User talk:GoodDamon/CoSargument

Comments on your job
You violated two of your rules in dealing with the Talk:Church of Scientology page. You got trigger-happy with reverting, and didn't treat my opinion with any respect, labeling it a troll and me a vandal for expressing it.

If you were respectful you'd at least offer alternate wording for my question that you'd find acceptable. As you don't and merely hammer on revert I can't see much assumption of good faith in your actions.

I came to the CoS page from Operation Snow White and was honestly surprised to see that the page hardly referenced any of the meaningful actions of the church. Go back to the page and restore my question, or at least make a useful alternate suggestion. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Point one: My rules


 * I was not trigger happy there. Let me quote for you your first paragraph in the text you posted: "I think the intro should contain the phrase 'criminal organization' or something similar. The entire church is based on the actions of the Hubbards are their crimes are well documented (Snow White, etc), as are the ongoing harassment campaigns, baseless lawsuits, etc." That, right there, is very trollish. Not only is the criminal nature of the church disputed, but its status varies depending on which country you're in.


 * It's trollish to state the truth? I think it needs those words. They're used in other articles, why not in CoS? They (the Hubbards, other leaders, and the church itself) have all committed heinous church-related crimes. Further, the church has not distanced itself from these actions. Would a lesser word like 'criticized' be valid? You can't possibly be serious that its status is "debated", and saying that their status varies is like saying I'm not a murderer because I killed people in a other countries.


 * "It's trollish to state the truth?" It's trollish to state as unequivocal fact something that's heavily contested. Specific incidents of criminal activity by high-ranking members of the church aren't contested, they're a matter of public record. But calling the CoS a criminal organization as a whole is a matter of opinion, and describing it as an indisputable fact is trollish and POV pushing. Let me make something clear, I no longer think you're a troll. I think you're unintentionally POV-pushing, and I think you can't see just how your initial comments came across, but not a troll. -- Good Damon 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The OSW page for one paints a much darker image of the church - not just one involved in specific incidents of criminal activity, but one involved in an ongoing international conspiracy to steal evidence of these crimes from multiple governments and interpol. Further evidence is given on other pages of a church policy, written by the founder of the church and messiah(?), that people who disagree with or act against church policies are 'fair game' for any attacks, which are well documented as often being criminal and very harmful. I don't think there's any serious disagreement about these events. As I've said, these claims are fully documented. I've seen the church say they've changed, or claim these were the works of a few (including Hubbard himself?), but not actually contesting the events.


 * However, I think a more accurate wording would be [... organization with a scandalous criminal past ... ]. The phrase 'criminal organization' does imply they're an organization FOR committing crimes. I merely mean to say that they are an organization which continually and willfully violates laws and the rights of their (ex) members and critics. Acting as one would perceive a criminal to act.


 * You seem to confuse having a POV with unreasonably pushing a POV. As I said, do not think I don't see how my comments come across. I'm not paid to coddle anyone. I'm not trolling, but I see the CoS as factually and provably being an organization with a long deliberate criminal past and I want someone to explain why I shouldn't add that to the article, prominently. If it's such an unreasonable question it must be easy to explain why.


 * I think you're the vandal here. I'm not the one continually reverting you... You've got a self-important view of yourself, the problem of vandalism (as you see it), and your importance to the project which leads you to haughtily delete entire contributions from others without properly assessing and addressing them. Your entire point in this conversation is that my words seemed a bit harsh. You've used three reverts (and how many pronouncements of trolling?), which were very rude despite your condemnations of me for the rudeness you perceived, just to tell me that. All because you couldn't be civil and offer alternative wording like I asked for in my first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth questions. You're treating me like I was abusing consensus or spamming articles, rather than asking a pointed question.


 * I've asked you to restore my questions, not because I couldn't, but because you've overstepped your bounds heavily and you need to be accountable. That you still don't understand YOUR disruptive role, and how YOU, the experienced editor caused this to snowball by being so unwilling to demean yourself by discussing rationally, says a lot. I was serious earlier when I said you should not edit Wikipedia. Not like this. Take a break from your vigilantism for a while at least. You're causing too much collateral damage. Respond with words not reverts, and be as polite as you wish the conversation to be, not as polite as you perceive the other person to have been. Assume good faith. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We're getting nowhere. I will not restore that text, but you are free to do so. Like I said, I won't revert it again. However, I just re-read it, and it still comes off as trolling -- not because of content, but because of tone. I stand by my decision to remove it in the first place, and I suspect if you restore that exact wording, you will find the other editors feel likewise.


