Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5

Editing stats for Everyking at 15:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC):

General user info
Username: Everyking
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Feb 13, 2004 00:10:43
Total edits (including deleted): 120,940
Deleted edits: 790
Live edits: 120,150
Namespace totals

Article	108281	90.12%
Talk	2678	2.23%
User	731	0.61%
User talk	2274	1.89%
Wikipedia	5044	4.20%
Wikipedia talk	706	0.59%
File	29	0.02%
File talk	3	0.00%
MediaWiki talk	11	0.01%
Template	256	0.21%
Template talk	9	0.01%
Help	28	0.02%
Help talk	1	0.00%
Category	25	0.02%
Category talk	5	0.00%
Portal	69	0.06%

Month counts
2004/02	604	
2004/03	2149	
2004/04	2216	
2004/05	2022	
2004/06	1792	
2004/07	1368	
2004/08	1249	
2004/09	1860	
2004/10	2073	
2004/11	3148	
2004/12	3620	
2005/01	3294	
2005/02	3672	
2005/03	4997	
2005/04	4568	
2005/05	5678	
2005/06	4715	
2005/07	3947	
2005/08	3043	
2005/09	3958	
2005/10	2741	
2005/11	2136	
2005/12	2832	
2006/01	1992	
2006/02	1786	
2006/03	1918	
2006/04	1736	
2006/05	1729	
2006/06	1599	
2006/07	1311	
2006/08	1188	
2006/09	1439	
2006/10	1367	
2006/11	1223	
2006/12	1279	
2007/01	1391	
2007/02	1404	
2007/03	1525	
2007/04	1391	
2007/05	1299	
2007/06	1404	
2007/07	1576	
2007/08	1553	
2007/09	1593	
2007/10	1502	
2007/11	1177	
2007/12	1388	
2008/01	1417	
2008/02	1312	
2008/03	1244	
2008/04	1380	
2008/05	1304	
2008/06	1107	
2008/07	1353	
2008/08	1270	
2008/09	1270	
2008/10	987	
2008/11	872	
2008/12	1179	
2009/01	772	
2009/02	445	
2009/03	232	
2009/04	389	
2009/05	165
	
Logs
Users blocked: 28
Pages deleted: 1272
Pages moved: 324
Pages protected: 7
Pages restored: 4
Users unblocked: 12
Pages unprotected: 12
Files uploaded: 6

