguous example to refute your stance. The passage of Proposition 8 to strip people of civil rights when they had already been upheld by the state's high court is one of the most explicit and overt examples of 'Reactionary' politics we could possibly see in our country. The Reactionary voters are trying to force the community to revert to a previous state of affairs in which the progressive secular values are destroyed and oppressed. How is that not the most obvious sort of Reactionary behavior you've ever heard?!? You are wrong, Mike Doughney, and you don't have to argue with my choice of words, you can look up the definitions in any dictionary and learn for yourself. Once again, here is the actual article: Reactionary!

Teledildonix314 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your regurgitation of what I suppose is Marxist terminology is quite quaint. Again, let me say this very slowly and in small words in a short sentence so perhaps this time you'll understand what I'm saying. You will need a citation from a reliable source that indicates that Warren is a reactionary. Without that, the term is inappropriate, and it doesn't matter what you or I think of the guy, you will need a citation to support using that term.

I will also caution you that since what you are editing is a biography of a living person, the Biographies of living persons policy applies. I suggest you go back and read that policy before making any further edits. That policy prohibits you from adding characterizations of living persons that are not verifiable. In particular, your accusation that what Warren is doing is slanderous had to come out of the article. I think it also applies to your characterization of Warren as a reactionary sans verifiable sources to support that. Repeated violations of the BLP policy could get you blocked or banned. I will start that process without hesitation if you continue to add such BLP policy violating material to the article. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Rick Warren. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Rick Warren. Thank you. Willking1979 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Rick Warren, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rick Warren. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mike Doughney (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to destroy my contributions. Rather than argue with you, rather than dispute some choice of words, i have merely added direct quotations and verifiable citations. But you keep erasing my citations and overt attributions. This makes it impossible to contribute constructively to the improvement of any article. If you don't like my contributions, why don't you just offer some of your own to counter mine? Why do you have to keep erasing all of the links and footnotes which i've added? What is the point of having an encyclopedia which is supposed to be open to any editor, if you just destroy each of my edits and my citations? Teledildonix314 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you have the right to edit on Wikipedia. I am not here to destroy your work or reputation. All I am telling you is to follow the rules carefully. I sincerely and strongly apologize if your edits are good faith. But you need to think carefully about what you are working on before you edit. Willking1979 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to Talk:Rick Warren. PXK ^T /_C 00:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Please see this. PXK ^T /_C 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, back away from User:Straight Edge PXK. If they are causing some sort of problem let me or any other administrator know and we will deal with it. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are being discussed at WP:ANI

Please see [this.] _{(URL edited 2009-01-04 by Teledildonix314)} Also, when given a final warning, making a personal attack against a user is a bad idea. PXK ^T /_C 00:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I did those warnings because it is poilcy to report any incivilty. The personal attack you did was my editor review. And for the record, I'm not an adult, I'm 15. PXK ^T /_C 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PXK, please back away from this editor. You have filed a report. Now let it run its course. Further fighting will not help anybody. Jehochman ^Talk 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#User:Manutdglory_-_another_issue_of__bad_editor_behavior_connected_with_the_Rick_Warren_article And now i've felt the need to comment further there. Sigh. Teledildonix314 ^talk 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: thanks

You're welcome. By the way, I have an email set. Just look at the bar on my talk page. PXK ^T /_C 19:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not helping

Hi. You are doing your cause no good by editing under a username that people are likely to find offensive, and by not adhering to basic good Wikisense in your edits. Listen to what people are telling you, provide references, etc. then you can object about ideological bias if you're reverted. In the meantime, I suggest you change your username -- what's wrong with "Kevin Hutchins"? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody offended by a word as innocuous as Teledildonix314 is obviously too prudish and hypersensitive to be able to deal with the realities of reading an encyclopedia. Fear of human form and function is no basis for education nor editorializing. Teledildonix314 ^talk 19:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this can end a bad beginning, and begin a good New Year. I need to improve civility, and i need to stick strictly to trivial edits which will trouble no squawking hordes! I must raise my ethical standards, never lower them. I have much learning to do. Teledildonix314 ^talk 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good research. You might also want to look into the effort to delete Saddlebacking. It doesn't look like it can succeed, but every bit of support helps. Spotfixer (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he's trying to trick me into violating WP:3RR, so I'm going to have to let the whitewashed version stand. Sorry. Spotfixer (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably a simple tactic, and i'm getting dragged into the 3RR situation as well, so if they delete the latest citation, i'll probably have to let it stand for a while until other editors can be brought in to fix it. Teledildonix314 ^talk 05:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I decided to report him after his 5th revert. His behavior is unacceptable, and he had many chances to stop and undo. Spotfixer (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although you have not crossed the 3RR line you have still been engaged in edit warring. I strongly suggest that you make greater attempts to find a consensus on the article talk pages instead of using multiple reverts. If that fails, then there are better methods of dispute resolution available. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

COI request

I've noticed on spme of your recent edits, you've accused another editor of a pretty major conflict of interest, being a part of one of the churches discussed. Do you have any DIFFs that show where he admitted that? It would certainly help your case. Dayewalker (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The example i find here: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Saddleback_Church&diff=prev&oldid=234207404

It doesn't imply that they are a senior administrator or owner, but i surmise they might be in some kind of Public Relations department (given the type of edits they did). Teledildonix314 ^talk 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch. Dayewalker (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

It seems that you supported my proposed text here [1]. Would you mind saying that here?Talk:Rick_Warren#Proposed_Content_.22B.22 Thx... Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh nvm, it was archived. I'll make a RFC again soon. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm skeptical of RFC's actually doing anything, I'm still willing to chime in. Spotfixer (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you commented in the new RFC, please dont forget to vote if u have a decision. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote, but i don't know if it's helping in this situation. The admins seem to be going by raw "head count" rather than application of common-sense (o goodness, maybe i shouldn't use that term) in order to decide which edits stay or go. And unfortunately, as is often the case, a mob of determined voices are able to clamor and drown out anything sensible you've presented so far. It's so frustrating because i just get tired of the uphill slog. Teledildonix314 ^talk 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A Conversation

I see that you are trying to be open minded and civil and made an attempt to apologize to Collect; this is admirable and I applaud you for it. However, in doing so you used offensive language in your "apology." To wit: "Religion is the opposite of education; faith is the opposite of intelligence; fantasy is the opposite of reality; superstition is the opposite of demonstration..." Was this really your intent?

To use "religion", "faith", etc. in opposition to words you deem positive (I think they're words positive as well) is not only again offensive, it is quite naive. If you would care to take a journey of study you might find that of people who believe in God, many are highly educated. As you must know from history, many of the major scientists were men and women of deep faith in God. Today, there are an immense number of highly educated people, including scientists, who believe in God, not just as matter of faith but also from careful study of science, historical evidence, etc. "Faith" is an interesting word. We have faith (or trust) in many things we can't see or touch. It is evident to me, as a Christian, that many people who disregard the evidence of our Creator put "faith" in things that have far less evidence to support their belief. I assert that it takes far more faith to be an atheist that it does to be a Christian.

If you would like to pursue this journey/investigation I would be happy to suggest a couple introductory books. CarverM (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, but i do not believe that my neutral declarations of opinion are offensive. I believe they are basic statements of atheism and rationalism and secularism and humanism and science. I don't want to ever say anything religious or offensive or disparaging. I am truly sorry if anything i say is offensive to you. I am honestly being as ethical and polite and civil and dignified and trying to encourage mutual Good Faith because it is the best and brightest and honourable thing to do, i do not want to argue or fight or win an argument or own an article. I want to be very friendly and never insult you. Please do not be offended by my generalizations of my opinons, i would never never never put those on an Article, i would only say those things in the utmost civilized way to have an ethical and friendly conversation with you. You are very patient to try to help me be more gracious. Thanks Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was simply pointing out another world view. Doing things via text instead of in person is not the most effective manner of communicating. I know we can have a respectful conversation, you have expressed that and I am committed to that. I read through a little of your UserPage and it appears you've had a tough time in life. I am sorry. You may not understand or accept this, but over the last few days I have specifically prayed for you. I have experienced pain in my life as well. But, I have also found love, forgiveness and hope. Along with these has come a community of people who love and care for me and have allowed me to do the same for them; we are joined together in the journey of life in fellowship. Life is not easy, but it can be joyful. This is what I pray for you, that you may find joy and peace and hope. CarverM (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you for your support of Ben. He really needs it, and it would be such a loss to Wikipedia too lose him. God bless. Ikip (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Being nice

The next time you let loose one of these: "or whether you just loosened your last little screw?" you will be blocked. Enough is enough. Kevin (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying i'm not being civil enough, despite the fact that i've been tolerating their COI for a couple months? Gee, i thought i was actually being rather patient, and somewhat reserved in my language. In real life i would have found a way to ramble obscenely, but around here i was just being all polite and prissy. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 08:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So talk about the COI, not your perception of their mental state. Kevin (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"talk about the COI" has no effect; the editor in question, whose presence has been continuously disruptive and who has offered zero constructive suggestions with respect to improving the article, consistently avoids limiting their involvement with these two articles and if anything only intensifies his defiance with every mere suggestion that his COI is a legitimate matter for discussion. Threatening other (exasperated and justifiably angry) editors with blocks, and blocking them, serves no apparent purpose. I suggest that you and VS reconsider your methods of dealing with this situation. Mike Doughney (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto from me Teledildonix - Kevin only just beat me to warning you and I concur with his assessment - any further occasions and I will block also.--VS ^talk 09:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

@Mike - sorry I know it may be hard for others to understand but I have absolutely no interest in Rick Warren and associated articles, indeed I am not concerned at all with what makes it in the article (except of course in relation to Wiki Policies); nor the politics of the two juxtaposed positions of editors coming to the page. If you can try to accept that then you may similarly try to accept that my only interest is to try to perform my duty by assisting in the creation of an environment that allows everyone to express their point of view in relation to content without expressing their uncivil point of view in relation to the editors themselves. Indeed if you look at my blocking log you will note that I have personally blocked a variety of editors from both sides of the Rick Warren political divide including (twice) the editor which Teledildonix referred to and which you do now. It would be nice of course if we administrators had an alternative magic wand that enforced the idea of "comment on content not on editors" but we don't and so we only have the tools of page protection, warnings, and blocks. Because these are overriding tools they will by their very nature polarise the opinions of editors - and whilst that is unfortunate (and unlikely to make us many friends) from my perspective, I will continue to use those tools where I think they provide some peace from the constant thrust and parry, especially where they revert to lower forms of harassment, incivility, and downright rudeness. On the other hand if you can think of another way of enforcing civility that does not involve these tools I invite you to come directly to my talk page and make your point so that I can trial that idea. As I say please come to my talk page because I would rather do that than usurp Tele's talk page. With thanks. --VS ^talk 10:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Making incivil comments is pointless. You can open a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users on User:Manutdglory and perhaps others. User:Manutdglory already admitted his COI so you can just ignore him or if he disrupts anything, you can just report him. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Over my head

Just so you know, a topic ban is where an admin bans you from an article or set of articles for a period of time. As for taking things over my head, see WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM.

