User:Anynobody/Archive Positive Feedback 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Sylvia Browne
Hi, Anynobody. In regards to my inquiry about Sylvia Browne's about solving "case after case", a recent exposé on Browne done on Anderson Cooper 360 mentions a few that were sent to the show from Browne's own office. Even her official 'hits' are questionable, one can completely be dismissed. I'd appreciate your input and how best to add this new information to Browne's article.

Here's part one

and part two

- Throw 02:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the links Throw, to be honest I was actually trying to figure a way to work them in myself. Cooper's report was great, but the sad thing is he isn't the first person to do a really great job exposing her as either a deluded moron or conniving fraud. Along those lines I got to thinking maybe the article needs a bit more emphasis on her felony guilty plea for securities fraud. She later claimed that she had not used her "psychic" powers to endorse a married couple and some guy into each investing $20,000 in her and her ex's gold mine.
 * It occurred to me that since she has been in this "field" since around 1974; She was using her "abilities" even if she didn't say so directly to her victims in the 1992 fraud case. If I really believed she was "gifted", the fact that she is in on the deal tells me the mine will pay off! She's a psychic! However if I were skeptical of psychic phenomenon, there is no way I'd fork over $20,000 to invest in a psychic and her husband to do anything. I don't know her personally but something tells me her "gifts" and "powers" would have at least come up in general conversation while in her presence.
 * Starting from that, then going through her documented mistakes one by one, and finally working in high profile media stuff. Like the Anderson Cooper report, James Randi's 1,000,000 challenge, and maybe even a bit of Larry King's recent show that she skipped after she was proven wrong again about that missing teenager. (I'm hoping Larry King is realizing that she may have made a fool of him for his support in the past). Anynobody 06:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your barnstar
I put a well deserved barnstar on your userpage. Let me know if you'd prefer to leave your userpage blank and I'll cut and paste it here :) --Ubiq 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just fine, I was afraid I'd actually have to write about myself to get my name to show up as a blue link. This saves me the trouble. Thanks Anynobody 01:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I affirm that I am also commons:User:Anynobody
4.

Help in finding source
I saw an earlier message from you recently regarding the controversial action taken by C.V. in regards to B.S. You mentioned that this was at the request of B.S.'s mother, which would be good information to add to the articles. Where did you find this? -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head I don't remember, but I'll go over my browsers history and find it. It may take a few hours, but I'll post it here when/if I find it. Anynobody 21:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I remember, sorry if I wrote her mother requested it. If you point me to where that is I'll fix it, I actually meant family. Which was an assumption on my part, since reprogrammers tend to want money I assume either her mother or perhaps ex husband (I read in her usenet posts that she used to be married to a guy named Schwarz.) I apologize for any confusion, Anynobody 06:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your edit here. I commend you for keeping cool headed. Orsini 03:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your very welcome, it was no problem. Anynobody 04:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Wiffle Bat

 * Wow. I want one of those bats. :-D --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen you don't fit the criteria. Other awards/Wiffle. Wikidudeman  (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
Honestly, I didn't even know that Wikidudeman had responded to me on his talk page. My apologies. Thanks for the heads up. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, I understand how it can happen. Thanks for the prompt reply. Anynobody 10:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeff Weise 5th grade.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jeff Weise 5th grade.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't a reply to the bot, but rather anyone following up on it. I didn't upload it originally. The photo was of a portion of a 5th grade yearbook, and another editor was good enough to blank out the names and pixelate the faces of the irrelevant students. For privacy concerns and the benefit of slight reduction in file size the adjustment seems to still fulfill the original intent. Anynobody 04:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

 * For the recognition. It is appreciated to know that my efforts are appreciated around here...  Smee 00:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Not a problem, I hope the You RAOK made sense. I meant it to be taken as a weird pronunciation of "rock", now I notice it could also be read as You R A OK. Anynobody 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, I see that now. Thanks.  Smee 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

RE
Yeah, I have a nasty habit of taking stuff out on random people during times of frustration, which is actually why I didn't make admin. I'm glad to see that I haven't offended you, and just know that I wasn't actually referring to you specifically. It was more of a general statement to anyone who would read it. Peace, 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother
Hey! I'm glad you wrote me. This guy is exactly the kind of person I do not like. I don't know where to begin describing everything that is wrong with him. I can see it in the replies to you as well. L.Ron's military career, if it is fabricated, is obviously worth discussing. I don't know why it would be fabricated, it wouldn't change my opinion of him or anythiing, so many times things aren't what they seem, but it's still worth looking into. It isn't 'he said, she said', it can be figured out what the truth is. And he says anything else is PR. This is what bugs me about justanother, he says things like they are fact. NO, it isn't just PR. It could be that he lied, it could be that there was a mistake, etc. That isn't PR.

Ok, now I'm reading the posts on yourpage. This is so hard to understand. You're not supposed to talk about Scientology with him, he says? "Is that clear"? See,he speaks to people with an air of superiority, like he is the voice of reason, of authority."And I have no doubt that you consider yourself the soul of equanimity and justice." COMPLETE PROJECTION.

Whoa, I'm on the Barbara Schwarz page, he did this with me to. I don't understand those people who feel the need to inform you of obvious thigns you would never do like you need them to inform you otherwise you would do it. He did that to me at first when we were friendly regarding editing Scientology pages (telling me not to do this or that, which I would never have done).

I think the good thing is that this is just the internet. If it were real life, we would be able to tell in a second what was up with this guy and we wouldn't apply him the same weight that we apply other people. I sometimes forget that when I use the net because you're not getting the feel of the person saying the weird thing. It used to bug me some of the things that critics of Scientology used to say, and then I saw photos and video of them, and it made sense. You could tell they weren't really there, so I wasn't upset anymore. I'd love to see what this guy looks like. I'd probably end up feeling sorry for him and have compassion and overlook all the incredibly rude traits he has.

I don't know how to explain how things got bad between us. It's just his personality, who he is, and I disagree iwth it, find it incredibly rude and invalidating to other people, and just let him know.