Discussion started by Ottava Rima

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In regards to Everyking's answer about me - Everyking is ignoring the fact that I am a Catholic ethicist and I write an ethics column. I defended the Catholic Church's stance on gay marriage, and never once said that homosexuality was evil or anything close. I argued only that marriage was between a man and a woman, and why the Church believed that. This, in turn, caused Everyking to be very upset. However, this is only one tiny fraction of why I am opposed to Everyking. His constant hatred of many people on Wikipedia and his posting of that hate mostly in forums that cannot be readily seen is upsetting. I defended many people from Everyking's attacks and the attacks of his friends for a very long time. If those attacks were made on Wikipedia, he would have been banned immediately. He was protected simply because he used an off Wiki website. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima, would you you mind posting the to the thread on Wikipedia Review? Everyking was not the only person upset with your intolerance on that thread, which is now in the hidden Tar Pit forum--I myself went to war with you over it, as did many others. You are welcome to defend the Catholic church's position, and anyone is also free to call it hate speech, as it meets more accepted modern Western definitions of "hate speech". If that sort of stance or viewpoint were targeted at a religion or ethnicity, rather than a sexual orientation, it would even be outlawed I believe in certain sovereign nations such as the United Kingdom. You were denounced pretty much uniformly be the entire Wikipedia Review community for your stances and ways of presenting them. I can't find the link myself (I can't see that hidden forum anymore) but my clear memory of your presentation of that Vatican fringe view was on par with something from Fred Phelps. Hate speech. rootology (C)(T) 13:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call it intolerance all you want, but it does not make it so. I am a Catholic. There are 1.6 billion of us. Our faith says that marriage is about procreation. Did I say homosexuality was evil? No. Did I say that homosexuality was sinful? No. I said that marriage was about having children. If that is bigoted, then there is a major problem with you, with Everyking, and with Wikipedia Review. The entire Wikipedia Review community is corrupt and always has been. Most of them gloat about their "clean" sock puppet accounts, their admin accounts, how they have access to private emails, personal information, etc. The fact that you would defend those people is scary and sickening. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm Catholic too. Am I a sinner if my Catholic wife and I don't want kids? Either way, it's irrelevant to this RFA, but you have dragged EK's offsite view that he considers religious opposition to marriage without children intolerance--and by it's definition and the literal definition of hate speech, it is hate speech, as it's aimed at disenfranchising a smaller group. In this case, we have one small group--and let's not play pretend, our church is failing, and outside of Latin areas and barring Latin immigration to the USA are hemorraging at a 4:1 ratio the past decade, and 1.6 billion is still only about 23% of the world's total population. We don't run the show as Catholics anymore and each year have less weight and influence. All that aside, since gay marriage is now a legally protected civil right in approximately 11% of the United States (and NY about to vote on it, and the New Hampshire law going live in June), calling intolerance or "hate speech" on any group that seeks to reduce another's legally protected civil rights in this great nation of ours is technically accurate. Everyking, by calling opposition to gay marriage hate speech on a non-WMF site--you still have to provide that link, if he did so using those words, or you're violating WP:NPA--did nothing wrong, and it's irrelevant to this website. Hate speech is hate speech; spin doctoring cannot change that.
You need to provide a link or YOU are disrupting this RFA.
As for going after all of Wikipedia Review as "corrupt" universally, that goes for you too, since you were/are a member, and you're also going after dozens of users here in perfectly good standing, including Arbiters, Checkusers, the works. rootology (C)(T) 15:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not how it works. He characterized my words as hate speech. Thus, he has to prove it. Your defense of him while ignoring this little point is telling. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Everyking characterizes my words as hatespeech in his answer above - "I believed his arguments included hate speech". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And according to our own definition of hate speech, and according to most accepted definitions, your attacks on non-procreative marriage (same sex or not) are hate speech. Wrapping it up in a religious viewpoint doesn't make it any less hateful. I urge Everyking to not take the bait. rootology (C)(T) 17:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please attempt to add to the Roman Catholic Church page that they are proponents of hate speech. There will probably be an Arbcom case to follow, and such "definitions" will be changed. Now, since the Catholic stance on marriage does not say homosexuality is wrong, there is no way to possibly make such a claim as you are doing. The only reason for doing so is to inflame a discussion. Inflaming discussions and characterizing things inappropriately is exactly why Everyking was desysopped and nearly banned many times. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the Catholic Church says, not what you say: "The Catholic Church" on homosexuality & marriage. Let's see--they seek to limit the civil rights of a minority group and and say "The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.". That's textbook hate speech, taken with all the other positions. You're the one inflaming this, by dragging your off-wiki feud with Everyking over religion and politics back from Wikipedia Review to Wikipedia directly. Your actions here are self-serving and pure retaliation since Everyking bested you handily on WR for espousing hateful and homophobic language. I'm sorry now that I supported you for your own previous RFA attempt, as I thought you'd changed at least a little bit. rootology (C)(T) 17:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is neither catechism nor the Vatican's page. Now, I find it odd how you misquote the source. You didn't include: "Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful." Homosexuality is not wrong. Having sex for anything but procreation is wrong. This includes homosexuals and heterosexuals. There is no discrimination. And Everyking started with this, which is clear in his answer to 15. The fact that you would ignore this is strange. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this official enough?

"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application."

Right from the Vatican. Since the Church isn't actively fighting to overturn/block heterosexual marriage in the USA for people that aren't into having kids--or can't have kids biologically--this is hate, and discrimination. A duck is duck, whether it's wearing a white sheet over it's head or church vestments over it's body. rootology (C)(T) 18:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A matter of practicality only. All homosexual marriages cannot lead to natural procreation. It is much harder to tell if heterosexual marriages cannot. A lack of an ability to procreate is grounds for an annulment, so the Church does recognize it. And the above has nothing to do with homosexuals. It has everything to do with marriage. You can be against gay marriage without being against homosexuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm going to say here is that I do not believe the ordinary expression of religious beliefs constitutes hate speech. The things Ottava was saying were not within the scope of ordinary expression of religious beliefs. Everyking (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how I have stated nothing beyond what I write in my own Catholic ethics column, I don't think you have the ability to say such without proof. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I can't stand the concept of "hate speech", as it's used in a number of countries ("civilized" or not) as an excuse for politically-correct censorship. The latest issue of Reason magazine has a column by a Canadian magazine publisher who had to defend himself in an inquisition from the provincial "Human Rights Commission" for publishing the controversial Muhammad cartoons and commentary about them. I also am strongly in favor of equality in marriage, and hence opposed to the attempts by some to impose their religious beliefs on the subject, but I believe in full free speech on all sides of this and other issues. I don't see how any of this has any bearing on whether somebody should be regarded either by WP or WR as "in good standing". *Dan T.* (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a Catholic, we haven't exactly been an organization that's spent its history giving people the warm and fuzzies. Not sure what all the hub bub is about. Take it back off wiki. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this is a ridiculous argument to be having in an RfA even if it is on the talk page. I'm sure there are theology forums for this. David D. (Talk) 21:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ottava Rima ANI related to this RFA

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 15:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]