I made the threat of blocking or a topic ban because you persist in commenting on other editors, rather than the article content. As you have been told before, it is OK for an editor to have a COI, so long as the edits are neutral. If they are not, then discuss why the edit is not neutral. You cannot assume that just because an editor has a conflict that all their edits are worthless.

Finally, did you miss the part about continuing away from the article talk page? Kevin (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is unpleasant to find that the rules and policies are applied unevenly. You insist on harping on my commenting on other editors although you can't specifically find an actual "attack" or comment about other editors which isn't precisely about things such as COI and Outing Themselves. So you spend time disheartening me, making me feel as though it's not very worthwhile to try to play by the rules and contribute politely, when in fact the actual rulebreakers go about unhindered by you even when they have outed themselves and have been caught red-handed. This is just sad, and it makes me feel like i'm wasting my time around here. More energy gets spent on scolding me simply because i choose to be rather explicit and unforgiving in my speech when i deal with rulebreakers (although you'll never find any actual example of profanity nor "attacks" in anything i've ever written on any Wikipedia discussion) and less energy is spent on actually editing the encyclopedia and applying the rules and policies to the people in the situations where there should be legitimate concerns rather than the sort of bluster you so easily give to me. In the past couple months i have watched several other very productive editors give up in frustration and walk away from here because of this type of situation. So i guess i might not be the most productive editor, but i, too, am frustrated enough to give up and walk away. Congratulations on a job well done, administrator. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 02:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(Oh, yeah, that last sentence was sort of sarcastic, so i guess you can add that to the list of "personal attacks" that you seem to think i've created. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 02:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Hey. I understand your anger. Really. But, next time your angry, just dont make any incivil comments to User:Manutdglory or the admins. Just open a Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users on User:Manutdglory with arguments (like the stuff he did and said) and diffs, without making any personal comments. I'll sign that RFC. As a result of that RFC, he could be warned or banned or whatever. And if that RFC doesnt work, we can go to Arbitration, which is quite serious. It's all here in: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The best way to deal with these types is to follow Wiki procedures. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits

I know that you know that Lyonscc is not joking, so why do you say that he is. Making light of another editors concerns in this fashion is not civil, but I know that you know that as well. Kevin (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

How dare you be so blatant in your double-standards? That editor repeatedly referred to my contributions as a "radical gay agenda", but you never made any attempts to dissuade them from such behavior. Instead of getting up in arms, i chose to make light of the situation by pointing out how their most nonsensical statement on that page was actually quite funny. This is much better than telling them how absolutely unintelligent they sounded. If you are going to scold me for pointing out the obvious joke in what they wrote, i'm going to insist that you also speak to them (and anybody else over there) about the way they behave towards me. If you keep up this double-standard, i will take your behavior to the attention of somebody over your head, starting with the person from the Mediation Cabal on that page, and continuing with whichever other administrators need to be notified of the way you are treating me, particularly with respect to the way you are not treating other editors similarly. I've had enough of your highly selective targeting of some comments while willfully ignoring others. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 06:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Read the comment by Lyonscc more carefully Tele - he is not saying you have a radical agenda.--VS ^talk 06:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is totally bogus, and you can't deny it. Look at that page and its archives and consider how many times i was treated dismissively and abusively. Then tell me you don't see a double-standard. I'm furious, but i'm remaining civil. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 06:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that I apply a double standard, and I have spent more time watching the article recently to try and avoid missing things. Steve is right though, Lyonscc wasn't referring to you, and indeed made this clearer in a later edit. Had this been directed at you I would certainly have warned him for it. Twice now you've mentioned taking things over my head, as you put it. I strongly recommend that you do. Find someone uninvolved whose opinion you respect and get their thoughts on the situation and your treatment. Kevin (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, i will do exactly that. I will honestly listen to constructive criticism and subsequently will improve my edits and tone and demeanor. But i will not appreciate unfounded censorship nor outright dismissal of what i say without giving it at least some consideration as to its literal correctness. Please give me a little while to find another uninvolved person, and i will point them right here. Thank you Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 10:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is where i started: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Mccready#request_for_your_assistance_please_as_an_uninvolved_and_objective_outsider

Also, i would genuinely accept constructive criticisms from ZimZalaBim if they have anything to suggest, but i don't know if this is an appropriate wish, because ZimZalaBim is already involved to a certain extent in the discussions where you raise your possible concerns about my conduct. I don't know if they watch my Talk Page, but if they do, i would seriously be thankful for their viewpoint, because they have behaved in what appears (to me) to be a totally civil and constructive manner. Is it also okay for me to point out that i never had any kind of Welcome Wagon and i never had anybody discuss any sort of policies, civility, or wikipedia guidelines with me until just the past couple of months, and i had to basically do all my own research and self-education and get up to speed very quickly here, all the while tolerating what i feel have been very dismissive and unconstructive comments from several editors? I don't say this because i want some kind of sympathy or pity, i say this because i am trying to show you how i have made a learning curve from zero to (one might argue) excessively prissy and politically correct for the sake of not being accused of personal attacks or disruptive abuse. At least, that's how i see it, and if you see where i'm wrong, i will gladly adapt. Thank you kindly Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Btw, since you were the first one here about Rick Warren. When did you start discussing it? I wanna be able to say, this has been going on for X months. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In my Contributions History i found my first diff for Rick Warren on 25th of December 2008: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Rick_Warren&diff=prev&oldid=260128079 Then you can see the edit-war and the sidetracking of issues on SaddleBack Church, etc etc:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090203111430&target=Teledildonix314 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Teledildonix314

So just looking at my history, and not mentioning Mike Doughney who was there earlier i believe (because i felt like he was the first to Bite The Newbie when i contributed), it is now precisely two months since i began my self-education of Wikipedia by jumping headlong into the whole mess. I learned some things, but i'm afraid i have caused people to spend so much time unnecessarily on stuff which really shouldn't be so important. I feel like i'm walking on eggshells because i have had my language policed to the point where i am becoming hypersensitive and crazily politically correct to avoid using my own preferred style of language which was deemed too blunt and not helpful. I wish i had never said anything in the first place, and had a more soft and gradual approach to all of this, instead of such a horrible First Impression which i seem to have blundered to smithereens. Oh well, live and learn, i guess. Well, i try. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your frustrations at Kevin's page

Tele - I can understand your frustration (and I am damn sure Kevin can also) but your latest comment concerning Lyonscc and then your biting Kevin with regards his warning relates to the latest comment by Lyonscc in which case he is not referring to you personally. I am picking you up on this belief by you only. I might also ask that you look at my history of interaction with you personally, to reiterate I couldn't care less about your sexual preference, your user name etc so you have no fear there; indeed I also do not care one iota if you are for or against religion; for or against Warren; nor the Saddleback Church, etc. Indeed look through my user contributions - see how I have blocked both sides of the debate, and only yesterday indefinitely banned one particular user of the Rick Warren group who can no longer be trusted by the community? Trust me - no matter how busy I am if you or any other editor of this group comes to me to complain about any other regular editor's lack of civility (and I'n not talking about dredging up something of a week ago but rather coming to me within a short period of less than 31 hours) then I will block that editor within a day or two (given my real life requirements). That's a standard promise to all - indeed point to this diff when you come to my talk page - and of course point to it again if you (or others) get caught in the same collateral damage.--VS ^talk 07:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Noticed the comment, subsequently withdrawn at my talk page. Tele I just want to reiterate I have no absolute difficulty with you and believe it or not (althought Rick Warren is not the best place to test this theory let me tell you), almost all of the other, more than 1,000,000 editors here do not either. Indeed my take on you is that you have most likely had to confront others from time to time in your living effort to exemplify to all that diversity of opinion, interests, persuasion etc is what colours and betters the world, yes? Can I kindly remind you that Wikipedia is just another worldly dimension - even if it is a relentless world because every single thing we do in it is recorded. My advice if I may - sweep away the eggshells; be kind to others but especially to yourself, treat all editors similarly and absolutely never ever lose your cool (become Mr Unflappable as you put it); oh and pull up all that thick skin that you have left slip to your ankles but which you have already cultured in the real world; until such time as a direct insult requires you to seek some admin armour support. My best wishes.--VS ^talk 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work today

Just wanted to let you know that I really appreciated your comments today. Now maybe it's time to "step away from the keyboard" before somebody... oh, never mind. I'm sure lots of nonsense will now ensue. Cheers. Mike Doughney (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My head almost exploded when i finally caught on to this spectacular COI due to your diligent investigation, MikeDoughney, and i must say i am grateful and enthusiastically thankful for all the help you have given me, despite the way i really got off On The Wrong Foot with you a couple months ago... if it weren't for your occasional words of scintillating sanity, i probably would have completely given up on some of the principles i was holding rather dearly in these processes! You have been immensely gracious in your efforts, and i am going to learn from your example, thank you kindly --

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:COIN#Rick_Warren_and_Saddleback_Church_and_Saddlebacking