You're on the Scientology's 'enemies' list? What happened? You defintely didn't imply anythiing negative about Scientology, it's all good. People I know make jokes about Scientology and it's totally fine. I know what I don't like and don't agree it and I'm not sensing any of that from you. Another thing about Anynobdoy, is he DOES seem like everything is pro-Scientology, no matter what, and I've noticed that with some Scientologists, but that's not me, and that's wrong. I dislike a lot of Scientologists I've met because I can tell the kind of people they are and the kinds of things that they would do or think, and I'm just not okay with that. Scientology isn't some group that you join and become this ideal Scientologist and just turn into that. It's like when I go to the gym. I don't adapt the feeling and personality of the gym and the people in the gym. I go there to work my body, to use it as a tool. I do the same thing with Scientology. I really hate when people do that because what starts happening is they start feeling like they're better than others because they "act" more like an ideal Scientologist than people who aren't doing that, and all sorts of other things, which I think our friend here might've done. :)

That was long and rambling, but I've been up all night with little sleep ! Write me back. Johnpedia 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your response makes me feel so much better, and please don't feel bad about "rambling". I do a lot of it myself, for reasons you pointed out. The people I'm talking to here can't hear the tone of my voice, see my facial expressions, etc. so I've found myself expanding (or rambling) what I would say in real life. Actually I've often pondered the fact that if people met me in real life they'd think I was shy because I don't say nearly as much when trying to convey an idea. For example if I were chatting with you face to face, instead of saying what I just said, it probably be something like "I know exactly what you mean".


 * I can't tell you how relieved I am that Justanother is the exception when it comes to Scientologists, and not a typical one. It's been my experience that religions/cults are usually not as "bad" as they are represented to be by their critics. (I say usually, becomes sometimes the critics are right like with Jim Jones.)
 * Justanother was seriously making me think the critics could be 100% right, obviously now that I've talked to you I that I was right the first time. I think you must be right, seeing how you've been treated, makes me think it's more about ego than it is about religion. When I thought it was about the religion it made me really uncomfortable because I try not to criticize any religion, because I can't say one is any more "correct" than another. (I suspect the U.S. Navy probably "feels" the same since they don't have religious requirements, on the subject of Lt. Hubbard's WW2 experience.)
 * I also have to agree it's amazing he'll warn others not to do something, then usually turn around and do it himself. The amazing part is that the person he warns is actually NOT doing anything like it.
 * The truly epic part about his behavior though is that by "defending" Scientology like he is, it's actually hurting Scientology by perpetuating a negative stereotype. Because his ego is so large, even his friends and family probably wouldn't be able to convince him he is doing anything wrong.


 * I really appreciate your prompt reply too. Anynobody 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm like that too, it's easier to write out and focus on what I'm saying when I'm relaxed at home on my computer than if I were trying to talk about it with a stranger. I'm happy you seem like a humane,normal person. Talking to JustAnother, it's not even like talking to a person, which is creepy. I'm sorry he's the first Scientologist you met, I hope you don't let that reflect Scientology. The loudest, weirdest people are always the ones who get the most attention while the real ones, the ones that matter, are the ones who are content and more private, I find at least. Johnpedia 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusion
Are you saying that I need to apologize? If so, for what? Also, instead of attempting to psychoanalyze me, you may want to continue to engage in the debate. (I've clarified my objection to the whole Colbert\O'Reilly thing). Considering that I have been an editor for almost three years, and have 5 times as many edits as you have, I find your position on me odd to say the least. I think that as I have more experience here than you do, that I have a decent idea of how Jimbo Wales wishes this project to proceed. Granted sometimes I misread things and get them wrong (and I admit that maybe I am reading BLP too narrowly with this particular edit). That makes me human. However, regardless of whether you agree with what I write, you should still show me the respect of asking me to clarify my positions, challenging my assertions, before making ad hominem analysis. This applies whether I am six or sixty or whether you think I am too sensitive or too borish. We've had indirect discussions over at Ann Coulter, and I respected your ability to state your position without resorting to the kind of name-calling that Info can't seem to avoid. Don't allow editors like that to drag you into the Wiki-abyss. ;). Good luck. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you may have misunderstood what's happening, I'm not saying you need to apologize for anything. (Asking for an apology seems fruitless to me, if somebody is sorry for what they said they'll generally apologize on their own.) Most of what Info999 and I discussed was in reference to 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid . I'll explain about the apology at the end,


 * My perception of the situation is somewhat complicated, it's important to understand when I use the term inexperienced I don't mean on Wikipedia. Every now and then some of your comments strike me as something OTHERS could consider offensive, but I don't think it is intentional. When Info999 pointed out his/her perceived youthful inexperience on both you and  声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  I agreed that may be correct. I get the feeling that you are doing your very best to be civil, so the idea of still being "offensive" must sound a bit overly critical. I used to have a similar problem when I was younger (high school - college age) and it's a difficult to explain without making people sound "overly sensitive" (I had a different one word term for it that can also refer to a cat). I came to realize that my threshold for tolerating insult was relatively higher because I inherently understood that when I criticized an idea I was not trying to say anything about the person, and I figured it was the same when somebody shot down an idea of mine. A few people were nice enough to explain to me that most people think you are saying negative things about them if you don't phrase criticism carefully.


 * I could be wrong of course, but that is my opinion. The important part is that I am sure you are editing in good faith, and am not in any way trying to slight you. When Info999 pointed out that what 声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid  said could have been taken as offensive, I was genuinely impressed he/she apologized. How many people actually apologize to a person they disagree with for making a mistake on here? I have not seen very many, but I was not implying you needed to apologize too when I pointed out  声  援  --  The   Hyb  rid 's. Anynobody 22:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused! I have no idea what this "The Hybrid" is, and I don't think I was involved.  Perhaps you have me confused with a different editor?  Smee 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


