User talk:Arationalguy

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Faith

Look, I don't want to chase you away from the George Wythe University article. There haven't been too many people interested in editing it, and every article benefits from having more than just one editor. Of course I feel a sense of ownership since I have made a lot of edits lately, but that's something I can get over. Please be patient with me on that. Can we agree to be civil going forward, and assume good faith? You know my bias on GW -- I stated it right in the talk page. Your bias is obvious as well. I have never claimed to be unbiased. But that doesn't mean I can't make npov edits, which is always my goal. Can we assume good faith going forward? --TrustTruth (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My own bias is simply toward neutrality and fairness. I'm naturally a pretty trusting person, and my inclination is to first assume the good faith of those I meet. Unfortunately, your edit history pretty much speaks for itself, as do your own words on the talk page. I will always be civil even while upholding the standards and integrity of WP -- as well as my own -- but civility does not mean compromising doing the right thing. I'm sorry if the proper consequences are unpleasant, but I can't change that.--Arationalguy (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you involved directly with George Wythe University? What is your involvement with this organization? --TrustTruth (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a big fan of Hillsdale and St. Johns College, despite having attended BYU myself. Westminster is the closest thing we have in Utah, except that they lean a bit to the left. From what I'm currently learning about GW through this editing and research process, it appears their recent changing of the guard may be deep enough and sufficiently beneficial to allow them to steer in the direction another of Hillsdale or St. Johns. Perhaps they should be given a fair chance -- that is, unless you don't like what they do at Hillsdale.

As I keep reading, I can see how DeMille and Brooks made some blunders, but as someone who serves on three non-profit boards myself, I also can also read between the lines and see how they are currently being politely "put out to pasture" to make way for more effective leadership and programs. I see no reason to punish them while maturing as an organization. As WP editors, surely our assumption of "good faith" should be extended to those who we edit about as well... shouldn't it?--Arationalguy (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. What is your involvement with George Wythe University? --TrustTruth (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not part of GW.--Arationalguy (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that someone not involved with GWU would sign up for Wikipedia and edit virtually nothing but the GWU article's talk page. But there it is, and I will accept your assertion.

As for GWU's changing of the guard, the president is still someone with degrees exclusively from the school he's president of, one with a history of being, essentially, a diploma mill (I do not think GWU is currently a diploma mill), so I think that will continue to be a problem for them, accreditation-wise. Getting DeMille and Brooks out of the leadership was a good first step, but my understanding is that Brooks still has a significant role in marketing the school, and DeMille is still shaping its direction from the board. For me a sign that things have really changed will be when I no longer see DeMille's pedagogy (which has many logical disconnects and is rooted in 20th-century psychology--see whyidontdotjed.blogspot.com) embedded in the school's approach. Unfortunately, the structure of the new (and well-done) website, as well as Groft's president's message, indicates that is not the case: "George Wythe University is a unique institution focusing on a time-proven methodology [i.e. DeMille's pedagogy] which has almost disappeared from modern academia." No more name-dropping would help my perception as well. Seriously, Joan of Arc was illiterate. Another good sign would be if GWU began making Ph.D. students' dissertations available. If contributions to the academic literature began emerging from the school: published articles, white papers, etc. I would love to get my hands on a copy of Andrew Groft's dissertation so I could gauge for myself what his doctorate really means. Making his dissertation available--or even naming the topic and providing an executive summary--would go a long way toward establishing his and the school's credibility. --TrustTruth (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting points, as well as what I read in the blog. I'm quite impressed with how well researched and presented is is. Did you help with it? I'd be interested in learning more, and hearing their responses as well.--Arationalguy (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the blog is well-done. I didn't write it or help with it. You can post there and the author will respond. I do know that it's a he, and that he and his wife homeschool their his children. Other than that I don't know who it is. --TrustTruth (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

TT, I gather then you do in fact have some real world involvement with the subject? DGG (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I've read DeMille's TJEd book, and I know some people who homeschool their children and use the book as a guide. But I haven't studied it in-depth like the man who wrote the whyidontdotjed.blogspot.com blog has (I only know him from reading the blog; I don't know him personally). I also visited the GWU campus once back in 2002 with someone who was thinking of going there (we were passing through the town and decided to stop). I was pretty indifferent then. I do have another friend who's thinking of going there and have an extended family member who is a student there. That's pretty much my only connection to the school / movement other than writing about it (and discussing it with family members). --TrustTruth (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities

I really respect you for taking a stand on that GWU article. Maybe it's just a guy thing and I should be braver, but that guy kinda scares me from wanting to work on it.