I'm going to need a major wikibreak to avoid going completely batshit-insane supernova-ball-of-flame tantrum-flinging screaming-hysterically at the amount of frustration this has caused me needlessly for nine weeks, impugning my actions and contributions, forcing me to jump through their hoops of Gaming The System while constantly tricking me into thinking i had to accomodate their concerns. I would have said this is one of the most unethical things i have ever seen outside of the world of money and financial greed; but actually when i realize that Rick Warren and the Saddleback Church and CarverM and all the other employees of the megachurches have a personal vested interest in the ongoing social acceptance and financial profits of their tax-exempt institutions of anti-humanist discrimination, slander, scapegoating, hatemongering, and superstition purveying, then i realize it is just another example of how some people will put personal gain ahead of the ethics of friendly interaction whenever there is religion and serious money involved. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, good work by you 2. Teledidonix, request VirtualSteve to agree to mediation for you while you are blocked, then rest for a week and then come back :) Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Civility block

I have provided an outcome with regards the complaint you commenced in light of CarverM's COI however as I have stated to you previously you should be careful to not lose your own civility and good manners also. Towards that end the diffs provided by THF and commented on by others (here at my talk page) are further examples of such continuing poor behaviour - brought about to some extent by your tendency to be both too adamant and loquatious - and are very recent examples of lack of civility which I will not ignore. I am going to give a 7 day holiday - you have three choices: (1) appeal the block; (2) accept, consider your own tendencies a little more and return as an "unflabbergastable" editor; or (3) accept, not consider and come back to repeat your transgressions. I hope that you can do number 2. I will post a normal block notice below this message to give you the necessary links should you choose 1.--VS ^talk 23:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing civility concerns as detailed at my talk page (link provided above). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VS ^talk 23:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Teledildonix314 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To paraphrase another editor, Your objections are purely subjective and seem to confuse the act of criticizing commonly held religious beliefs in American culture with "personal attack." There is clearly a difference. In this case, those commonly held religious beliefs apparently are being used to justify a rather relentless effort to sanitize a number of articles of anything other than information that portrays the subject in a positive light. As such, they are open for discussion and are relevant to the dispute at hand. In particular [the criticisms] accurately describe the dynamic evident in what's been going on at Talk:Rick Warren over the past nine weeks. Furthermore, the blocking is supposed to be preventive, not punitive, and you are applying this for a two-month old situation for which i already apologized repeatedly and did not repeat, and that situation was revealed to be particularly inflammatory to me because i was a newbie being goaded by editors who have now been successfully identified as imposing their Conflict Of Interest on my efforts. Despite nine weeks in which i was doggedly forced to Assume Good Faith and not be unCivil to the very people who were subjecting me to personal attacks and dismissing my work as merely the product of a "radical gay activist" (as they repeatedly posted on numerous discussions besides just that one quoted, which you Virtual Steve must have witnessed for two months) i still maintained the guidelines and spirit of Civil policies by avoiding any obscenities and by using strictly the language which could be clearly supported by objective diffs and citations. Then insult was frequently added to injury as i (refraining from editing contentiously even before the articles were edit-protected, going to the TalkPages and asking editors for consensus!) tolerated accusations of "religous" editing and endured abuse from the COI editors who were dismissive and biased, until you finally had to Warn and Block some of them. Then when editors such as Spotfixer realized the pattern of your behavior (shoot first, ask questions later, cover your own butt by going back with retroactive impugnment rather than preventative education which would have been more appropriate from experienced administrators and mediators) they said they would point out your Conservative Bias Cabal, and you slapped a Block on them despite their months of justifiable outrage, then you slapped a block on me today even after i had already proven to you for several weeks that i made no personal attacks and no improper edits to any article whatsoever. Your claims of neutrality and detachment are only believable if your actions follow the guidelines for Prevention, rather than Punishment and Retribution. Perhaps you are feeling personal anger at having to spend so much of your valuable time dealing with editors who refused to give up their wiki principles despite an onslaught of coordinated COI ("the squeaky wheel gets the grease", but at what cost?) and rather than acknowledge the destructive treatment i have endured (which would have caused even more experienced editors to squeak a lot more loudly) you try to claim constructive aims while defending their insistence on trying to forbid me from using certain words they don't like or certain criticisms which don't give sycophantic deference to their religious beliefs. If i had used obscenities then you might be able to make some kind of a case; but when i take the time to deliberately sanitize my language to be politically correct and use only defensible objective words such as "superstition and hatemongering" rather than the appropriate obscenities for this type of anti-humanist anti-encyclopedia anti-information-sharing behavior, you feel you should block me despite those words all being one hundred percent accurate, verfied from reliable sources, frequently cited with diffs; and actually i would say i was above and beyond what should be expected for the sake of CIVIL, as no less than five other editors on those TalkPages attested to the frustrations which were being intentionally manipulated against me-- those other editors also including the official Mediator and random people who came over to respond to the Requests For Comments. This is an abhorrent case of censorship being combined with clearly improperly applied punitive administrative actions, and after nine weeks of dealing with these disgusting abuses i have yet to receive any sign of an apology from the people who were proven to have Applicable COI or from the administrators such as Virtual Steve who were supposed to be helping rather than choosing sides.

Decline reason:

Wow. That was a mouthful. Anyhoo, it does not address the reason for your block, which was your incivility. I don't see any effort on your part to assure us that the incivility evident in your numerous excessively verbose talk page comments will cease. Since you do not show any intent to stop, there is no reason to unblock. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I knew you wouldn't bother to look at nine weeks of evidence. That's a perfect example of the sort of "fairness" and "policy" and "civility" and "respect" we find here. And you're telling me i'm supposed to do better, when you don't even have the courtesy to read what i wrote. Your TLDR is insulting, and shows exactly what sort of administrator you are. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 03:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Teledildonix if you require it (whilst you are blocked) I will be happy to add any agreement or disagreement comment to the page detailed by Phoenix on your behalf. If that is your desire please add your comment below in this thread and I will copy and paste accordingly.--VS ^talk 01:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, VirtualSteve. I would like to ask you (on my behalf) to please indicate on that page in the section of Agreement to accept Mediation that i am a party who does Accept and Agree to mediation. I state that i Agree To Mediation, simply on the principle that all parties should always be allowed to defend themselves. If there remain any questions on any other pressing topics, my position in all cases would be only that i deserve to defend myself; but as of this moment, i have completely run out of energy, and i don't really care whether i get the defense or civility i deserve. It has consistently failed to happen before, i'm not going to expect it now. The more i oppose the censorship-creep and the oppressive policing of my frank TalkPage SPADE language, the more i realize it doesn't achieve anything in the face of hegemony. The more i try to follow along with those games of civility which were being imposed on me, the more i realize no support is going to be officially given to my language and behavior, no matter how much it is ethical in the real world. I can't even call a blood sacrifice cult what it is, without being told that my words are simply not allowed, literal dictionary definitions notwithstanding. That's censorship, enforced by fiat, approved because of the popularity and social acceptance of sickeningly anti-intellectual memes. Iconoclastic attitudes are not tolerated on wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is a sort of cult, in several senses of the word. That's obviously not going to be a productive environment for realism, skepticism, rational and dispassionate analysis, empirical observations, nor any viewpoint which fails to slavishly follow the orthodoxy of The Human Evasion. I recoil in disgust and despair at how only the most inadequate finite tools are being permitted, yet people are expected to deal with the infinitely unreasonable hegemony.

If i thought there were some chance that my efforts would be treated with fairness, i would put more thought into how to play along with these foolish games of prissy diplomacy. I could have easily been a total phony and been sneaky with some pretense of kissing-ass and sucking up to whomever as it might have served some Machiavellian purpose, but there's no good that can come of that. We can see that there is no fairness, there is no genuinely free speech when it challenges the orthodoxy, and so why should i make more efforts after all i've already attempted in Good Faith which was actually being deceived by Bad Faith intentionally?

Asking me to apologize to my attackers is ethically ridiculous, especially after i already tried to make all kinds of apologies two months ago back when they were keeping up the whole pretense of their AGF scam. At this point, asking for more apologies above and beyond the ones which i gave at the appropriate times feels like being asked to tip my mugger, salute my slavemaster, and kiss my rapist. Yeah, that's how i honestly feel, and now i wish i'd just given up and walked away when i saw how Spotfixer was treated with the same mugger unfairness last month.

It was probably considered by some people (conformists) to be a generous gesture when you slapped a one-week block on me instead of a permanent block. But don't worry, even after the week is up, even if a massive chorus of vindication and exoneration were to arise from the Mediation, i don't have anything further to contribute. I would have tried sincerely, having previously convinced myself that i was learning from my mistakes and from the numerous mistakes of others around me; but now that my AGF has been abused to such an extreme, it would be foolish of me to try to carry on. I'll probably come back in a couple weeks after my block expires solely for the purpose of blanking out my userpages once all the brouhaha fades away, and i have no interest in any other kinds of edits at all. I'm only asking you to please include my name in the Agree To Mediate section because i feel (on principle, as well as common sense) that i deserve to be defended or to defend myself.... but i am not going to bother with these issues of defense or vindication, especially since the past nine weeks have shown me how fundamentally unfair and cultishly irrational the activity on Wikipedia becomes as soon as anybody deviates in the slightest from the cult's hegemony.

If you decide i don't deserve to be unblocked because i don't want to make any more apologies (beyond the apologies i was already tricked into making to the very people who were deceitfully subjecting me to personal attacks while denying their COI) then i will only make the simple request that somebody please come along in a few weeks and blank out my userpages after all the dust settles.

And if nobody wants to honor that request, so be it. I stand by everything i've written. All of it. And i won't be made to grovel just because a large enough number of people think their fantasy-based superstitions and their blood sacrifice cults deserve some kind of exceptional deference. I won't submit to that evil now, i never have, and i never will. Submission to COI and coddling that kind of intellectual abuse would not only be against the explicit policies of Wikipedia, it would be against my own ethical principles.