 * D'oh!!! I meant Info999, sorry Smee. Anynobody 23:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely did not understand what was going on, and hence the title of my post. But you raise an interesting point.  Although the inexperienced label is comedically wrong (check out my user page and infoboxes... I'm sure you'll see the humor), I would like to know how some of my edits can be offensive to others.  So please, if in the future, you see an edit of mine that crosses the line or can be interpreted as such, feel free to let me know.  I will extend the same courtesy to you.  Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any posts worth mentioning because doing so would make more of an issue out of this than there needs to be. If I had to rate your behavior on a template scale like Template messages/User talk namespace it'd be a level 0.5 at most based on my general impression of you from the pages we've edited. I promise you if your behavior caused me any real concern I'd have said something to you directly. The point is that while I think you could offend a sensitive editor, it's not a problem worth mentioning unless/until you are actually offending someone. Please understand that if I were to ever come to you with such a concern I'd give you proof. Anynobody 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm a he ;), and secondly I thought that we were in agreement that the quote was appropriate to the article. I disagreed with Info999's interpretation of Ramsquire's actions, but as far as the content went I agreed with you and Info999 after realizing that I was incorrect about the Colbert quote. In truth, the only reason I said anything to Info999 about it, is because he/she is inexperienced as a Wikipedian, and therefore hasn’t learned how Wikipedia policy addresses that kind of thing in too much detail. The reason that I commented on him/her telling me that I was wrong after I had figured it out is because he/she has yet to meet a true Wikipedia egomaniac. Comments like that, when made to someone who doesn't have a personality that can take it, usually end up with someone holding a grudge, which causes people to become uncomfortable being around them when they are together, and just disturbs the atmosphere of that area of Wikipedia overall. I was just trying to give some helpful advice, which Info999 doesn't seem to have taken well. --  The  Hyb  rid  02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to give the impression that I don't care about this, but at the moment I've got some other stuff going on so I can't give it the attention I want. Just to be clear, none of my comments have had anything to do with the BOR article directly. I've been addressing perceived feelings of offense and general user conduct. I guess my basic point is we all have the same intention, not trying to offend each other. Anynobody 03:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and this is what happens far too often. A couple people inadvertently offend a couple others, and then the air is polluted and things don't get solved because everyone is biting their tongues and trying to work out the personal problems the situation created. Now all we need is one of the egomaniacs that I was talking about to get involved because he(usually) had his pride injured, and we would have the typical situation. Anyway, take your time Anynobody. Cheers, --  The  Hyb  rid  03:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more about the feelings of people getting in the way of resolving issues. It gets frustrating when offense is taken over statements that were not meant to be offensive, because the explanation can make things worse and distract even more from the original reason the statement was made. Please understand, I'm not implying anything negative about people bringing up concerns of being offended because it is a valid concern. I just wish I could figure out a way to resolve concerns better because I managed to inadvertently offended Ramsquire by wording my comments poorly. (Honestly Ramsquire I meant nothing negative, but I could have worded the statement better so I understand your concerns.) Anynobody 01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall we just drop the entire issue, and not hold any of this against anyone else in the future? I believe that all of us are more than capable of simply putting this behind us, so are we in agreement that this would be the best course of action? --  The  Hyb  rid  02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Anynobody 03:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Ramsquire I do want to make sure there are no hard feelings on your part. Please understand that my comments to Info999 do not reflect a deep concern or disagreement with your editing style. From the brief encounters I've had with you, it seemed like maybe Info999 had a point. Since I don't know enough about either you or  The  Hyb  rid  to be sure I pointed out a good trait I've observed about  The   Hyb  rid . Being able to offer an apology is a good thing, we all make mistakes. People who are unwilling to admit mistakes are just making yet another mistake. (I apologize when I screw up, I can provide at least one diff where I have on an unrelated subject). I'm sorry I didn't include a positive observation about you, in retrospect it would have saved us a lot of confusion I think. Anynobody 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

my pleasure
To the above- Brrr. To you, thanks for your thanks, it's nice to meet someone as well brought up as I lol:)Merkinsmum 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am especially glad to see that I wasn't the only one to notice he may be causing more harm than good to the CoS with his methods, the irony is almost poetic. He seriously doesn't realize that his type of behavior is part of the reason general opinion about Scientology can be negative. He is the first Scientologist I've ever encountered, so I thought the general negative perception might actually be true for a little while. I've since met another Scientologist and discovered they don't all perpetuate the stereotype. Anynobody 07:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Aww, do you mean me? It's people like Justanother that made me hesitant of Scientology at first, so it's a little bit of a soft spot for me. It's my religion and I hate people like him spoiling the image of it. Johnpedia 12:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is so nice to hear! He had indeed made me think ill of Scientologists as well, but after encountering you I am starting to change my mind...  Thanks!  Smee 16:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I am indeed talking about you Johnpedia. I really was ready to give up on Scientologists, between Justanother and Tom Cruise's Today interview it seemed like the critics were right. Fortunately I met you, and Tom Cruise apologized to Brooke Shields so I'm happy I didn't (give up on Scientologists). Anynobody 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject updates

 * I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status.  You could give input on the project's talk page...  Smee 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Also, a Userbox for project members, User Scientology project   Smee 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I want to thank you for your kind invitation to join the WP:SCN project, I'm flattered and will give it some serious thought:) The only other topic I planned on editing which relates to Scientology at all is the Naval career of Lt. L Ron Hubbard. It looks like both sides are wrong about various aspects of it, proving it on here without using OR is going to be a challenge. I'm not really comfortable talking about specific spiritual aspects of any "religion" for several reasons so I'm not sure how much help I would be. I'm happy to share those reasons with you if you would like, but for the sake of brevity I'll give you the simplest reason: I'm agnostic and believe there is a very real chance that all religions are wrong. Since I don't know for sure, I try not to spend too much time talking about any one religion in order to stay neutral. I firmly believe Barbara Schwarz belongs on Wikipedia, she is literally a living monument to the good faith of US FOIA laws. She is also proof that "forced deprogramming" doesn't work very well.

I do have a question though, why aren't there articles (or an article) about Jeremy and Elli Perkins? The fourth anniversary of Elli's murder at her son's hands is coming up on 3/13. Though I try to stay neutral, this murder concerned me because Jeremy had serious issues that were not being helped by Scientology. He could have just as easily killed a person not involved with Scientology. It occurred to me that the CoS could be putting innocent people in danger by improperly treating mentally ill people, thus prompting the question "how far should freedom of religion go?". I'm not saying that question only applies to Scientology. I've often thought the same thing about beliefs like Christian Scientists who don't get basic medical attention for members with illnesses for example. Anynobody 21:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I'll scout around for some sourced citations and read up on that. Might take some time...  Smee 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention this: It wasn't listed on, or if it was I missed it, but I've already begun my "quest for truth" about Lt. Hubbard on Talk:USS PC-815. Anynobody 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Somewhat related to your comments above, please let me know what you think of newly created article, Elli Perkins. Thanks for your time.  Yours, Smee 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I think it's a perfect prototype. Very well sourced and logically structured, I'd reword some parts but otherwise I think you nailed it. Good work, Smee. Anynobody 03:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Feel free to reword what you wish...  What would really be nice is a fair use or free image of some sort...  Smee 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

About Justanother
I'm fine with my apology to Justanother. I said something funny that was offensive to him. I said I'm sorry, that's the kind of person I am. I don't care at all if he takes me serious or accepts my apology or not.

I've dealt with Scientologists and OSA for years now. There's a lot of people that believe he is being paid by them. His removal of anything critical of Scientology and fighting to the death on these items, makes me believe this too. Normal Scientologists are not even half as radical as he is.

It seems to me that anybody with a brain would see right away his intentions here and ban him from Wikipedia. I am not Wikipedia and new to all of this.

