User talk:1836311903/Archive Jul 2007

To the extent
that you found my posting at COIN to be overly harsh, please accept my apologies.

My remarks were not directed at you personally, but rather, were directed at your actions.

I have been dealing with quite a bit of 'innuendo', 'allegation', 'speculation' and 'repeated speculation' and 'repeats of prior speculation' and 'repeats of repeats of links to prior innuendo', almost none of which have any real foundation or substance, but when properly combined result in 'guilty due to repeated appearances on this notice board'. Perhaps I'm missing it, perhaps I have blinders on, but I have not seen the 'critics' of any subject get posted on the noticeboards with anywhere near the frequency.

I'm a receipient of such abusive in my off-wiki (real) life and I am very sensitive to false (or unfounded/unsubstantiated) allegations, or worse non-allegations with only subtle hints of suspicion of misconduct. Whether intended or not, every 'hint' of misconduct is 'remembered' and 'filed' in our brains. Each successive 'hint' adds to the list, until one day..(for example)... who? Jeffrey.Kleykamp? Isn't he the guy that keeps violating conflict of interest? I'm tired of his crap constantly cluttering up this board. He obviously hasn't learned a thing. Lets ban him. ... When, in reality, none of the posts had gone anywhere, no real violations had ever occured, but a nice trail of 'suspicious' 'breadcrumbs' had been created.. and viola.. guilty by quantity of accusations and supported by AGF admins who 'take it on faith' that all those 'past' reports must have been valid.

Thank you for notifying Bravehartbear that you had posted on the COI board. That says a lot for your character. In my short time here, I've seen more than few editors open a report on a noticeboard and never inform the individual. That has happened to me several times, and I consider it very unprofessional behavior.

Also, thank you for taking time to review the edits (I did not) and conclude that nothing harmful was done to the article. That too says something about your character and your intentions. Based on my recent history, and due to your technically 'no substance' report, I jumped to an improper conclusion and I apologize.

However, especially based on your final conclusion, I respectfully submit that 'yet another time' there has been a COI discussion about 'scientology editors' (and this applies to any subject, I just happen to see a lot of Scientology reports because I edit in closely related (cross over) articles).

It's human nature to 'remember the bad'. And, reports on the noticeboards are generally about something that someone 'did' wrong, or that someone is suggesting they did wrong. So even though you didn't intend it, another checkmark exists for 'times scientology has been in the news for conflict of interest editing.'

Hopefully this makes sense, and I'm sorry for coming down resoundingly harsh. I'm on wikibreak because I've reached critical mass and had to step away. The innuendo and non-specific charges and litigious noticeboard filings have ultimately resulted in an (pro-Scientology) editor with only 2 blocks for 3RR, NO RFC's, NO mediation, NO arbcom.... as being tagged as 'disruptive' and being considered for a 3-month community ban.. when, conversely, an (anti-scientology) editor with 7 blocks is not considered disruptive, and an (anti-scientology) editor with their own personal anti-scientology website is deemed not to have a conflict of interest.

It is, quite simply, mind bogglingly frustrating to watch.

Thank you again for the respect you gave Bravehartbear by informing him/her and by ultimately reviewing the edits and reporting no-violation for POV. Best Regards. Peace in God. Lsi john 00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment?
I saw your post at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard, and thought that you might be interested in providing your viewpoint, at Community_sanction_noticeboard. That second linked thread deals with issues that had previously been brought up as a result of Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Yours, Smee 05:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Jeffrey, this is a 'perfect example' of the witch hunting that goes on. Your 'question' on COIN has now been cited as another instance of Scientologist being 'questioned', by a consumate vetern of disruptive edit warring. Notice that Smee has 3 blocks under Smeeand has another 4 blocks under Smeelgova. Also notice that the block log clearly cites disruptive editing. And a careful look at this user's edit history will quickly establish that he is firmly anti-scientology.


 * Jeffrey, perhaps now you understand my response to your casual post. Lsi john 12:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the problems and no thanks, I'm not really interested in Scientology related disputes, I just panicked when I saw the amount of edits User:Bravehartbear made in combination with his user page and I'm on a Wikibreak and this will probably be the last response. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 12:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)