Thanks, it was slightly educational while it lasted, do whatever you want, i can't change it anyway. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Done and I have also diarised for 2 weeks from today to come and blank (and protect) your talk page as a retired editor. If that is not suitable then please let me know before then by adding an adjustment to your request below here.--VS ^talk 06:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, VirtualSteve, for the tremendous effort. I didn't know i was accidentally trying to prove to myself that i could handle a certain degree of social interaction. I didn't know that was giving me a civility blindspot until long after i'd already made a dozen mistakes. I'm sorry my inability to handle these activities has been a source of so much work for you, it was an accident, it surely won't happen again. It didn't have to happen, but way back when you were first being gentle i was being blind and self-deluded about presumed capacities, and then i treated you and others so poorly while not understanding which people were being sincere to me and which ones were seriously deceiving. I wish i hadn't involved your kindness in so many of my dreadful mistakes, you deserve better than that involvement, and i am a bit shocked at my new all-time-low, as i'm unaccustomed to headsplosions in these circumstances, and i want to apologize for not getting this straightened out sooner by just admitting where i was actually capable of dealing properly with people (or not).

I wasn't being stubborn because of some callous lack of concern for your feelings or anybody else's, i just didn't know how hard it would be to admit that i couldn't handle this level of collaborative interaction. You'll be relieved that i finally got just enough brains to learn to be a bit more honest with myself, and if you knew me in real life you would know i don't ordinarily repeat big mistakes once i've correctly identified the best solutions. In this instance, politely leaving before i break any more rules like a bull in a china shop, the solution of departure seems appropriate. I didn't want to rush to blank all my pages because i don't want to deny my mistakes nor the efforts some people made to help me solve them. But it would be a really big relief to see you come back here in a couple weeks and just figuratively "wipe off the chalkboard" on the surface, so all the mean and angry and melodramatic bile doesn't have to linger around and remind anybody of the kinds of mistakes i make when i lose touch with some of my self-honesty about my capabilities. Thank you for helping. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 10:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Passing on an apology

I asked for and received a sincere apology on your behalf here and I pass it on for your information.--VS ^talk 22:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear VirtualSteve, thank you for so much assistance. I would like to retract my previous request in which i asked you to "come back and wipe the chalkboard clean", and i have decided i don't want to be truly totally "retired" from Wikipedia. It has taken me a while to cool off and to understand that you were just trying to help me here, by doing your tasks quite correctly, and i lashed out at you only because i was angry and upset at so many other things, and you didn't deserve that kind of backlash, and i am truly sorry i snapped at you like that. Please don't be offended by that kind of mistake (which i seem to have made repeatedly, among so many other errors i had here) and please don't spend any more of your valuable time in "mopping up" my mess. I'm learning slowly; but honestly, i am learning, and it does seem like i could have the capacity to make contributions which are truly valuable rather than contentious.

For starters, after this block expires, i'm going to try to stick to a Zero-Revert-Rule for any articles which are controversial (politics, religion, etc). I will also try to apply a personal One-Revert-Rule on other articles, just for the sake of caution, due to my own uncertainties about collaboration here, which is where i do clearly want (and need!) to improve.

More importantly, i am doing a lot of personal re-evaluation of how i handle anything related to WP:CIVIL. Unfortunately, i was so adamant about some of my comments, and so unwilling to retract or modify my behavior, because i felt so certain about the literal truth of what i wrote and the literal correctness of the dictionary definitions of the words i was using. Now i am starting to understand, "there's more to being right than being right," and right/wrong is not the issue.... rather, my approach to collaboration is the underlying issue, and where i need to better myself.

Due to the current block, i am unable to go to the TalkPages of people such as THF and Kevin and Collect, in order to let them know that i want to apologize for causing them unnecessary trouble, extra difficult work, and any kind of problems for which i am really responsible. I don't know whether they Watch my own TalkPage here, but if so, i hope this will count as a sincere apology they could note, and a sincere promise to behave in a different way in the future. Likewise, i very much hope THF and Kevin will understand that VirtualSteve did not fail in any way in his actions as an administrator, because THF and Kevin seem to have the impression that my behavior was possibly due in part to a lack of administrative oversight and a lack of VirtualSteve properly addressing my mistakes. This is really not the case. VirtualSteve did exactly what he was supposed to do, and was being very lenient for the sake of accomodating my newbie lack of total understanding, and he was being very patient because he thought i could make some progress, and really it was only myself who is to blame for not coming to that progress soon enough. Please don't blame VirtualSteve nor anybody else, the mistakes were clearly mine. I was provoked and goaded by a couple people who were revealed later to have serious Conflicts Of Interest... but that is not an excuse for any of my errors, i just want to give that as an explanation for why there is so much contention and such a shitstorm of squabbling surrounding me and my conduct on those Discussions. I give thanks also to Collect for their sincere apology to me this week, i can see they really are demonstrating principles of peaceful compromise and constructive attitudes, and i will try to learn from their good example.

Thank you for your consideration, it will be one of my primary goals in my future at Wikipedia to demonstrate that all your help has not been in vain, it will result in the improvements which i so truly need to make. Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 03:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Welcome back Teledildonix - message understood. I think if you try hard you can easily make it here at Wiki-land and holding yourself to Zero RR will help immensely. I'm also pretty confident that THF & Kevin are okay with my actions and I feel that they (as well as Collect and others) will be watching your talk page so they will also have seen your renewed interest. Will see you back at the keyboard in 3 days.--VS ^talk 09:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Thanks, i'll be Watching carefully next week. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 23:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil in the Rick Warren mediation

Teledildonix314, I beg you to refrain from writing things like "anti-humanist patriarchal heteronormative hyper-conformist agency," "church/cult," and "cultists and charlatans." I think these words are inflammatory and insulting to others, detract from the points you're trying to make, may contribute to you getting blocked again, and may drive others away from the mediation process. I know you've worked hard in these discussions, and so have others, and it upsets me to think that after all this work we could come to a crashing halt because we can't maintain civility. Perhaps you have good reasons to be angry, and perhaps you're trying to be civil, but from my perspective you're not succeeding. Being civil goes beyond not insulting specific editors -- it includes not making disparaging comments to other editors about their values or about things they care about. By all means picket a church if you wish, but Wikipedia editing and mediation discussions are not an appropriate forum for that. It seems to me that you're arguing with others that your values are better, rather than persuading others that your editing recommendations will better serve readers. I offer these comments to you in a spirit of truly wanting to collaborate effectively with you and I hope you accept them with understanding. Benccc (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Benccc, i truly appreciate that you are saying this in a most civil and constructive manner. I understand what you are explaining to me, and i can see how my attempts to participate are unsuccessful. Unfortunately, i feel that it is sort of like you are asking me to not be honest about what i think, because i have already tried to put my thoughts into the most inoffensive words i could find in the dictionary. I've already "toned down" the words i've wanted to say, i've been modifying and "watering down" everything i want to express in those discussions, and any further stifling of my viewpoint feels like an unfair kind of censorship of my attempts to be as honest as possible.

I don't think people want honesty. I think people want to hear me say things in a way that is acceptably compatible with their viewpoint, and i don't think people want me to be blunt and frank about what my true opinions are, even when i choose to use objective words such as "heteronormative" and "charlatan" and "cult" (instead of "gay-bashing", "rube-exploiting" and "creepy blood-sacrifice mental-zombies" which were what i originally intended to say before i watered down my terminology.)

It seems to me there is also a very huge double-standard in place here, to which you are either oblivious, or merely inured from a lifetime of living in a blatantly homophobic society. I noticed that neither you nor anybody else made any effort to stifle the usage of language which employs terminology such as unrepentant homosexuals, gays unwilling to repent of their lifestyle, the sexual sin of living together before marriage etc etc etc.... where were you then, in your role as Language Policeman? Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that i find such phrases to be equally abhorrent and disgusting as the phrases which you mentioned ("anti-humanist patriarchal heteronormative hyper-conformist agency"). We each have our own opinions and viewpoints, and i feel that your comment to me here today is actually an (accidental?) attempt to stifle my views simply because it makes people uncomfortable when they are articulated.

We'll never write an encyclopedia if that is the case.

Since my participation is not viewed as helpful, i will simply desist in joining your discussions. Thank you for taking the time to dismiss me and my viewpoints with such politeness. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 00:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tele - as everyone knows I am watching every step of this mediation. I would like to add that I personally did not view the comments referred to above by Benccc as too far overboard. You have a pointed way of writing, slightly wordy at times (meant nicely) but I would request that you do not remove yourself from the discussion. *I would further prefer for Benccc to come here and indicate that he was only trying to be helpful and also did not want you to leave the debate - indeed asking you back.* However if that does not occur I would remind you (as you well know) that if your edits as referred to went beyond the pale two things would have occurred; being (1)the mediator would have struck through any absolute inappropriateness, and (2) I would have provided you with a holiday. Neither of these things happened so please stay with the discussion - I think the new you is way better and should be encouraged as well as supported whilst it continues to grow thus. Best wishes. --VS ^talk 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314, please continue to participate in the mediation and in all aspects of the Rick Warren page. Your perspective is vital. I apologize for giving you the impression that I wanted to stifle you. I do not. Nor do I consider myself language police -- I'm just another editor in the mix, trying to contribute to Wikipedia. I know you've been working hard. I haven't shared my feelings about Saddleback Church's policy of rejecting gay members who don't repent because I do not consider them relevant to our mutual task, which is to collaborate with a variety of editors who may hold personal views entirely opposite of ours. I've seen other editors say things I think are provocative or offensive, and I haven't spoken out about them either because someone else did so first, or because we hadn't reached a point as critical as the point we're at now, where the mediation process could fall apart and set us back. I understand if you feel I've singled you out, but please know that it has nothing to do with your values and views. Even though you're toning down what you really feel, I think you're writing things that may offend people with different views. Whether their views are offensive is beside the point, as cold as that may sound. The forum in which we're collaborating is not a forum in which we are going to change people's values. I have beliefs about how we can best serve readers, and I believe my arguments are sound, and I believe the only way I can prevail is by taking deep breaths and being absolutely civil, clear, patient, and constructive. I saw your post, and the passionate but (in my view) inflammatory language it contained, and I saw that time was passing and nobody else was posting. I got worried -- has anyone quit? Collect has previously indicated that he was on the verge of giving up. Whether or not I agree with Collect, he is a party to the mediation and if we're able to resolve our issues with ALL parties involved, our resolution will be more solid and settled. That's why I wrote my post to you. I wrote it on your talk page rather than on the other page because my goal was certainly not to put you on the spot. Instead my goal was to ask you to be strong. I may be presumptuous in thinking what I say is useful. But please understand that I consider your participation important. Benccc (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be frustrated with me if i appear stupidly unable to work constructively with the suggestions and support you offer. But here is the huge contradiction which i do not personally know how to solve:

1) I beg you to refrain from writing things like "anti-humanist patriarchal heteronormative hyper-conformist agency," "church/cult," and "cultists and charlatans." I think these words are inflammatory and insulting to others, detract from the points you're trying to make, may contribute to you getting blocked again, and may drive others away from the mediation process.