I hope someone that is more familiar with how Wikipedia works and it's politics will step up and get Justanother banned permanently.

If I can help in anyway, please let me know. Paulhorner 03:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to hear you didn't take to heart his offense, your response tells me that you know everything I was going to tell you. When he first told me I offended him, I was really sorry I did that and wantd to make sure you didn't feel the same way. Since then he's called the erupting volcano (sans Xenu) on the cover of Dianetics offensive. I don't know if you've seen Fahrenheit451's user page, but when I saw him trying to get them removed I realized I could probably cite examples of each point in his behavior. I'm still pretty new here myself, I had set up an RfC with another editor on his behavior but he had an admin he knows delete it. Something tells me that violates some kind of rule, so if I'm right just keep watching Justanother be himself and after a little while he'll make your case for you. Anynobody 08:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * omg, I can't believe some "admin" killed the RfC. That's so wrong, it should go to arbitration or something.Merkinsmum 18:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If something tells you that "deleting an RfC after 48 hours if no evidence has been provided to show that the users have tried and failed to resolve the dispute in other ways" violates some kind of rule, then I suggest you go find that rule (or just go find the text that says the opposite, here, first bullet). Either way I suggest you think twice before you take action based on a rule you think exist before you've actually read the rulebook. – Elisson • T • C • 00:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy I'm not the only one who finds it odd, Merkinsmum. Indeed Elisson, I had not planned on quoting my perception of what the rules should be in any action I'm contemplating (that would be foolish). You're welcome to monitor any action I take though, I appreciate all outside views. Still, I will probably take some kind of action. I can't imagine that requesting another uninvolved admin delete the RfC in question, only to go on and delete it yourself anyway when another couple won't. WP:ANI Thank you for your advice, Anynobody 01:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive Positive Feedback 1 Feb 2007 - March 2007

Personal attack on BabyDweezil
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Accusing BabyDweezil of editing in bad faith; see this diff. --Justanother 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that does not sound like a personal attack at all, but rather User:BabyDweezil's prior comments about editors in general certainly do. This use of "they" to avoid looking like he was personally attacking any particular editor specifically is reprehensible.  And then this comment by User:Justanother most certainly looks like a personal attack on you, after your attempt at being polite.  Yowsers!  What a wicked use of foul language.  Sounds like a troll...  Smee 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Ha ha ha Smee. I see that you do not want to miss any opportunity to interject yourself in the affairs of others. Accusing another editor of editing in bad faith is a PA. End of story. And OH MY GAWD, justanother used a bad word. You just wait til I tell Mom! --Justanother 22:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother has BabyDweezil said anything to you about being offended? He/she didn't seem to take offense, and if you look at the comment I was responding to you'll see that it appeared as though BabyDweezil was trying to bait someone. Since it appeared as though BabyDweezil was mocking my analogy, I thought that perhaps he/she was baiting me. I'd be happy to explain to BabyDweezil that no offense was intended in observing the futility of trying to bait me. I must say BabyDweezil doesn't seem shy about defending his/herself so I'm a bit surprised that BabyDweezil wouldn't tell me directly.

It makes me wonder if this is more about the question I posed on your talk page or the observation I made on Farenheit451's talk page? If so I honestly don't mean to offend you and am actually trying to offer constructive feedback regarding my perception of you. You appear to be trying to stop the spread the negative impression people get about Scientologists in leading by example. I seriously think that your behavior can arguably be tied to the observations about OSA tactics. I don't know if you are doing it on purpose, but in case it's accidental I thought it would be something you'd want to know about. Outsiders see that as one of the problems with the CoS and are more likely to believe other negative "PR" about the CoS if you reinforce some of their perceptions.

To sum up; if BabyDweezil has been offended he/she is more than welcome to ask for a clarification that I meant no offense. If your feelings are hurt, lets discuss that because as I said I'm trying to point out that you are perhaps, perpetuating a stereotype about Scientologists that you may not be intending to. Anynobody 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now here is an interesting double standard, Anynobody. You object to my, as a third party, warning you about a clear attack against BabyDweezil on an article talk page. Yet you support Smee's 3rd party warning to me when my so-called "attack" was much less clear and was, in fact, a response to an offensive PA by you against me on my own friggin talk page. Double standard, my friend. Hypocrisy. --Justanother 02:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not objecting to you approaching me on behalf of BabyDweezil, seriously I was saying if BabyDweezil really was offended I'd be happy to explain that I didn't mean any offense to BabyDweezil directly. Maybe he/she thought I'd be unapproachable about matters like this, I was hoping you would say it's safe to ask me directly for an explanation if that were the case. When I also say that it would surprise me if BabyDweezil were offended and afraid to express it to me, it means just that. Because it surprises me, doesn't mean it isn't true.


 * To be clear, did I offend BabyDweezil and you are approaching me on his/her behalf? You must understand I'm willing explain my motives and rational, but if BabyDweezil feels that I have made them the victim of a PA I need to know. To explain why my commenting on your talk page warning os not hypocrisy I'll do that under said warning, because here I'd like to stick with BabyDweezil and myself under this section. Anynobody 02:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting on my page
Hey, anynobody. All due respect but you are being just a bit too "touchy-feely" throughout your postings on my page, IMHO. Let me make myself plain. If you bring my religion into the conversation when disagreeing with any aspect of my behavior, I am likely to get offended. So if your intention is to offend me then go right ahead. And the only other editors that I have likely "offended" are those that edit offensively; continually reverting valid edits to forward their uninformed POV while continually inserting and reinserting highly POV, non-RS crap in the articles despite my removals that are then upheld by third party neutral opinion. That is not you. You seem to be a special case that is going out of his way to offend me personally by making a big deal out of some WP that we don't see exactly eye-to-eye on and somehow relating that to my fucking religion. You are being offensive. You need to take my religion out of your conversations with me. Until you can manage that you are not welcome to post here there. Is that clear? --Justanother 12:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate how it may look like I'm trying to degrade or demean your religion. I honestly am not, nor am I intentionally trying to offend you. The fact is that I believe you are in a conflict of interest regarding this article (Barbara Schwarz), that is similar to the situation that Steve Dufor has there. He wants to delete the article because Ms. Schwarz is his friend, you appear to want it gone because of it's possible negative implications to your religion (Scientology).