Anyway, just thought you might want to look into WikiProject Universities. Since you seem to love liberal arts colleges and you look like you have a little time on your hands :) I think you could probably benefit the project. I joined it a couple days ago and have been doing research to clean up a couple different colleges' articles. It's been super interesting. Just a thought . . . --4by40 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Try not to be scared though... I don't think anyone can really hurt you here. Anyway, I don't really have that much time on my hands, but I do have a weakness for being sidetracked from time to time. The universities Wikiproject looks like it could be fun, so I signed up. Thanks! I noticed a number of projects for WP maintenance as well, such as NPOV. I'm tempted to join.... but wondering how much more I can afford to be sidetracked. :)--Arationalguy (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oliver DeMille

Given your interest in GWU, you may want to weigh in at the Oliver DeMille article. --TrustTruth (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/4by40 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

First, I would like to apologize for this mistake and not disclosing that I knew 4by40 outside of Wikipedia. I neglected to read all the rules before I began editing, and I should have taken the time to do so. I've spent the last couple days reading up, and today I understand Wikipedia quite a bit better than I did before. When I began editing here, my natural impulse would have been to be more open about knowing her, but I hesitated out of privacy concerns, which I now regret. After discussing it, we both agree that our fears were probably unfounded and possibly even irrational (despite my username, ironically.) Today, neither of us hold those reservations anymore and we want to be open about it, even if we are not allowed to edit in the future. Yes, we really are two separate people, but we did, in fact, discuss the topics we edited, including the ones we both contributed to. We now realize that such discussions are considered a form of sock puppetry, and we sincerely apologize. We each have our own laptops, and sometimes we also share the same wireless connection as well. I imagine that all these pieces fit together when looking at the checkuser log. If there is anything we can do to help verify our identities, we are each happy to do so.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but when analyzing what happened, I do think that I would have felt more comfortable disclosing our personal connection if I had more than just a couple days experience on WP when I was first questioned about 4by40. This was a week and a half before the formal accusation. She had asked me to look at an article and discussion page that looked rather peculiar for WP, and as soon as I chimed in I was accused of being her sock puppet -- which was a rather intimidating experience, I must say [1]. I would have felt more comfortable disclosing our personal connection, (which would have prevented this whole misunderstanding) but the challenge felt rather hostile and I also felt like I would need her consent, which is why I hesitated. She was feeling rather intimidated as well, which made us only hesitate further. With only six posts on WP, I was still learning the ropes (just as we still are) although I believe we now have a better understanding.

I honestly don't believe this would have happened had either of us been on WP long enough to become comfortable before stepping into a controversial article and being rattled from the outset. Of course, had we read through all of the Wikipedia rules first, we would have been better prepared and I apologize for not reading about this issue beforehand.

If allowed to return, we would simply avoid any collaboration on articles and be very sure to disclose fully any time we might even remotely appear to be on related pages. She is just as willing as I am to make that commitment publicly. If allowed a second chance, we would prefer to be totally open. I would explicitly promise to avoid editing on the same articles that she does--adhering perfectly to the rules--and if allowed, do an excellent job of demonstrating transparency and contributing to WP. We each have an interest in contributing to the Wikipedia Universities project, each in our separate ways, and I personally am interested in improving articles in a number of political and philosophical topics, especially with respect to maintaining NPOV. I've noticed a number of other wikiprojects that seem rather interesting as well.

I do appreciate you taking the time to read this. Please let me know if there is anything else we should be learning from this mistake that we have overlooked. We are committed to avoiding this kind of misunderstanding in the future and hope we can make solid contributions to the WP project.

Sincerely, Dan.

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry confirmed by Checkuser. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:19, 9 April 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