2) But please understand that I consider your participation important.

Apparently my participation is desirable so long as it doesn't involve honestly expressing myself.

I don't know how to water down my wording any further; so i can refrain from saying anything, as i'm apparently going to be received as disruptive and inflammatory regardless of how hard i try to pick words from the dictionary which i can defend objectively.

I don't know how to participate in collaboration, if it involves forbidding me from expressing myself honestly, even when i think i'm following the dictates of Wikipedia's strict policies about No Personal Attacks, and Comment on the edits not the editors.

I didn't come to Wikipedia expecting to find anybody who would agree with my views, i didn't expect to find support for my obviously marginalized attitudes. I've never had a desire to convince anybody to embrace or even accept my views. However, i was under the impression that my self-expression would be tolerated even if everybody disagreed with me. For three months i've been shown repeatedly that i am mistaken in this presumption of tolerance.

Sorry if my perception of "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" leads to expectations of being able to use words (in Discussion pages, not in Article mainspace) such as "hyper-conformist" and "superstition" without being seen as disruptive. It feels like i'm being told to cater to other editors' personal feelings, while there is no reciprocal concern for mine. So far, i've found that not anyone can edit the Wikipedia-- and apparently honesty is not one of the qualities which leads to a greater possibility of being able to edit. I've been reprimanded repeatedly about how i am supposedly disrupting the processes of collaboration. Funny how those collaborations don't seem to include room for my self-expression, even when i restrict it completely to the Discussion pages and keep it out of the Articles.

Thank you, Benccc and VirtualSteve, i know you are putting lots of effort into trying to help me participate in a way which will be of more benefit to everybody. I'm not disregarding anything that you've told me, i just don't see how to effectively be in this "community" when i get nothing but grief on every occasion when i actually speak my mind. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough Tele. I can understand your position and wikipedia is a complex virtual world that is not everyone's "cup of tea". I have been here for quite a long time (as of today 3 years, 3 months and 25 days) and I have seen many, many editors come and go. If you decide to go you have my best wishes, and if you need me to help with your pages and history just drop me a note. Stay healthy, stay sane. Cheers.--VS ^talk 05:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314, in my view the issue is not whether you can honestly express yourself -- you can and should. The issue is what you're expressing yourself *about.* At the top of the Rick Warren talk page is the note:

"This is not a forum for general discussion of Rick Warren or related controversial topics. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article."

In my view, what that means is that we can best serve Wikipedia users by expressing ourselves honestly about how to improve articles, not about whether someone is good, evil, a charlatan, a saint, an inspiration, or a cultist. No doubt you're being honest when you write that you think Rick Warren is a charlatan, but this isn't a forum for that. There are other forums (such as letters to the editor of newspapers) that are appropriate outlets for such views. I'm no robot -- I have personal opinions about Rick Warren, same-sex marriage, etc. -- but I have not expressed them because this isn't the place for that. I AM expressing my opinions about how we can best serve readers, and within the boundaries of that subject, I am expressing myself honestly. See? I'm not suggesting you swallow your honesty; I'm suggesting you be mindful of the limited scope of Wikipedia editing discussions.

I'm not taking the time to write these things to you because I want to box you in or marginalize you. I'm writing these things because I think you disempower yourself when you write about charlatans and cultists. I think you set yourself up for getting blocked, and if that happens it takes away your voice. I think you make it easier for your opponents to characterize you as unreasonable. I think you increase the likelihood that editors who feel you're attacking their values will attack back. I think you set yourself up for the kind of frustration you're feeling now about whether you can participate effectively in this community.

I know a lot of people who would find it unbearable to go through the Rick Warren editing discussions of the past few months, and that's completely understandable. If you bail out, maybe you're the sane one. I wouldn't fault you. But I hope you stick around. Benccc (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, i can see you aren't purposely dismissing me, it was just my reaction to the situation. I am flexible, and i feel like VirtualSteve has kindly acknowledged that i have been adapting all along. I am so very uncertain how to participate without causing all those problems exactly as Benccc describes and lists them above, so i will just try to participate in the mediation very quietly and minimally, if that's the only way i can avoid trouble. I really appreciate that you perceptively spelled out my actions which cause my own disempowerment; i am able to learn. Believe me, if it makes things work better around here, i can just be more quiet. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 07:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nice work both of you.--VS ^talk 09:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"I noticed that neither you nor anybody else made any effort to stifle the usage of language which employs terminology such as unrepentant homosexuals, gays unwilling to repent of their lifestyle, the sexual sin of living together before marriage etc etc etc.... where were you then, in your role as Language Policeman?"

You actually care about people like Rick Warren? Why I'm interested in this article is because he was invited to the presidential inauguration. You expect these kinda religous people in ceremonies in countries like Iran. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Mediation

Hey, dont worry. You live in a country (United States) whose regime is heavily influenced by religious people like Warren. It's a bit like the situation in Iran. So your frustration is understandable. Take it easy... Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, you are completely correct. On the bright side, i take great consolation in the fact that i live in a relatively civilized state, where i don't have to suffer the same pogroms as so many millions of other innocent queers.

I realize we Bellinghamsters aren't always as barbarically brutalized as those unfortunate homosexuals in Uganda. I don't know what to do about that Ugandan situation, it's sickening. It's like thousands of Matthew Shepard's all at once. Vomitous! Maybe i should donate to more charities who'll promote human rights and LGBT tolerance in places like Iran and Uganda.

“ With safe sex advocates on the run, Warren and Ssempa trained their sights on another social evil. In August 2007, Ssempa led hundreds of his followers through the streets of Kampala to demand that the government mete out harsh punishments against gays. “Arrest all homos,” read placards, and: “A man cannot marry a man.” Ssempa continued his crusade online, publishing the names of Ugandan gay rights activists on a website he created, along with photos and home addresses. “Homosexual promoters,” he called them, suggesting they intended to seduce Uganda’s children into their lifestyle. Soon afterwards, two of President Yoweri Museveni’s top officials demanded the arrest of the gay activists named by Ssempa. Terrified, the activists immediately fled into hiding. ”

It's the most heartbreaking sort of follow-up to the American news this winter about Warren's invitation to deliver the Inauguration Invocation on January 20th, preceded by the fiasco in Atlanta on the 19th when Warren was astonishingly also invited to speak for the Martin Luther King Jr Day event. One begins to wonder whether we've completely slipped into the Bizarro World!!

Some day in the future, if the world becomes more democratic and we achieve some form of secular humanism, i think historians will look back at superstitious hatemongers like Rick Warren, and will note how Warren is just another one of those charismatic crackpots who became wealthy through the usual scapegoating charlatanism tactics, and they will condemn him for providing financial and moral support to terrorists.

What was the joke i heard the other day? "Why on Earth would we give basic human rights to queers? Then everybody would want them!"

In all seriousness, i figure it's part of a long historical trend toward gradual civility, wherein different parts of the globe eventually develop higher standards of humanism while eliminating the hatemongering and scapegoating. At the moment, in my country, it has become very "politically incorrect" in most places to be overtly sexist, racist, hateful toward religious fantasists, or discriminatory on the basis of most disabilities and superficial differences. But somehow it seems like there are still a few "categories" of minorities toward which it is socially acceptable— in the minds of literally a hundred million Americans— to continue being barbarically prejudiced and injust. Bisexuals, Homosexuals, Transgendered, Differently Intersexed.... it seems it's still okay to hate on all of those fags.... and oh my goodness, it's still quite allright to hate on all the atheists! Apparently the Enlightenment is just something that happened elsewhere, and never caught on in quite a few regions. Heartbreaking.

I weep for the future. But life is good for me, so i guess i'll celebrate for today. Best wishes!! Thanks for all the amazingly patient and thorough editing you do here! ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ^Talk ~ _4-1-1 ~ 19:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

“

Six weeks after winning the presidential election, Barack Obama chose Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration ceremony to be held on January 20, 2009. This decision angered civil rights advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.

More controversy ensued when it was announced that Warren would be the keynote speaker at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Annual Commemorative Service on January 19, 2009.

During January 2009 an investigation into Warren’s involvement in Africa revealed "alliances with right-wing clergymen who have sidelined science-based approaches to combating AIDS in favor of abstinence-only education" and allies who "rolled back key elements of one of the continent’s most successful initiatives, the so-called ABC program in Uganda". Stephen Lewis, the United Nations’ special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa told the New York Times that such activism is “resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred.”

Warren publicly supported California Proposition 8 (2008), which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, a basic civil right which they had only very recently begun to enjoy. After the measure passed, Warren's Saddleback Church was targeted by thousands of protesters.

”

Dzoosotoyn Elisen Desert

what is the proper Wiki way the link the two articles and mark them as needing attention? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hi, i am new with these tools, so i'm not sure, but here's what i found.

• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers
• Dzoosotoyn_Elisen_Desert
• Gurbantunggut_Desert

The problem is, i am not educated about this geography topic, so i don't know for sure that it's correct to Request a Proposal For Merger. Do you have any reference materials on Xinjiang topics which could verify whether they are synonymous? Can you tell me where to look for the verification that they are truly supposed to be Merged? I'm sorry, i don't know any technical information about central Asian desert geography, i only edited the article for minor cleanup, and i don't even know how the administrators and editors get those Mergers finalized. Please write to me here again if you get totally stumped, and i will read some more Help Pages to see where the explanations might be hidden, assuming you know about some reference materials which verify our need to Merge. Thanks very much for asking, please let me know how i should help you proceed.

With your help I found what looks like a proper merge template and stuck it in. They are probably the same thing in two languages, but I don't have enough sources to be sure. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to meet you.

It's great to meet some other gay wikipedians. It's also cool that you say you might agree with my views on sexuality. Love the term 'dildosexual', by the way. :) You sound like an interesting person. Zazaban (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I enjoy collaborating with all kinds of people, but it's especially nice to meet people who are honest and open about mature concepts, whether for fun or for education or just for common sense. I think one of the big challenges we have-- while being honest and open-- is how to put our Point Of View into the TalkPages so we can collaborate frankly, while keeping our POV out of the article mainspace so we can be totally neutral in our edits. It's tough for some people to handle certain levels of honesty, and it's tough for some people (such as myself) to restrict expression into such tight boxes/ realms/ regulations. I guess the exercise is good for our brains, and good for our communities. Thank you for welcoming me into this community, i hope you get lots of good welcomings also. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! If wikipedia had a buddy list, I would add you. We should talk about this stuff sometime. I believe that one of the main reasons freedom gets restricted is that people are not honest about their beliefs and tastes. If everybody all at once told that world what turned them on, then sexual repression would end in an instant. Like I said, great to meet like minds. Zazaban (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx for the cookies! Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith with Ejnogarb

Please keep our policy to assume good faith about other Wikipedia editors in mind.

I have left him a note about it being better to {{fact}} tag issues than to delete them, and better still to talk about issues on talk pages first. I believe that his concerns are legitimate - there are comments which need better or clearer citation/sourcing, and some which are not as neutral as they should be. He needs to find a way to point those out without causing edit wars and drama. You and others need to work with him cooperatively to make changes (better sources, more precise references lists at the point where a fact appears unsupported, etc).

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, i replied on both your talkpage and his, and will attempt to use only calm article talkpages rather than go to ANI for something which i should be able to handle as simply as AGF. I appreciate your polite patience, i will follow your good examples of cooperation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation and feedback on the Prop 8 page.

Thanks for your even handed participation on the Prop. 8 page.

I'd love to get your feedback on the latest proposed intro sentence to the hate crime section. I've included my post below for your convenience:

Teledildonix314 -- I like what you wrote. Unfortunately, there is an existing error originating from my original suggestion. And I'm not sure how to fix it without getting long and cumbersome. The increase in anti-gay hate crimes happened before Proposition 8 was passed (2008) whereas the anti-church hate crimes happened ,after Prop 8 was passed. Here's a suggestion: "Proposition 8 has been linked to an increase in anti-gay hate crimes as well as hate crimes against churches that supported the measure."

Hoping To Help (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't against all churches. It's also not against all people or against all groups that were in favor of Prop. 8. Since is was reported that 70% of blacks were in favor of prop. 8 and neither they nor their churches have been targeted. So here is a second suggestion that acknowledges the focus on Mormons: "Proposition 8 has been linked to an increase in anti-gay hate crimes as well as hate crimes against Mormons."

Hoping To Help (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoping To Help (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your patience. Some days it takes me a long time to make my ideas clear, i know it can be tedious to read all my blather. Here's a suggestion: you could include your proposed elaborations about the targeting of mormon churches, but you could maybe combine this somehow with the FPPC Complaint section, because those are both post-election emphases; and you could still help keep it all Neutral by retaining the mentions of anti-gay hate crimes, which were pre- and post-election. And alternately, you could ignore my suggestions and go with your ideas if they seem better... to be honest, i don't personally have a strong investment in the whole topic; all i want is the usual stuff everybody wants, i.e. neutrality and clarity.

In my own life, i don't hold conventional views on the topics of marriage, religion, civil unions, Californian politics, minority rights under a supposedly "representative" democracy, nor any of the other issues which seem to be converging on this Prop 8 topic. This is all actually just a weird kind of philosophical/ academic/ abstract discussion to me, and despite my being openly gay and strongly libertarian on issues of personal freedom, i don't personally think same-sex marriage is the big issue to be fighting about. In my opinion, people are overlooking the overarching issue of equality for all humans, and these topics of marriage or religion are just trivial subsets. But my opinion is not relevant to these edits, so i only share them with you in passing on my TalkPage, i don't have any desire to insinuate them into Article mainspace. Equality, not Assimilation; diversity, not homogeneity; fairness toward those of us who prefer to condone no archaic vestiges of tribalism such as the veneration of binary coupling... i have lots of marginalized opinions, so Prop 8 doesn't really matter to me specifically... Even if i lived in California, i would never have voted YES on prop8, and i might even have abstained from voting on it because it seems "sideways" instead of "forwards"; i might have voted NO on prop8 simply because i don't think we should be bigots who take civil rights away from minorities who struggle to achieve equality, but i could have been convinced to skip that ballot question entirely. I would prefer that gay people be free to do whatever they please, but i don't see imitation of old-fashioned heteronormative value systems as any kind of "progress", i only see it as incremental (and generally "sideways") plodding toward far more important and loftier ideals. I suggest to many of my friends they "can't see the forest for the trees", because we're just spinning our wheels wastefully on issues of marriage, military service, and other obsolete concepts, when we could instead be aiming for a future with far more diversity in which overall Equality is an integral achievement while all those other concerns are merely incidental. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing

Hi Tele. I haven't really edited with you much, so I don't pretend to know much about your contributions here. I know the situation is tense over at the Barney Frank article, and I don't pretend to be a saint, but I think this comment "We get it-- you don't like fags and liberals, and you want to use freeper buzzwords to smear people, but instead you could actually be learning about how things work in your country" (though not directed at me) is inappropriate.

As to the content dispute, I honestly do not understand the opposition to noting that he is an advocate for gay rights in the introduction. This is covered extensively in the article and is obviously very notable. It's been a major part of his life's work. The suggestion that being an advocate for gay rights is somehow negative point of view seem very strange (to say the least). I also think noting that he has a prominent role in financial governance as the leading Democrat on the Finance Committee also seems entirely neutral and consistent with the article (where both sides of the argument are discussed). Anyway, I hope we can calm things down and work more collaboratively. There are some editors there who work to disrupt and to stir up trouble, but I think most people want to improve the encyclopedia and edit in good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My observations of your conduct have caused me to try to stay as far away from you as possible. I already explained (and other editors already explained) the position taken (at the moment) on the content dispute, specifically regarding Gay Rights, Medical Marijuana, Etc, as all subsets of the larger category of Civil Rights. But that's besides the point, discussions of content belong on that Article TalkPage, where it is absurd for you to suggest that i would view gay rights advocacy as somehow negative. I view you as one of those editors there who work to disrupt and to stir up trouble, and i base my view on your behavior on numerous article talkpages and on the Administrators' Noticeboards/ Incidents. In fact, right before i received your message moments ago i was just looking at your new message to Scjessey in which you once again launch a personal attack against Wikidemon, shaking my head in disgust, and trying to decide whether i should bring this to the attention of administrators, or whether i should just mind my own damn business and continue staying away from your ridiculous drama. I don't need drama, and you're giving me wikistress, as you continue to give wikistress to numerous other editors too. Take a long hard honest look at what you've said about people around here lately, and think about why i have developed my viewpoint based upon my observations of what you say and how you say it. And please do not come back here with more arguments, drama, rants, or supposed "advice". You're skating on thin ice around me already, and if the ice cracks then i will have no problem going to the Administrators to present a list of diffs from your Contribution History as an embarrassing Walk Of Shame. Enough is enough, consider this the one and only warning you're going to get from me. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to stay away from the content dispute and the issues with CoM and you. However -

On review, I agree with (him?) that this edit on the Barney Frank talk page with the edit contents:

We get it-- you don't like fags and liberals, and you want to use freeper buzzwords to smear people, but instead you could actually be learning about how things work in your country.

...was not constructive, and crossed the line into a personal attack.

I don't have the time at the moment to go delve into the complete history over there - I don't see obvious baiting immediately above that or before it, but there could be more further back. However, even if you were baited into that, we strongly dissaprove as a project of editors responding that way.

I don't want to stress you out or attack you. I hope you don't see me as biased or involved in an attack on you. I do think you need some feedback on that particular point. I hope you take this constructively. I'd rather see the overall level of drama around that article drop a lot, too.

Thanks, and good editing... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Tele. I'm planning for this to be my last post here. I would just like to point out that my being attacked by Wikidemon on user:Scjessey's talk page and having my character assasinated at ANI by Wikidemon (who is now on the third attempt there at trying to get action taken against me) isn't fun. I'm sorry if my comments haven't come across well in discussion, but I have been attacked repeatedly for making reasonable suggestions and I'm very willing to compromise and collaborate. Thanks for your response and take care. Sorry to post again and for causing you stress. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Georgewilliamherbert. Thank you, ChildofMidnight. I see my mistakes, i will avoid repeating them in the future. I'm sorry if i have used up any of your time when you could have been doing more pleasant things. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

time for a vacation

When i was a little kid, i loved going to the Library. At the age of five or six, it was a little difficult to learn how to contain natural rambunction and exuberance, as the librarians kept saying Sshhh!! Quiet please!, but soon enough i learned that whispering was the required behavior. Like most kids, i occasionally forgot my manners, and had to be reminded a few more times about whispering politely in the Library.

And so it is similar with Wikipedia, where we have extremely strict policies of Civil behavior and Good Faith assumptions. Like most editors with half a brain (well, maybe i've a third or a quarter) it took just a little while to learn that we have "whispering" restrictions placed on us. Like most editors, i occasionally accidentally slip into my ordinary natural human way of speaking and expressing myself, and experienced wikipedians needed to remind me a few more times about how to be "polite" in this encyclopedia.