Sincerely, I am not trying to offend you. Since you have become offended, and I really feel that you are trying to edit against the guideline of WP:COI and the policy of WP:CONSENSUS, I'd like to set this up as a RfC. I honestly did not want to offend you while trying to explain my concerns to you, about a variety of things. You haven't actually addressed directly many of the concerns I've tried to discuss with you. I believe this can benefit both of us by giving an outside opinion, and I regret that I haven't mentioned the idea of going to a third party sooner. How would you feel about this? Anynobody 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding whether I have a COI editing a Scn article, that is ridiculous and smacks of bigotry. Would you deny any other religion, ethnic group, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., the right to edit in their articles? Of course you would not. So how do you justify to yourself even letting that concept out of the confines of your own skull? That is what I mean. I know that you have both "voices" in there, I just think that you manage to quell the more equitable one. And I have no doubt that you consider yourself the soul of equanimity and justice. So do us both the favor of taking my religion out of the equation and if you want to discuss the merits of my interpretation of that minor issue on the Schwarz article vs. your interpetation and you want to do that in any forum you chose, then please do. Just leave my religion out of it. You won't come out looking good. I can speak without obscenities when I want to and I usually do. --Justanother 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that I would treat you differently than I would anyone else who lets feelings about their religion interfere with editing an article related to that religion. To be fair, you should know that I am going to set up a RfC once I get together the diffs to do so. Please gather diffs you feel show any attempts on my part to offend you, I don't want to surprise or ambush you with it. Anynobody 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will respond as appropriate. Thanks --Justanother 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anynobody and Justanother‎ I already posted this on your page, but thought to include it here in the interest of making access easier. Anynobody 01:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC input

 * There are some issues regarding the RFC which you may want to weigh in on, at User talk:Bishonen, subsection RFC minor formatting. Smee 02:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads up :) Anynobody 02:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I think if you follow User:Bishonen's advice/guidelines, the RFC would be appropriate.  Smee 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I think so too, the RfC looks much better than my initial version. I really appreciate your waiting for my go-ahead, that's very thoughtful. It's exactly what i would have done if our roles were reversed. :) Anynobody 02:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries mate. Smee 02:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC).


 * FYI, you might also want to take note:, and  ...  Smee 02:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Please stay out
I'm going to bed. Please review the rules and leave my response section for me and others that agree with me."This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary (meaning your summary, Anynobody, not mine) is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ('Statement of the dispute' and 'Outside Views') should not edit the 'Response' section. (That means you and Smee stay out of there.)"Thanks --Justanother 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry about actually posting this on the RfC page Justanother, I had meant to reply line by line and then copy it into the discussion page without saving. I was distracted with a phone call and forgot what I was doing when I hit "Save Page". Seriously I do apologize. Anynobody 06:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking a break
I will be taking the weekend off from wikipedia though I may keep an eye on the RfC. If you want to talk about what I mentioned then it will have to wait until I am fully returned and I remove the wikibreak template. Enjoy your weekend. --Justanother 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a good weekend :) I do want to know, so get back to me when you get back. Thanks Anynobody 01:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to issues on my Talk page
Hi Anynobody, as said on my Talk page, I will make some comments on the points you have raised there. Okay, I imagine some of this is not what you may wish to hear, but I ask you to please consider points (1) and (2) carefully before acting. Kind regards, Orsini 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. I strongly do not recommend filing an RfC on Bishonen's actions, as it appears to me Bishonen has only followed due process. It may be worth noting Bishonen's Talk page response to me again, where it's stated you have followed the proper RfC process, however there was an issue with Smee's involvement, as it appeared the evidence of Smee's "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" were insufficient.  Smee would need to show more attempts to resolve the dispute than posting warning templates.  Bishonen has followed the process, which has very strict requirements.
 * 2. I do not see a COI in Bishonen's actions, or taking actions to inappropriately protect Justanother from that RfC. I don't agree with the 3 reasons you've cited as Bishonen's reasons for ending the RfC; the reason for ending it was stated by Bishonen in responding to me: "Anynobody had pursued reasonable dispute resolution, Smee had not. Note that according to the rules, dispute resolution must be done by two editors, and must be seen to have been done, in the RFC itself, in the form of diffs, under the heading "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"."  In addition, once the RfC goes up, the 48 hour clock starts ticking, so everything appropriate for the RfC must be in place before the RfC is moved from draft to live.
 * 3. I would suggest contacting User:Tilman if you wish to file an RfC on Justanother; I believe there has been enough genuine attempts made by Tilman to attempt to resolve disputes with Justanother. I will support it, but I cannot say I've made attempts to resolve my disputes with him, because his wildly inappropriate and uncivil behavior and hostile attitude does not encourage me to make such attempts.  I believe this type of inappropriate behavior must be dealt with by administrative and community due process.
 * 4. I appreciate what you've said about only making friends with admins for "protection", and I think this speaks very strongly about your integrity and strength of character. However the vast majority of admins will be friendly and helpful if you are following the processes and are seen to be interested in enhancing Wikipedia, which I believe you are, and I can see you are.  I also can appreciate you may feel disheartened by the complexities of process, however these also serve to protect honest editors from frivolous actions by paranoid POV pushing trolls with a clear conflict of interest, who always whine "bigotry" each time they are caught lying and behaving uncivilly and inappropriately in attempts to remove "blasphemies" about their cult.
 * 5. Yet again, at Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination), Justanother is making false accusations of impropriety, and willfully making inaccurate and misleading statements. The RfD statement is so full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations that I do not where to begin to correct them all.  I've noted your replies on the project page  and fully support them.

I certainly appreciate your taking the time to explain your feelings so clearly, while it is not what I was hoping to hear I can and will accept it. Thanks Orsini Anynobody 23:11, 11 March == Purple Barnheart ==


 * Feel free to post to your user page or leave on your talk page as you see fit. Yours, Smee 09:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

The timing was amazing on this, and I think you'll find it funny. I was just thinking how if I didn't know JA was being affected by his POV him constantly misrepresenting me might offend me. As it is, I think he isn't doing it intentionally. In fact I doubt he reads any of my posts from start to finish, out of anger, and that's where he comes up with his less than accurate description of my efforts. However, you had no way of knowing for sure that I wasn't hurt and I'm sure some soldiers got the Purple Heart for painless wounds so I'll accept it of course. Anynobody 09:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. You do an amazingly good job attempting to stay polite whilst others around you are... ahem, not so much...  Smee 09:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks
Thanks. (I apologize for not having to reply sooner, as I've been having troubles with my computer) -- TBC Φ  talk?  02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, I know how computer trouble goes - like an illness it pops up almost out of nowhere. I'm sorry I haven't said no problem sooner, I've been having trouble with illness and the AfD I thanked you for participating in. Anynobody 07:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)2007 (UTC)

Politeness award
I have put it on your user page, forgive me if I did it wrong and feel free to move it, I'm new to doing them.Merkinsmum 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Merkinsmum, I really appreciate the award. (P.S. You did it just right :)) Anynobody 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

misunderstanding
I can well understand the fear of misrepresentation to "gain advantage" in an argument. I guess I really didn't state the central thing that bothers me on the whole.