 * And now, this discussion is done. You have moved it in directions it should not have gone, by describing my edits as "vigilantism," and you've said I should stop editing Wikipedia. Neither personally directed comment is appreciated. -- Good Damon 21:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You repeatedly and without provocation called me a troll, deleted my comments, and refused to deal with me in good faith. I have calmly explained why your actions amounted to vandalism and suggested a remedy. Had you not felt the need to drag this out so long, I would not feel so persecuted. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Point two: Alternate wording


 * I see no need to do that work for you. If you have a specific point to make besides saying that they're a bunch of criminals, then by all means make that point. I "hammer on revert" as you say because you have thus far refused to look at your wording and consider that maybe it comes off as trolling, and maybe you're pushing a POV, and maybe issues such as Operation Snow White are already mentioned elsewhere.


 * I didn't "thus far refuse anything"! You deleted my words three times without saying anything useful or asking me to reconsider my phrasing.Further, the problem is that I did look at other articles. I came to CoS from OSW. The CoS article hardly mentions criminal actions despite OSW's tone which was my complaint. OSW says "Hubbard wrote plans ; theft from government files ; illegal ; illegal ; conspiracy to frame for bomb thread ; conspiracy to frame for murder ; several members criminal charges", etc. Those are fairly strong words and I don't see why suggesting 'criminal' in another article is so out of place.


 * Again, I remind you that the Church of Scientology article is about the structure and organization of the Church of Scientology, not about its scandals. I agree that those scandals should be referenced more in the article, but the tone should be neutral and non-judgmental, per WP:NPOV. The tone you used, and the tone you proposed, would not pass WP:NPOV muster. -- Good Damon 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How are scandals suggesting the church is a criminal front not highly related to its structure? In a financial sense if nothing else?


 * Point three: Meaningful actions and restoring your question


 * The Church of Scientology's "meaningful actions" are covered -- very extensively -- in multiple articles, most of which are linked from the CoS page. This particular article is about the organization and its structure, and references the scandals in suitable places, with wikilinks to more detailed information. AS IT SHOULD. The Scientology project on Wikipedia is huge, and contains numerous pages detailing all the things you're complaining about, including Operation Snow White itself. In other words, there's no need to squeeze every scandal into every article about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. I strongly suggest you take a look at the Wikiproject devoted to Scientology and see how it all fits together. And stop asking me to restore your edit. As I've said, repeatedly, it reads like classic trolling, like a targeted attack on any editors who happen to be Scientologists, in an effort to annoy and anger them. Even if that's not how you intended it. -- Good Damon 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, these articles are linked, from the end of the CoS. For the first 90% it appears to be a positive organization. A law-abiding one. Hubbard's quote reinforces that. Only if you read the whole CoS article will you find links to pages to criticism, criticism which doesn't even have its own section in the article. The closest to that is "Church or business?". The article gives a totally false impression.


 * Then feel free to add appropriate material, in a neutral tone. Like I said, content-wise I don't disagree with you. -- Good Damon 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't add anything, I stated that I thought the existing article was incorrect as was and asked if this would be appropriate, citing existing wikipedia pages as evidence for my view.


 * You'd rather a bland environment where nobody risked offending members of a criminal organization than one where people speak their minds and information is shared. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd never know because rather than leaving my post for others to comment on and correct you deleted it. To what? Spare someone else having to read something critical? That's pathetic. And to totally delete my THREE attempts at discussion rather than offering a single compromise... Now someone else is going to come to the talk page and want to make exactly my point because nobody is talking about it, and you'll delete that too.


 * I'd rather a polite and courteous environment where no one insults other editors who might disagree with one another. There are well-meaning Scientologists who edit those pages as well, and whether you agree with or like their beliefs or not, you are required to play well with them. -- Good Damon 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You only see me as not playing well with others because you refuse to hear my question seriously. They're an organization, they're provably quite criminal in nature (do you disagree with this?), which I think means that 'criminal organization' would be a fair term to use. My question was in good faith, though I poked fun with the 'fair game' joke at the end.