But some days there are editors who (accidentally or intentionally) give me so much stress, i find myself letting the anger and frustration infuse my words. Trying to hold it in, bottle it up, swallow it down... i have difficulty, and my natural tendency is to react with seething sarcasm, harsh criticism, and responses which are generally not helpful and not in accord with our "whispering" policy.

Some editors are only accidentally causing that kind of stress, and to them i sincerely apologize if my reactions have been ugly. Some editors actually provoke and goad on purpose because they either love drama and conflict, or because they think provocation will lead to bad behavioral responses which will get me blocked, and thus i won't be able to stand in the way of their WP:ADVOCACY and their bias. Either way, accidental or intentional, the result is stress for me, and i am not a very good person when it comes to controlling my emotions and behavior when i am pressured with interpersonal conflicts.

So in recognition of my own personal limitations, and in recognition of the fact that stressful drama-loving conflict junkies abound at various articles, i must do the intelligent thing— i must take a break and go have a nice cup of TEA. In a few days or a few weeks, when i feel more confident about my self-control and my ability to restrain my vituperative responses to the goading from the conflict junkies, i'll come back and try to be a more productive and more friendly person here.

A little vacation from Wikipedia will wonderfully alleviate my wikistress, and then maybe a fresh approach will feel more satisfying and bring more happiness— to me, and to all the editors who interact with me. See you later, hope you all have a great month of April, thanks for all the good work and the spirit of volunteerism. À bientôt, mes amis, et bon courage! ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Your not being effective when you repeat yourself so many times. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. There is an admin who unblocks their friend but refuses to address their friend's tendentiousness, so that's not being effective. There is a mediator who refuses to stop the religious insertion of non-neutral POV and who refuses to stop the tendentious insertion of disruptive falsehoods, so that's not being effective. There are a couple admins who were helping earlier, but VirtualSteve is on vacation, and User:Kevin is semi-retired. So i guess the only choice we have is Bold, Revert/Revise, Discuss; and choosing to ignore the disruption. Since nobody with any administrative powers has chosen to stop the disruption, i'll just go take a wikibreak and leave the rest of that editing and revisions up to people with more patience. Fifteen WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in one day has to be some kind of record... usually people get topic-banned or civility-blocked long before that point. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you remind me where I admonished User:Collect for being disruptive? Kevin (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I must have been mistakenly conflating this with this sort of thing (following on the heels of this bullshit treatment as part of a pattern), but at that particular time when Kevin made the comment in mediation i had been absent for a number of days, so clearly i was mistakenly reading and interpreting the admonition the wrong way. I saw it as an admonition to stop disrupting the process of progressively constructing an article, but clearly i was wrong, i interpreted incorrectly, and i'm sorry for saying "admonished Collect for being disruptive" because i can see that's not how it was. In my haste, i first saw it like that, but after re-reading more carefully today, i realize i was mistaken. So i'm sorry for saying anything which would sound disparaging toward Collect. I say this apology sincerely. You might notice that Collect never apologized directly to me even after they went to VirtualSteve's talkpage and wrongly accused me of Outing, after referring to me as "manic depressive" and trying to suggest that i was somehow in a Conflict Of Interest. So a pattern of Collect's repeated unfounded smears against me over the course of several weeks had caused me to be prejudiced toward Collect and prone to misinterpretation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 02:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to avoid misrepresenting me in future. None of the other conduct you list here justifies it. Kevin (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I've had to remove a number of serious personal attacks made by you recently on the mediation page. Continuing personal attacks can only lead to a block. I would like you to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and then get back to me about what you are going to do about this. Sunray (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to apply the policies evenly. You allowed Lyonscc to direct personal attacks against me for two weeks before you finally made one reprimand to him. You seem to be okay with allowing Collect to tell direct lies on the Mediation page, and then when i post the proof of their lies, you delete my comments and call them "personal attacks". So obviously you are not only failing to be an impartial moderator, your personal prejudices are now quite clear. I can't be involved in a Moderation with a Moderator whose bias is so obvious and so inappropriate given the subject material. So have fun over there, i'm sure it will be much easier for you to accomplish your Christian agenda once you push all of the non-christians out of your way. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 03:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is totally uncalled for. Had I not given up my admin bit, you would be blocked right now. Kevin (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So where were you when I was being personally attacked? Funny how some people have friends around here who will defend their behavior no matter how much it goes against policies, but newer editors who don't have a cabal are just left hanging in the wind. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 03:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was somewhere else. And I'm not defending any editors behavior, just criticizing your behavior. Kevin (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised at your seeming lack of insight into your own behavior. We are not talking about anyone other than you on this page and you show no awareness whatsoever of your actions. In consequence, I completely agree with your decision to withdraw from this mediation. If you change your mind about this (again), please contact me to discuss it before returning to the mediation page. I will add that If you continue editing Wikipedia, you would do well to consider abiding by the behavioral policies and guidelines. In addition to the two I have referred to above, I commend you to the policy on civility. My final comment is that you have not assumed good faith about my role in this mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite self-aware, and fully understand the consequences of my behavior; and i find it patronizing (to say the least) for you to express judgment in this fashion. Not only is it sanctimonious, it's hypocritical. You can find the time to criticize me and my behavior, but you have not said anything to User:Collect about telling a direct lie during the mediation. When i posted the proof of their lying, you deleted my proof and called it a "personal attack". What does that say about your motivations, and why should i continue to give you good faith after seeing you do that sort of thing? What conclusions do you expect me to draw, when i watch you conduct that mediation in a way which is not evenhanded? You allow insults (and lies) from the christians to stand, but you remove my challenges to those, under the guise of "removing personal attacks" when they were nothing of the sort. How am i supposed to give you good faith when you do this? No wonder Mike Doughney said the mediation was a joke when he quit. It is a total joke. And the punchline is your sanctimonious hypocritical double-standards. You have the nerve to keep posting links to NPA CIV AGF here on my talkpage, but you don't apply those policies evenly toward other editors. That's monumental hypocrisy. You have the nerve to tell me i don't have insight into my own behavior, but you don't have the honesty to admit your own mistakes. That's sanctimonious hypocrisy. It's rather insulting. But of course, you can get away with any kind of insults you please, you've been working here long enough to establish a comfortable cabal. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Quite apparently. Now i'll probably get some kind of block as retribution for failing to kiss ass, and then you'll see that as further evidence of support for your holier-than-thou attitude. Self-awareness, indeed. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 07:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

---

This would be a good time to take a break

I haven't been involved with the mediation case or articles, just an uninvolved administrator.

You may remember I asked you and Ejnogarb to try and assume good faith regarding each others' edits, and similarly with Child of Midnight shortly afterwards.

I just happened across the edit histories on the mediation. I have a hard time coming up with a good way to say this, so I'm going to just say it and hope you don't take it wrong.

I think you need a break.

I can understand why the NPOV issues with the Rick Warren article and Proposition 8 get to you. I support same sex couple marriage personally. Two of my ex-neighbors, a long term lesbian couple, got married in San Francisco the first time around. I have offered to perform marriages for other GLBT couples I know in California as a ULC minister, if somewhat agnostic one. And I was strongly opposed to Prop 8. The family who started the No on 8 campaign were old family friends - the lesbian daughter they talked about on the TV ads was someone I knew for 20ish years. A number of churches and ministries completely lost my respect in how they responded to Prop 8.

As a motivation to make the article good, neutral, but accurate and complete in covering those issues, I think your ideals were fine.

But as I read how you actually tried to do that, I could see edit by edit as you lost your temper and stopped trusting that anyone else in the process had any good intentions in any way.

You just can't do that on Wikipedia. We have to all get along. We're not a community of a million or more editors working independently from each other. We're a community. With any set of a million people, you get a lot of very different opinions, political beliefs, social beliefs, nationalities, religions, etc.

Those different opinions are important. They reflect the rest of the world. They bring us the variety we need to find balance - I can write a pretty neutral and fair article about something I dislike personally, but it's not going to be the same neutral and fair article as a proponent would write. The two opposites combine along with other views from other angles, and we get better.

The mediation cabal people wouldn't have taken a case driven by extremist bigots who were unwilling to cooperate and engage in collaboration in good faith on the mediation results and article. And they would have cancelled the mediation if such an environment developed.

I see that you completely lost good faith belief in the mediators neutrality, in the good faith intentions of the other participants to work to find a balanced solution acceptable to everyone. I have reviewed a lot of the history and back and forth. I see the specific statements that you called out as lies, and I agree that they were misstatements. But I don't see how they justified assuming that people were working in bad faith. Misstatements happen. None of what the other people did was malign or deceitful.

I don't think that they worked against you - all I can say is that I think you worked against yourself, into a place where you thought your only way out was to explode and go through them.

Nobody can be effective in collaborating when you get to that point. I support what you were trying to do, but how things ended up your reaction is sabotaging your own good reactions.

I don't know if this is purely from frustration with the process here on the wiki, or if you have some other stuff going on in your life right now. I've seen people who had real life crisies behave like this on the Wiki, but sometimes people just blow up online.

Regardless of the cause, I think you need to take a break. Where you are right now, you're going to take your reputation down in flames, sabotage your own interests in promoting fair and unbiased coverage of LGBT issues on Wikipedia, and burn yourself out. It's time to walk away and center your life a bit.

The articles and issues will still be here in a week, two weeks, a month. Please, take whatever time you need to find your balance point and come back able to engage productively with the rest of the community.

I don't know what's making it hurt, but you have to look to that, and make that right with yourself. Once that's dealt with, I hope you come back and can contribute again. But look after yourself. Don't blow yourself up here. Take a breather and get better.

Good luck. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

---

You're correct in pretty much every way. And you are very insightful for somebody who never met me, i guess you must have a strong ability to understand all kinds of people.