The statements Tilman made that I referenced, though they may have had much background behind them, were quite easily read by me as 'wrong'. The background may explain much, but has not been explained. . .    In talk pages, I kept seeing mentions of people suggesting WP:DR-type actions, but that those suggestions keep getting dismissed? (I may be mistaken) I'm not saying there aren't problems. But if the problems are not submitted, documented to the community, how are outside observers to know, or judge?

When the point is reached that one or more editors truly feel that the behavior of other editors is injurious to Wikipedia, isn't that the point to those concerns to the community? Otherwise the comments, like those I objected to, just look like part of a series of tit-for-tat personal attacks. I seems to me that resolution will take outside participation. Shouldn't you organize a community pow-wow, perhaps in the form of an RfC? That way, maybe, the peace pipe can come out. Shenme 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's funny you should mention a WP:RfC, while the AfD discussion was confined to the talk page of Barbara Schwarz that is exactly what I attempted to do. Justanother asked an admin to delete the RfC I set up against said admin's advice discussing Justanother. The RfC had been approved by a second uninvolved admin, when the first admin deleted it at Justanother's request. Here is some background on the admin's talk page User_talk:Bishonen. I'm not accusing the admin of knowingly working with Justanother to silence the RfC anymore, I think I bruised her ego by going ahead with the submission despite her advice. I tried bringing this up on the admin noticeboards, but nothing came of it as I'm starting to suspect my COI noticeboard posting will. I've also asked a couple of editors to try to set one up again with me, no dice. I've resigned myself to making another attempt after the AfD is finished, regardless of the outcome. Rest assured I find the constant accusations of violations by both sides irritating since nobody seems to want to back up their beliefs but me.
 * I've had difficulty WP:AGF on the part of Justanother since that time, if somebody else wanted to put my behavior on a RfC I wouldn't mind. I honestly think I can explain my actions to a neutral observer, I suspect (and again it is only a suspicion) that Justanother can not and that is why he has avoided any discussion about his behavior. I could be wrong of course, and I'm prepared to accept that. I know many others have long since abandoned assumption of good faith on his part, which is why you see "editor should be banned" comments. Anynobody 06:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ( Wow, it takes me a *long* time to write... ;-) )
 * It seems to me that the irritation so evident in the AfD should (must?) delay the filing of any RfC. This is what I worry about, that there are real concerns, but that 'appearances' come out looking differently.  And that an RfC filed immediately or even 'soon' will be seen as retaliation.
 * Ah, I read a little of the discussions you pointed out. "User RFC's are horrible timesinks." Yes. Oh yes, indeed. I wonder if I can even find the only one I've ever attempted... Requests_for_comment/TheKingOfDixie.  Someone else started it and then I spent hours researching.  In the ideal world, the time and effort would be much better spent working things out.  It was only because the disputed actions were so clearcut ("This will continue to be added to the Metzger page, no matter how many times it is removed by Metzger's followers, because it is fact.") that made it (cough) easy to justify filing the RfC.  After I'd done the research, the original filer even remarked to me "I didn't know it was this bad".
 * But this RfC was 'easy' only for these reasons: the scope was limited, the editor's interests very narrow, the problems quite obvious, and... the editor in question disappeared. Any substantial dispute is correspondingly more difficult to put into a container so that other people can understand.
 * I really don't have much good insight into how to proceed. I marvel at the energy, um, 'expended' in disputes.  There's only one I've been very interested in, where it looks like intra-group mediation 'worked', and I don't like the agreed result!   :-P   But I have to admire many of the people who participated there, for many reasons, including that they were able to work around/through/past/in-spite-of the strong feelings. I... can only wish you the best, and hope that confrontations can be avoided. Shenme 08:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (after re-reading your above comment)  In a user RfC resulting from a complex dispute there are several problems.  Somehow you've got to show that the RfC is not about disputes over content.  People will actively shun anything that smells of "version X is correct, but version Y is...".  The RfC must be based on actual problematic user behavior, demonstrating where the user or users are not working in acceptable ways, and perhaps asking for specific prescriptions for the user to follow.  And all of this has to be very concrete, if only so that the deviations from acceptable behavior are evident and the suggestions can then follow from policy, guidelines, etc.  And if multiple people have acted 'badly' in any way, it is really hard to show that one is so much worse than the others.
 * But an RfC is not just a burden on the preparers (and it is a pain to be complete, specific, and, as far as possible, objective) but also a burden on the community. I can see why Bishonen asks for prior, real, good-faith efforts at working with an editor you have conflicts with.  And those efforts can very quickly be frustrated, if only because the other editor(s), in fact or in appearance, have not the same motivations towards resolution of conflicts.
 * And as for AGF, we also hope for good behavior. When we see what seems clearly bad behavior, we feel twice-betrayed.  Which often starts a lot of screaming (even if never heard here!).  To me, it seems to reduce to this - does an editor's demonstrated behavior show a concern for all three of: the article, policies/guidelines, and other editors.  The article demands NPOV, the policies demand appropriate behaviors, and the other editors can and should demand good faith efforts.
 * (too much editorialising - time for sleep) Good luck! Shenme 08:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem on a long response time, I get the impression you spend more time deciding what to type than typing (which is not meant to be critical in any way since that is usually what holds up my response time too). I really want to point out that the RfC was not about who's info was correct so much as how the discussion about it proceeded. What I found, un-Wiki, was Justanother's refusal to allow a conclusion. For example, he and I would be discussing how we each perceive WP:BLP to apply on Talk:Barbara_Schwarz and then he would just stop responding under that section as he did on 2/24. He would then resume arguing under a different section on the talk page, I can live with being wrong but i'd like to know who's perception was correct (or if we were both wrong). I'm not asking you to read each and every comment, I've lived it and I find it so boring I don't want to reread it unless I have to. If you follow Justanother and just skim the responses I think the reason for an RfC will become much clearer to you. It may sound odd, but I am thriving on both the overt and passive hostility he shows because I don't feel any myself toward him. It helps me gauge my POV, if he started to anger me I'd step back. At that point I wouldn't be able to tell who is more "neutral" and continuing would be engaging in a flame war. Please understand, I have spent a GREAT amount of time trying to figure out a way to tell him he MAY be operating under a biased POV in this case in the most respectful way I can imagine. Anynobody 09:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As for my disagreement with Bishonen, I figured it would be quicker to put the RfC up and see if it's approved rather than debate our differing definitions of conflict resolution. Arguing about a difference of opinion over different perceptions of a third party's behavior is nigh pointless because there is no tangible right or wrong answer without another opinion. If I was wrong, I understood the RfC would be rejected (easy come, easy go). The RfC was accepted by the editor/admin who approved it though, and Bishonen asked another non involved admin to delete it. None would, so she did it herself. At first it seemed like collusion, however I have come to change my opinion to the ego explanation. I understand exactly what you mean by pointing out things are even worse than they appear. Anynobody 09:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Anynobody, you have my support. I will back one, and it unfortunately appears there is no other way than via RfC.  