First, I would like to apologize for this mistake and not disclosing that I knew 4by40 outside of Wikipedia. I neglected to read all the rules before I began editing, and I should have taken the time to do so. I've spent the last couple days reading up, and today I understand Wikipedia quite a bit better than I did before. When I began editing here, my natural impulse would have been to be more open about knowing her, but I hesitated out of privacy concerns, which I now regret. After discussing it, we both agree that our fears were probably unfounded and possibly even irrational (despite my username, ironically.) Today, neither of us hold those reservations anymore and we want to be open about it, even if we are not allowed to edit in the future. Yes, we really are two separate people, but we did, in fact, discuss the topics we edited, including the ones we both contributed to. We now realize that such discussions are considered a form of sock puppetry, and we sincerely apologize. We each have our own laptops, and sometimes we also share the same wireless connection as well. I imagine that all these pieces fit together when looking at the checkuser log. If there is anything we can do to help verify our identities, we are each happy to do so.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but when analyzing what happened, I do think that I would have felt more comfortable disclosing our personal connection if I had more than just a couple days experience on WP when I was first questioned about 4by40. This was a week and a half before the formal accusation. She had asked me to look at an article and discussion page that looked rather peculiar for WP, and as soon as I chimed in I was accused of being her sock puppet -- which was a rather intimidating experience, I must say [2]. I would have felt more comfortable disclosing our personal connection, (which would have prevented this whole misunderstanding) but the challenge felt rather hostile and I also felt like I would need her consent, which is why I hesitated. She was feeling rather intimidated as well, which made us only hesitate further. With only six posts on WP, I was still learning the ropes (just as we still are) although I believe we now have a better understanding.

I honestly don't believe this would have happened had either of us been on WP long enough to become comfortable before stepping into a controversial article and being rattled from the outset. Of course, had we read through all of the Wikipedia rules first, we would have been better prepared and I apologize for not reading about this issue beforehand.

If allowed to return, we would simply avoid any collaboration on articles and be very sure to disclose fully any time we might even remotely appear to be on related pages. She is just as willing as I am to make that commitment publicly. If allowed a second chance, we would prefer to be totally open. I would explicitly promise to avoid editing on the same articles that she does--adhering perfectly to the rules--and if allowed, do an excellent job of demonstrating transparency and contributing to WP. We each have an interest in contributing to the Wikipedia Universities project, each in our separate ways, and I personally am interested in improving articles in a number of political and philosophical topics, especially with respect to maintaining NPOV. I've noticed a number of other wikiprojects that seem rather interesting as well.

I do appreciate you taking the time to read this. Please let me know if there is anything else we should be learning from this mistake that we have overlooked. We are committed to avoiding this kind of misunderstanding in the future and hope we can make solid contributions to the WP project.

Sincerely, Dan.

Decline reason:

Your request is in exactly the same terms as your previously-declined unblock request, so I see no reason to overturn a decision based on Checkuser evidence, which is accepted as reliable, and a review by another administrator. This just looks like admin-shopping and is unlikely to result in you being unblocked. Rodhullandemu 23:31, 15 April 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you, Rodhullandemu, for being the first admin to actually say something here. Whatever "admin-shopping" may be in Wikipedia jargon, please keep in mind that that's not my intent, but that I am simply doing my best to follow procedures. I'm no expert at this. The instructions left on this talk page after my appeal were to review the page "appealing a block," and then to simply appeal again. I've been rendered without the ability to even contact the original admin who blocked my account, so this is my only option as far as I can tell. I do appreciate you actually providing some kind of input though, as I am totally blind to any remarks(?) and not provided any actual feedback from admins other than the checkuser result which I believe I explained above. As for not changing any of the wording in my second appeal, I have already disclosed everything, so I really don't know what more I could say. I would be happy to engage in a dialog though, and if there were a way to simply communicate with the original admin who blocked my account, that seems to be the proper step and I would certainly have preferred that. Since I can't, I'm not sure what else to do. Because it is beginning to appear that different admins find this unblock request (however that works) then perhaps just my ability to contact the original blocking admin could be granted? Please bear with me as I'm just learning how all this works. Thank you for your patience with me. If anyone is willing, anything you can teach me about this is also appreciated. Thanks again. Respectfully, Dan

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, sockpuppetry, as documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/4by40/Archive. You will not be unblocked unless you convince us that is wrong, and you have about one try left.  Sandstein  06:21, 16 April 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.

If you go into your preferences and enable e-mail for your account, you can contact the blocking administrator at [3]. Beyond that, you are correct, putting the unblock template on your page does notify any and all observing admins that you have requested an unblock, and it is very unusual that either the blocking admin or a previously commenting admin will review your block, which normally serves to keep a set of fresh eyes open. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and helping me see a little more how this works. Unfortunately, I can't find anything in my user preferences that indicates my e-mail is not enabled. It shows that I am an autoconfirmed user, displays my email address, and the checkbox labeled "enable e-mail from other users" is already checked. I saved those preferences again just to be sure though, but I still am unable to contact the blocking administrator, Jennavecia. Instead, I still get the same default WP block message. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, or if I'm experiencing a different kind of block. Any ideas?--Arationalguy (talk) 06:06, 16 April 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).