Partly i was just frustrated with wikipedia, and prior to the Mediation there were already a couple of people who were banned and blocked from the Rick Warren article for Conflict Of Interest. VirtualSteve was the poor administrator stuck with that fiasco, he was more patient with me than i deserved. He only blocked me for a week when i was uncivil and insulting. But at least i had always been totally honest from Day One, unlike the COI people i'd been dealing with; honesty is a big deal for me, i guess. I've got a real stick up my ass about dishonest people. So i had much lower "good faith" strength than usual, around the Rick Warren article anyway, maybe around anything related to "culture war" stuff, like with Ejnogarb. It's hard to trust people when you feel like they're attacking your very existence, your very right to be who you are.

But i won't try to excuse myself. I just hope you see a reasonable explanation for how that Mediation "got off on the wrong foot" from my viewpoint, and how that tinted my interactions with people on anything related.

Honestly i see that stuff isn't the big issue though. The bigger issue is my own: mostly i was projecting my own personal life out into the world where it totally didn't belong, not even realizing how stupid it must have appeared to strangers (Wikipedians) when i was hurling my misdirected anger and frustration at people who have nothing to do with my life.

On the inside i was beginning to realize that maybe, just maybe, i hadn't been "a good fit" with Wikipedia. Maybe i wasn't capable of being a good contributor to a volunteer project which benefits the community instead of oneself. And if i had to start admitting to myself that i couldn't even interact with people constructively online, then it was just another fucking marker on the downhill road to decrepitude. I'm about to turn 39 and i've had HIV since i was 19. I was somewhat of an overachiever for years, at school and then at work, always trying to prove to the world that AIDS didn't mean i was less than anybody. But now i've been disabled for the last eight years, though still kind of functioning like an ordinary independent adult most of the time. Constantly sliding downhill, but somehow surviving each avalanche, until things smooth out a bit, and then slowly sliding some more.

I didn't mind being at a point in my life where i couldn't contribute to an employer anymore, i got used to that after a while; but i'd still entertained the idea that i could somehow contribute to the world in general. How could i not be capable of helping on Wikipedia? I was aghast to admit that level of disability to myself, especially after a career in 4-1-1 Directory Assistance where i had been a model of polite behavior, waiting on fifteen hundred people per day, for almost six years— while always keeping cool and handling anybody, no matter what outrageous things they said to me. And as an obvious fag, in person or on the phone, you can just imagine what people said sometimes. But i always handled it, killed them with kindness, kept on smiling and priding myself on my reliability, unflappability. When VirtualSteve noted my loss of unflappability, i should have admitted to myself that Wikipedia was beyond what i could handle, but...

if i admitted i couldn't even handle editing Wikipedia....

i was afraid i couldn't handle accepting that level of disability, i wasn't ready to be that lousy yet. So... (against what my own judgment was probably quietly telling me for a while) i kept on trying here at Wikipedia— probably months longer than i should have. If i'd just been more honest with myself a couple months ago, i probably could have saved a number of people quite a bit of grief. Looking at my contributions over the long run i see numerous edits which are helpful, but nothing that could possibly balance out the angry treatment i was giving certain people.

It's embarrassing to fail to come to that level of honesty with myself sooner. It's unfortunate that other people had to point out my problems before i admitted them to myself. Usually i have a history of being painfully self-aware, so it's not my typical pattern. Maybe that's just more proof of how much i still haven't learned to accept certain degrees of disability, making that kind of "lack of self-awareness" mistake. The only time i've ever acted "out of character" in the past has been under circumstances where medical AIDS-related shit was intruding into certain sectors of my life, but that's almost always been physical. Now my self-awareness seems to have at least partially failed as my mental capacities have diminished. Sure, i'm as honest as ever, but what good is that if i'm not perceptive and sensitive and patient?

I've never been particularly vain, but somehow i wasn't allowing myself to accept that i no longer have the skills, the cleverness, patience, perceptiveness, charisma, and other qualities that are needed to deal with some of these tough interpersonal situations online. Wikipedia demands a much higher degree of interpersonal skill than many other online venues, despite the ease of entrance. I guess that was my stupid stubborn vanity, that refusal to admit i couldn't do something. How could the 4-1-1 Directory Assistance operator with the highest accuracy and customer satisfaction in the office have devolved into this crass, hostile, impatient monkey behind a keyboard?

No, how could that be right, it must be everybody else's fault, all this trouble and hurt disappointment that i'm feeling. It must be the fault of the jerks frustrating my efforts to help the community. It must be the fault of those people. Couldn't be my fault, because that would mean, well... that i'm not the man i used to be.

Oh. There it is, there's the projection of my internal personal feelings out into the world onto people and situations where they don't belong. There's where that happens. Although i have a reputation for being intensely honest, that's the point where i lost my honesty to myself and chose to believe something preferable just because i wasn't ready to handle the truth. It was easier to believe everybody else was wrong, so i didn't have to admit how low i'd sunk, didn't have to think about what's wrong with me.

I'm lucky that you Georgewilliamherbert, and VirtualSteve, and Mike Doughney are the sort of people who volunteer their time to help others online. Wikipedia just wouldn't work if not for your care and your kinds of skills.

It's very kind of you to invite my return in weeks or months or whenever i could "come back able to engage productively with the rest of the community". At this point i don't clearly see whether that's a possible future. It would require a change in some trends, and i don't know if those changes will happen— not for a lack of trying, not for a lack of caring. Just a lack of ability. There are ups-and-downs for everybody, naturally, but i guess you just got stuck watching the sorry stupid couple of months of my bobbing and hovering just around a certain line, a certain level necessary to be a valuable contributing member of an online community, a line below which i was too selfishly stubborn to admit i could sink.

I'm sorry to you and anybody else who had to deal with this. It's not like simple vandalism, it's not the sort of obvious and clearcut stuff that anybody with a Wikipedia Admin Mop can just fix up with a few clicks. It's the awful kind of stupidity that actually causes people to have hurt feelings, rather than just get annoyed. Some jerks on Wikipedia can be dispatched simply, they make it easy to use the usual tools to get rid of them. But when somebody's behavior isn't obviously destructive, when it's a more abstract kind of problem, it's possible to hover around that borderline of useful/problematic before finally dropping down the next notch.

Sorry i didn't identify and admit where i was wrong, where i was incapable; i should have done so a couple months ago. I'll get over my embarrassment eventually, as part of my learning process. My learning skills and interpersonal talents have apparently become decrepit, but they still exist.

In my twenties i would have been perfect for Wikipedia, if it had been around back then. I was typing 200 words per minute, scanning databases for accuracy and error correction, well-practised at interacting with the general public, never letting my smile slip even when some prick treated me like shit while i was waiting on him— putting up with all kinds of public abuse just because i'm a fag, and lots of people automatically feel like they have permission to be unkind toward fags or toward anybody who doesn't appear to conform to their values. I handled it all with aplomb, when i was that person in my twenties.

Oh well, eventually i'll probably find there's still something else somewhere for which i have some capability. It's nice to have hobbies.

Thanks for helping me and for encouraging me to "take a breather" in a healthy way. You're one of the nicest people i met around here. And there are a lot of nice people around here.

~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 12:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tele, even those of us who don't have your health issues or the emotional investment that you have in some of these issues struggle at times. I've certainly been known do a very realistic imitation of a gorilla. A break sounds like a good idea and/ or you might try working on a different set of articles ie. subjects you enjoy. Or maybe at a help desk or in some other capacity where you don't have to deal with the stresses of the more contentious articles. Best of luck with all your pursuits. I have a deep respect for your honesty and integrity. It's particularly impressive that you can recognize it when you haven't been at your best, but please don't be too hard on yourself. No one who works regularly on the articles you've mentioned is in a good mood and sane for long. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind email! I hope that after a break, you'll come back and if you do, please don't be shy about asking me for help. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And I repeat my thanks for your gracious email. Please take care of your health -- WP is not as important as that for sure! Collect (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314, I'm a little reluctant to say I think you're being too hard on yourself, because I fear you'll hear it as criticism -- as more evidence that you're doing something wrong. But what I'm really saying is I think you're better than you think you are. You have insight and wisdom to offer, and perhaps WP isn't the best outlet for it. I don't think the WP dispute resolution process works well for people with your temperament, which is a shame -- it seems to require a commitment of time, energy and patience that unfortunately may be prohibitive for many people who might otherwise have valuable contributions to make. (I have the impression that there are enormous class barriers, for example, but I digress). You seem to be easy to bait, and it doesn't surprise me that editors therefore occasionally bait and goad you, and you blow up. I think that's a totally natural and human response, but as you've acknowledged it's ineffective and counterproductive in WP editorial discussions. Wikipedia editors are asked to show good faith in working with others, and to expect good faith in others, but keep in mind that Wikipedia editors, like any other humans, do not always act in good faith. I hope you find other more satisfying ways to make use of your skills and abilities, and shake off the notion that you're decrepit! Benccc (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Glamorous

[2] (External video link). ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ultra-Fundamentalist

Regarding your recent comments on my talk page:

1) I do not answer to you, so you might want to request, rather than threaten, badger and offer ultimatums - the spirit of wp:civ. 2) I thought I made it clear that neither you nor anyone else in the current mediation are who I was referring to; 3) I am referring to edits prior to Rick Warren being asked to speak at the invocation - edits before you, Phoenix_of9, etc. arrived to the Warren article - I am not referring to you, Phoenix_of9, Mike, Ben, etc. - I am not referring to anyone in the current mediation. I did not provide diffs because I did not want to call out the individuals specifically.; 4) However, for you, I will provide a diff of the kind I'm speaking of - from an anon-IP. The most recent type of reversions I have made regarding "ultra-fundamentalist" edits were on the Erwin McManus article [3]; 5) I am perplexed as to why you might think that I was referring to you or anyone else involved in the current Warren dispute. "Ultra-fundamentalism" is at the opposite end of the political scale from anyone involved in the current Warren dispute. I am at a total loss as to why you've grabbed ahold of this and dogged me about it.--Lyonscc (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, you have my apologies if you thought I was speaking about you (or anyone else in the current mediation). I was not.--Lyonscc (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The next page is /Archive 3 and contains material from 2009-04-20 thru 2009-05-21.