Kind regards, Orsini 07:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it, however given what happened last time I was hoping Shenme would go in with us. He/She seems to share my opinion that a RfC is a good thing AND is on good terms with Justanother. I feel like my neutrality has been compromised in that people might think I'm on a vendetta. If a truly neutral party wants this too though, it just makes AGF on our part easier I think. (Make no mistake though, if he/she doesn't want to then we can go it alone together as it were. I feel comfortable with my ability to explain that we've both tried numerous times to come to an understanding with Justanother. What would you think of involving Smee, Tilman, and the others too? I still think Smee tried to resolve the conflict regardless of what happened to the previous RfC.) Anynobody 07:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Oh yeah, and that pain in the arse I call a conscience tells me we should wait for his block to expire. I don't want this to look like a power play. Anynobody 08:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think discussing the matter with Tilman and Smee is mandatory, if permitted under the RfC (user) rules. For a neutral party, I think firstly consulting Athaenara may be a good idea, given Athaenara's external observations of what's been going on with the BLPN and other places.  The guy's behavior doesn't encourage any "reaching out" to settle disputes, and I believe AGF with him has been tested to its limits.  If anything, I feel I have made a grave mistake in not doing something until now since things have got way out of hand.  Mistakes: yes; we all make them, but when the lying begins, that is where AGF can no longer be presumed.  I remember you make a comment about your intuitive powers?  Mine are worse, and I've learned a hard lesson not to overly presume too much after making a faulty presumption, so I think it's important to get many opinions as to how to deal with this problem.  Like you, I came to Wikipedia to contribute to articles, not to bicker, make AfDs, RfCs etc., and the Barbara Schwarz article has turned into one enormous time-sink.  But I think it's a valuable learning ground, because if this problematical article can be addressed reasonably, less controversial articles will be easy.  With Wikipedia's extensive DR and NPA policies, it's been a shock to see how far some editors will go to burn the books and what they get away with.
 * Back to the RfC: we need to ensure all the premises are correct, all the citations are in place, all the DIFFs are added correctly, and a satisfactory 'reaching out" has been carried out before making the next RfC live. It's worth noting the number of comments in the AfD discussion which cite it as disruptive and with faulty premises; you and I do not appear to be alone in those perceptions.  Still, the strong scientology POV comes across very strongly in what he edits and how he edits, and the very strong "us and them" premise for anyone not supporting a pro-scientology POV.
 * I thought about adding more about the false COI premise at the AfD Talk page with DIFFs, but Shenme just gave some wise words about bad blood, and how anything acted out now would be viewed as disruptive and needlessly escalating the matter, which I take to mean we would be viewed by uninvolved parties as stirring the pot. I think preparing the same for an RfC instead is a better idea.  I don't think your neutrality has been compromised and I don't see you as being on a vendetta, since you're not one of nominated evil and bigoted anti-scientologists whose mission is to stop these good folk from "Clearing the planet".  Maybe I am by now, because I won't accept scientology's explanations blindly.
 * Since I began writing this reply, I see Shenme has also responded and added more food for thought. It looks like sound advice to me.
 * Oh yeah; your conscience is right. :-) Kind regards, Orsini 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, — Æ.  was my second choice on a neutral third. I couldn't agree with your assertions any more, I think we are definitely of the same opinion. Treating this as a civil chat, rather than the grudge match Justanother is trying to portray our motivation as. His manipulation or rather his "gaming" the rules would be brilliant...if every typed word wasn't recorded on several computers. I've seen people like him use the technique in incredible ways when the only record was people and their memories. A bit more food for thought. When I first contemplated scenarios inaction could lead to before the 1st RfC, this was exactly the worst case scenario I pictured. (Best case was Justanother becoming reasonable, I tend to plan for the worst but hope for the best). This is NOT an I-told-you-so, please understand I just want to build credibility for what I'm about to say. If Justanother does not respond to formal channels, and the worst happens (him being banned), he is likely to show up again and try to mask his personality. I have a feeling he'll be better at it than Barbara Schwarz, and even her crude attempts are irritating. In short, this may never end even if we "win" for lack of a better term. I have no problem with that, it's a fascinating study of human behavior. I just don't want you to feel that this was all a waste of time to create a new, more difficult to spot Barbara Schwarz. Anynobody 11:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A ban is usually a very extreme measure and it's not taken or done lightly; look at what happened before he was even placed on a 24 hour block. Bans are usually done only when the behavior is so bad, on repeated occasions, that no other measure is considered effective.  Can he edit in good faith and behave in a civil manner?  That is the question asked before a ban is applied.  When a user is banned, they're quickly blocked again if they begin to edit.
 * While every typed word is recorded on several computers, finding evidence by looking through the sheer numbers of edits and of any screed bombing disruptive editor is a way of "gaming" the rules. You can find so many examples in some cases, that it becomes problematical to cite them all.
 * Still, I see some results of an RfC not as a win for you or me, but as a win for the Wikipedia community. It's like any project; there are some people suitable for working on a project and capable of making valuable contributions to it; and there are others who are not, and aren't.  If JA adjusts his behavior as a result of an RfC so it's more civil and acceptable, that is a win.  Past user RfCs have seen bans on editors editing certain subjects or articles, and that has minimized the disruption and cause of conflicts.  Entering RfCs are like entering into litigation: the judge's word is final and all parties are bound, it's out of anyone else's hands, and no outcome is certain.  So it's important to have all the facts ready and pre-scrutinized before "filing suit".  Kind regards, Orsini 12:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Does this look familiar?    Please see the third section here.    Oh, my.  Is this Munchausen Syndrome or Déjà vu? I'm experiencing? Best, Orsini 12:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the award
I'm not sure that my failed attempt merits a kudo, but I appreciate your gesture. Thanks.