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

---

Request reason:

My desire is to be absolutely forthcoming and open. I hope I have done so in my original appeal above, but perhaps I am mistaken. I am truly sorry for having discussed the articles that 4by40 and I both edited without disclosing we knew each other. I am no longer naive to this and I realize it is wrong. We never used each others accounts, but we did, in fact, discuss concerns, as I have openly admitted. We communicated both outside WP and on our talk pages, and those were genuine communications. To demonstrate the legitimacy of our privacy concerns with the WP editor we were dealing with, TrustTruth, he has, since my appeal, gone even further now by posting my name on his attack blog http://themakingofauniversity.blogspot.com/ as he attempts to guess my identity and make it public. He has gathered this information as he continues to watch this talk page. (I have posted it nowhere else and he even links directly here.) He is still guessing incorrectly that I am part of the school, but the fact that he is doing this publicly while gathering personal information from my signing of my appeal letters only confirms the original fears that prompted me to not disclose that I knew 4by40 -- which is what this entire meatpuppetry allegation is about. (Please see my original appeal.) Please view his blog for yourself and capture a screenshot of it before he changes it in the morning (update: which he has already done as of 10:00am MST, posting yet another link to this appeal while attempting to reassure that his continued offline harassment of both myself and George Wythe University will never actually violate my privacy and that of 4by40 -- which is hardly reassuring and only reconfirms my original privacy concern.) Nonetheless, with my better understanding of WP, I still promise, and remain committed, to never repeat it by editing the same article that someone I know is also editing without disclosing publicly that I know them, and to take measures to even avoid its potential of happening. I now realize the importance of this for preserving the integrity of WP, and I support the policy as a matter of principle. It makes sense to me for maintaining balance and objectivity of the articles. Perhaps this is inadequate. If so, perhaps I still don't fully understand everything I have done wrong and what else I should be willing to do. If so, I am willing to learn. I am teachable. I would genuinely appreciate the guidance to understand it better, if you would be so kind. Thank you. Respectfully, Dan

Decline reason:

I'm sorry but it comes down to this: I don't believe you. You not only violated the rules on sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry as you claim, but it amounts to pretty much the same thing to us), but you also went to certain lengths to conceal the relationship (the 4by40 comment to you about standing up to TT, for instance), and not only denied the connection when you denied being sockpuppets, but turned it around into a claim that the other editor was acting in bad faith. So I think one of two things is going on here: either you are lying and you actually personally operate both accounts, in which case I cannot grant the request, or you have a close relationship of some kind with 4by40 and acted in concert to deceive and disrupt the Wikipedia community through meatpuppetry, and covered your tracks to avoid being caught. Being generous and assuming that the latter is the case, I would still not grant an unblock request.

Wikipedia cannot trust you to behave properly now (even, I think, with a topic ban against the one article you seem to care about.) If you really want to be unblocked, you will have to show us that you are serious first by abiding by your block for a long period without creating other accounts or editing anonymously; let's say, 3 months at least. Mangojuice^talk 17:37, 17 April 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.

Mangojuice, I'm sorry you feel that way although I can see why you might. I don't expect many admins to have the time to investigate the full history to see why we did everything we did. For privacy concerns 4by40 and I had good reason to conceal our relationship from TT, which I have tried to explain here. And yes, we spoke with each other through our talk pages -- just like we do through google chat and email almost daily. What you saw here on WP was a real conversation. We communicate online frequently. But again, we had good reason for being wary around TT. We also had good reason to claim that TT was acting in bad faith, which I will stand by unequivocally. In no way was I attempting to merely distract -- especially since we believed we were not, in fact, sock puppets, and hadn't even learned yet there was such a thing as meatpuppets. The simple truth is, I had already alerted an administrator of TT's disruptive and tendentious editing and he had been warned about it. As a result, he had plenty of motive to shift attention, which he succeeded at. Meanwhile, we had legitimate and serious privacy concerns with TT which have been validated over and over. You would have to be familiar with the entire history of TT and his confirmed use of his attack blog in conjunction with Wikipedia, etc. Unfortunately, I realize that such a detailed investigation and actually contacting us personally for a genuine discussion is unlikely. I understand that you are doing the best you can with limited time, so I don't hold that against anyone. I doubt I would have the time if I were in your position, so I understand. Frankly, the hours I see volunteered here are remarkable.