 * Seriously, restore my edits. All of them. Then, refute them. Or, stay away. You've already gone far beyond normal Wikipedia guidelines on excessive reverts and in not assuming good faith. Your first revert maybe, but then I was trying to work with you and you continued to revert. As I see it, you're the vandal here. I honestly consider your actions to be very unreasonable and I expect you to work as a fellow editor, though maybe a critical one, rather than treating WP like your own private playground. If you were new, you'd have been banned (or reprimanded, pre-ban) for your actions in that article. Keep that in mind. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that's just not going to happen. It's all a question of tone; your edits were attacks on the subject matter, not productive recommendations for improving content. If you had gone in and proposed changes such as adding "so-and-so describes the CoS as a criminal organization, and that is notable enough to be mentioned in the introduction," you would have gotten a lot farther than you did. You're not a troll... but your tone is abrasive and borderline rude. Please consider this: If someone who agrees with you -- namely, me -- finds your tone unacceptable, it's time to take a hard look at exactly what you wrote and why that might be. I'm not treating WP as a playground, and I've reverted you three times; that's the limit. If you re-add your text, I won't revert it again. But I guarantee you someone else will. And again, it's likely to be someone who agrees with you. -- Good Damon 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely wrong. I didn't attack anything, I asked an honest question you found to be too provocative. Get it? It's a talk page, where people ask questions, to establish consensus on presentation and appropriateness, to write better articles. If I'm so out of line in my questions, slap me down with a simple answer, in open discussion - not through reverts, and I'll ask a more appropriate one. I still haven't seen any proof that it's an unreasonable thing to ask. Note 'ask', I did not just go editing the article, I asked an honest question. I expect you to answer it, or at least not delete it reflexively. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Good Damon, I totally understand what you are doing and why. However one's tone on a talk page is really irrelevant as long as the same tone doesn't flow into the actual article. This anon appears to be genuinely be trying to start a discussion on what they feel is a relevant point, and you're stifling it. Wouldn't it be better to explain why calling it a criminal organization isn't appropriate because the sources don't come out and say so themselves? Anynobody 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (PS I'm not talking about their challenges to you, just the original thread.) Anynobody 21:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, Anynobody. I don't think one's tone on a talk page really is irrelevant, especially on highly charged, highly controversial topics. Let's say I went into the talk page of the Republican article and said that "I really think we should make sure to call the Republicans fascists right in the intro, since they definitely are, and that can be backed up by blah blah blah..." That would be trolling, plain and simple. And such a comment would be justly removed. -- Good Damon 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between calling the republicans fascists, which is a factual label and may or may not be true, and calling them idiots, which would be opinion. I'd expect even a curt post calling them such and offering evidence to be answered fairly, even if the evidence wasn't in the end conclusive. Criminal is easily defined, and proven. Furthermore, removing another editor's words is NOT the acceptable action when you disagree with them. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That "fascist" is a factual label and "idiot" is an opinion has no bearing. Either phrase would be trolling, and doesn't belong on the Republican talk page. If instead I said, "such-and-such-reputable-source described them as fascists, and that should be in the article," that would be a different matter; I'm not expressing an opinion ("I think they're fascists"), I'm conveying a fact ("others call them fascists"). For goodness' sakes, we're talking about an encyclopedia, here. Attacking the subject matter instead of discussing improvements to the article is non-productive and establishes a severe POV pretty thoroughly. -- Good Damon 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we're talking about a talk page on a collaborative encyclopedia. I don't expect to put anything in the article that couldn't be cited. I asked about it, to make sure it could be make accurate, before I posted. I expected people editing the CoS page to be familiar with their actions, in general, or ask questions if they don't understand me.
 * You seem to think a factual claim is unwarranted simply because it's not pleasing to one POV. I don't see this to be about pleasing either POV, one side might hate the article, but have to admit it's factual. That's encyclopedic. NPOV isn't about pleasing people, it's about being even-handed and factual. 24.82.203.201 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sticking to your example: "I really think we should make sure to call the Republicans fascists right in the intro, since they definitely are, and that can be backed up by blah blah blah..." I'd read this and think of a few possibilities:
 * The person really has sources in mind to back up the assertions, if so they should be heard out. If they're poor sources that can and should be explained.
 * The person really thinks there are sources but can't remember/find them, then it would be quite simple to tell the person that actually including the term fascist with Republicans is simply their opinion unless/until a source can be found.
 * The person is a troll, which can be proven by asking legitimate questions, such as for sources. If they are evasive yet combative then it's probably time to stop assuming good faith and act accordingly.
 * Other (Could be something else, I try to keep an open mind.)

This person's style may rub you the wrong way but there are possibilities beyond merely being a troll. Anynobody 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)