It appears from the comments above that you have been in dispute with Justanother, and you're obviously not alone. I wandered away from active Wikipedia editing when he was relatively new on the scene. I had very civil interactions with him, and some nice talk page discussions--he seemed clearly the most competent and reasonable pro-Scientology editor I'd seen here, and it has always seemed to me that having some Scientologists on the editorial "team" for the Scientology articles would be all to the good. As the track record of Scientologist editors here is very bad (I don't know whether you were around for the days of AI, Jimmy T or Terryeo, but trust me... editorial incompetance combined with pure counter-productive disruption), I did what I could to make Justanother welcome here and to run interference when editors were too quick to dismiss him because of their predjudice over the bad actions of Terryeo, etc. Tuning in now, I don't really have the time or the inclination to sort through all the disputes, but I would like to get a clearer picture about what's happened--it's obvious that Justanother is projecting furious anger, and a bunch of folks are angry at him. I still have good dealings with him, I think, so I assume he'll fill me in on his POV about what's going on if I ask. I'm curious about your sense of what's happened--would you mind dropping a couple of sentences describing of the way you see the situation on my talk page? (I hope that's not an inflammatory request--if you think it is, please disregard.) Partly, this is just my idle curiosity, but since my first attempt at brokering a peace fell flat, maybe your perspective can help me to identify a better approach. BTfromLA 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you really deserved an award of some kind, especially since your offer wasn't why it didn't work. I just don't want you to be discouraged by that particular attempt.
 * Your curiosity is understandable, I would certainly be if I were in the same situation. I'd also like to point out that you are very correct, we do need Scientologists to participate in editing here in order to get as many POVs as possible (as we would want with any religion). My interaction with Justanother began while editing Barbara Schwarz. Another editor brought him in to mediate. Given the history of the article, I cautiously welcomed his perspective as a Scientologist and at first appreciated his more reserved behavior than the editor who invited him. To make a long story short, he led me to believe he was letting his concern for the CoS sacrifice a notable article. The subject of the article is apparently an embarrassment to the CoS, and I was concerned it was for that reason he began arguing in favor of deletion. This would be a WP:COI of course, and is the price to be paid when including a pro-religion editor. He was unwilling to discuss the possibility, and the result is the current situation.
 * I can't speak for the other editors he is in disputes with, but I suspect they started in similar ways. While researching Justanother in the beginning I decided to look at his interactions with other editors. I noticed similar disagreements over Scientology related articles, and some editors did appear to be on an anti-Scientology crusade. I personally don't care about Scientology either way. Because I happen to be arguing in favor of what he thinks is an anti-CoS article I may have given him the impression that I am anti CoS too.
 * To truly get a full picture of each dispute, I imagine reading over the talk pages of the various articles would be the only way to do so. I feel that he is genuinely engaged in a defense of his religious beliefs, which is why I don't dislike him. I do however dislike the actions he's taken to avoid discussing his behavior. Anynobody 03:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean like the avoidance tactic that I used here where I encourage you to get a neutral 3rd party involved? I am agreeable to BT or Jossi or Bishonen (fat chance that she will make that mistake again) or if you have another name then let's hear it. No "anti-cultists", please. --Justanother 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you pointed that out, Justanother. Respectfully, you don't tend to paint an accurate picture with the third parties you try to involve. I don't know if you do it on purpose, but that is why I opted for an RfC rather than mediation in our case. Giving people unfamiliar with the situation a chance to comment after we both presented our perceptions seems more productive to me, this way neither of us has the advantage of knowing the third party involved. Anynobody 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Anynobody, you do not get to go to User RfC without the good faith attempt by another editor. Didn't you learn anything from that fiasco with Bishonen? What are you afraid of? Why not AGF that an intelligent 3rd party can help you settle your dispute with me. You cannot go to User RfC; that should be clear to you. You are wasting everyone's time. Either give it up this "mission" you have about me or do it right, get a neutral 3rd involved. What you can do, however, is an RfC on this little issue we have about the "Biographical infomation" section; that is fine. Maybe we will all learn something. But not about me, please. That won't work. --Justanother 03:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, I put a "busy" sign out instead of a "break" sign so please do whatever you need to do to put this thing to bed for yourself. IMO, you should be making better use of your time. But it is your time to waste if you care to. --Justanother 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Justanother, I assure you I understand the procedure for a RfC. I don't want to seem bitter, but the "fiasco" will definitely be a topic in the future RfC. As I mentioned in a couple of sections above, debating a difference in perception as to what constitutes attempts at conflict resolution made by someone else, is pretty much pointless. Rather than having such a debate with Bishonen I submitted the Rfc to see what an uninvolved admin thought. If I was wrong, I assumed the RfC would be rejected. Instead it was accepted, and people were adding comments. The "fiasco" occurred when Bishonen asked another admin to delete it at your request, when no other admins would, she did it herself. I have read and reread the WP:RFC article, and it doesn't seem to mention that as a valid course of action.
 * It has since become apparent to me that your AfD request will not succeed. I plan to point it out along with your extreme effort to avoid both the first RfC and any discussion of your probable WP:COI issues. When you remove all the rhetoric and insults, the basic fact is you can not or will not address concerns about your editing with editors who have no positive (or negative) connection to you. I still feel exactly the same way I did in the beginning, if the result of a RfC were to show me to be wrong I can accept that. I just happen to think your ongoing attempts to avoid outside comment, or explain your actions will probably not reflect you in a positive light. Anynobody 04:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My effort to involve a 3rd party and my suggestions to you that you do the same speak in direct contradiction to what you claim in the above. Well, off you go, then. --Justanother 04:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said, you appear to be trying to involve parties with a positive perception of you. I'd prefer to hear from editors with no perception of either of us. Anynobody 04:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BTfromLA, I hope you don't think I was being sarcastic when I gave you the award. Regardless of my relationship with Justanother, I do want to recognize acts of civility on the part of any editor. Anynobody 05:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume good faith! Thanks again.  BTfromLA 05:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be ok if I removed the quotation marks around award in the title? I usually do that when the word doesn't convey the meaning I want, even though the word may be accurate. Anynobody 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought your post was insincere. BTfromLA 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was actually pretty sure it meant you felt you didn't deserve the recognition, especially after you affirmed WP:AGF. I'm not one who likes to edit the work or ideas of another without asking though, even on my talk page it's your expression. (I hope that makes sense.) Thanks Anynobody 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You earned this one
Please feel free to add it to your User page, since you have earned this one. Kind regards, Orsini 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Orsini it was my pleasure :) Anynobody 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)