As for the idea of putting this on hold for extra time, while that does seem arbitrary, it might be just fine as well. I'm not in any hurry and have no intention of creating another account regardless. The only drawback I foresee is taxing anyone with revisiting this after memories start getting rusty. It's a lot of information for anyone to have to spend time reviewing again at a later date.--Arationalguy (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: You are discussing TT's conduct (& your view of it is understandable) How is that relevant? Are you planning to come back to fight with him? If not, what are you planning to do when you return? DGG (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I'll answer your questions in reverse order. Neither 4by40 or myself want anything to do with TT. Neither of us intend any personal fight with him. My own preference is to move on to other topics. After all, WP is immensely broad and I have many interests. If you look at the other editing I began elsewhere in the brief time I was here, I believe you'll see an evenhanded approach and a respect for authentic dialog among editors -- especially while genuinely seeking NPOV and dispassionate, encyclopedic quality of information. I invite a review of those edits and any guidance if I ever strayed from that ultimate goal. If there are any, I'm fallible, but also correctable. That really is, in fact, my nature. 4by40 shares a similar disposition and abilities, which is one of the reasons I respect her. Currently she is quite discouraged, but if she feels there is any hope, I know that she would be happy to voice her opinions on her talk page.

In answer to your first question, the way TT's conduct is relevant is: what you are seeing today in his willingness to even post links to this talk page, post my first name (from here) on his blog, and then draw attention to how anyone can potentially identify me by combining "Dan" with my Wikipedia avatar because I use it elsewhere on the web (as he says) -- this is the very concern I sensed when he initially interacted so alarmingly with us in our first days here at WP (as I described in my first appeal). This sense that I needed to be guarded grew quickly when I looked into his edit history to see what I was dealing with, concerns that were further heightened when discovering he owned the attack blog against GWU. This is precisely what caused both 4by40 and myself to hesitate in revealing our personal connection to each other outside of WP in the first place. Being intimidated by him from the outset initiated a vicious cycle we regret, but we felt trapped. We are now simply seeing our original fears being confirmed further. This is additional reason for us to not want anything to do with him. At the very most, solely for the record, we would want to explain ourselves for the benefit of WP admin and other editors -- and move on.--Arationalguy (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, i see in the editing only the typical brief attempt to establish oneself as an actual editor, with a range of topics before launching on a crusade. So presumably you agree to edit none of the pages connected in any way with GWU or ODM? You realize that should you do so after this there is not chance that you will ever be unblocked? I am by now too involved to be the one to unblock you, but your answers here will be of interest to other admins in making a decision. DGG (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see why TrustTruth initially began his "alarming" initial interactions with you. Your changes to the pages were very large. Editors are not supposed to make such vast changes to an existing wiki page. Had your approach been different, you probably wouldn't have been in that negative interaction (or cylce as you describe it). By the way, the spouse card is too common among sock puppets. Trms (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was about to answer DGG's post, but this brief intrusion is of note. The above post by new user Trms mentions "spouse card." I have never said spouse anywhere. Only TT has done so when he posted it on his blog. Also, what vast changes prior to TT's initial aggression? The diffs plainly show that I had made a single post in the GWU discussion page, and not a single change to the article when TT first pounced. Further, nearly every change I made was discussed openly first. The above editor has clearly never viewed the diffs during his 8 contribs (half on his user page, half GWU related) but somehow knows to come to view this page and has heard a different story somewhere else.... while suggesting he knows a great deal about what is "common" in administrative issues. This type of disingenuous collaboration further raises privacy concerns. Is this somebody else's attempt to discourage me from even wanting to return to WP? Is there a private place we can continue this discussion? Since the committees use private means of discussion and correspondence, isn't is possible we could find a way to do the same thing here? Perhaps one of the admins has an idea. Thanks.--Arationalguy (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never had any communication off-wiki with the admin who made this block, or the ones who have declined it.

It is, however, only fair to say that Trms does appear to be a new single purpose account DGG (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yah. I have not changed any actual wikis except for a brief edit on a jazz guitarist. Count down from 10, take a deep breath, and relax. I have no real interest in George Wythe College. Also, your talk page was what pointed me to the "attack blog" that mentions the spouse card. Also, because you are a proven sockpuppet for 4by40, your changes were large enough to prompt such interactions - either as 4by40 or arationalguy. It made no difference. By the way, I don't think that his postings showed aggression. I research aggression, and I see none there. Sorry DGG for these interjections. I am relatively new to wikipedia.Trms (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

On several levels, I don't think this post needs a response.

Back to DGG's question. If the block is removed, I invite anyone to follow my contribs. You will see that the work I began elsewhere in WP will grow and discussions in topics where I edit would be enriched. As I already have volunteered, I am quite happy to not edit pages related to GWU. 4by40 is equally content with that.--Arationalguy (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.