Robpower

I really don't have time to watch more than one or two Wikipedia entries -- namely those dealing with Outright Libertarians and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights. But I will keep watching these two like a hawk for POV assertions that libertarian=homophobic. It seems that pages dealing with queer libertarianism have been hijacked by a select few people with an incredibly negative POV of Libertarians.

That needs to stop. Now.

Robpower 01:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Rob. Inserting a greetings template is standard operating procedure, not any sort of vandalism. You're free to delete it, of course, but there's some useful information in there that might save you a good deal of trouble.

I gather from your name that you're particularly interested in the Outright Libertarians. Of course, you can watch whatever pages you like and contribute just like anyone else, but please understand that the current contents of these controversial pages has been hammered out over time by many people at great effort, so any radical changes you make may not be accepted intact. If you want to influence the content, I think you'd do better as a part of the community of editors, not just someone who pops in once in a while, changes everything, then goes away.

Please take this as helpful advice. Whether or not we happen to agree, I think Wikipedia benefits from the joint input of people with all sorts of opinions. Alienus 01:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Alienus 06:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You've taken to reverting all changes on Outright Libertarians instead of discussing matters on the Talk page. Unfortunately for you, you do not own this article and you do not have the right to unilaterally change it. Any change you make, others can and will unmake, particularly when your changes violate the consensus compromise that we've worked so hard to create.

In the short term, you'll be reported for 3RR violation, as the above warning explains, and you'll wind up with your access to Wikipedia blocked. Then the page will be Protected and you won't be able to change it at all. This isn't hypothetical; it's exactly what's happened in recent times over the exact same issue on other articles. In the end, we came up with this compromise, and you're not going to ignore it. Alienus 06:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you'll please note that there are only 2 revisions by Robpower on Outright Libertarians. But three identical reverts by yourself, Alienus. For this reason, I have reported you for a 3RR violation. And I see from the history that this is hardly your first. Robpower 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you looked more carefully at that history, you'd see that the result was a compromise accepted by consensus, in which we agreed that the best thing to do was to list libertarian/Objectivist views on homosexuality as being both pro and con gay rights.

This so-called consensus (which I highly doubt actually included a single gay libertarian, so it's a bit like a wolf and a hyena coming to consensus that a sheep is for dinner) only applied to Objectivism_and_homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It most certainly did not include Outright_Libertarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which you unilaterally added after-the-fact on February 17, 2006. Robpower 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As I was explaining, an edit war is not the way to go. Nor, for that matter, is your attempt to get the admins to do your dirty work for you. If you want to argue that other political parties oppose LGBT rights, feel free, but do so on the relevant pages. After all, the guilt of others does not make you innocent.

The reality is that, from your very, very biased POV, the libertarians are the greatest thing that's ever happened for gay rights. That POV, biased as it may be, is reflected in the article as one of the POV's reported on. However, as per the NPOV policy, we also record the other relevant and significant POV's, and there sure are a lot of gay rights advocates who think that libertarians are their worst enemy.

Should Wikipedia judge this debate and award control of the article to the winner? I don't think so. Instead, it gives the views equal time. I realize that this notion of consensus and compromise is alien to you, but it's how Wikipedia works, and you're just going to have to deal with it and accept the consequences. Alienus 18:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Very true. I give up. You win. You have control. Not only of the Outright_Libertarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, but apparently even of my Talk page. I have no further recourse. The Wikipedia admins refuse to do anything about the blatanly false assertion that the LGBT-rights caucus of the Libertarian party is somehow anti-LGBT-rights. I guess I now have first-hand experience as to why public ownership of anything is a bad idea. When something is owned by nobody/everybody, then nobody has/takes responsibility for it when it goes wrong. All I can do is post a response to the Wikipedia article on our Outright Libertarians website [1] and hope that any young queer person who thinks that big government is more harmful than helpful to LGBT folks will get a chance to read it before just giving up on the political process altogether. Robpower 18:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't repeat the rest of my reply here, but I do want to point out that I don't have control of your Talk page. Like anyone else, I can post on it, but you're not obligated to reply. In fact, while it's considered very rude, you could simply delete every word I type. (Remember how you erased my generic welcome?) A less rude solution is to move it off into an archive, so that it's available for anyone who cares, but not in the way. Alienus 19:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Whoops - sorry about that; I got mixed up, and thought that edit was vandalism, it wasn't. I've set the page to rights now. --Haemo 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)