User talk:Justallofthem/Archive2

AfD
Hi Justallofthem, just noticed that the Afd for HS&S was speedy kept (I had made one post, went out for a couple of hours, made another and then found I had posted to a discussion that had been closed in the meantime). Point is, if you want to contest the speedy keep, I would back you up on that. Jayen 466 16:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I already asked the closer to reopen. That is the first step. No hurry. I will let you know if they go to WP:DRV and your comment there is welcome. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Please keep me posted. Cheers, Jayen 466 18:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a useful scholarly source for the HS&S article, details on the talk page. Jayen 466 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is a good source. Given that and the Hairspray issue, I think there is sufficient secondary material that I will not contest the close. I have however contested Sex and Scientology and your comments are welcome, here. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology beliefs and practices
I have recently restructured this article. Being a Scientologist yourself, I think you would have a good amount of motivation to improve this page. Right now, the page's state is largely that of original research; it is in dire need of some secondary sources. If you could provide some, it would be most appreciated. ← Spidern  →  18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unfortunately I have very little time these days to devote to Wikipedia. In the past I have gone quite the other way and it took a toll on me. That is why I appreciate any Scientologist that is willing to edit against the grain here. Others should too. It is a lot of effort and an enormous time sink for a Scientologist to edit here. That said, I do try to improve things were I can but I do not have time to dig up references and usually work with whatever is already available in the article. Which is sad because there is a lot of material out there that is under-represented here because it is not critical of Scientology. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've started to introduce some material into the Beliefs and Practices article from deChant/Jorgensen (hope to be able to do more over the next few days). I'd be grateful if you could have a look over it. Cheers, Jayen 466 13:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will try this evening. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

About requests for comment
Hello Justallofthem, and thanks for your comments. While I respect your opinion and the processes that already exist here on Wikipedia, I have observed that most of the public debate which has happened on the recent WP:AE thread has been among those currently embroiled in the content dispute itself. As Jayen466 said, if all the "uninvolved" were taken out of the debate which took place, there would be but one left. I respectfully disagree with your argument that if it were noteworthy, something would have been done. Please do not misunderstand me to say that I am fishing for another opinion because I am unpleased with what the Arbitration committee already has to offer. I simply believe that with the massive crowd available on Wikipedia with plenty of valid opinions, surely their energies can be put to useful effort in coming to an unbiased consensus. I do not wish to disparage the work of the "eyes" which already contribute there. My brainstorm over on complex content disputes is not targeted directly at users, as seems to be the case with arbitration and WP:RFCC. The point I'm trying to make is that the true issue here is not user-specific, but content-specific. The categorization of such requests can be easily organized as the reference desk by broad categories of interest, where willing participants can help bring about consensus without already being embroiled in a particular conflict. ← Spidern  →  05:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no comment as to the changes being proposed as they relate to content disputes. I too have been frustrated by the lack of neutral response to RfCs. Seeing as critics of Scientology enormously outnumber supporters here, if only critics and supporters chime in then I am sure to lose every "battle". No, my objection and my reference to shopping was that you used a user dispute to illustrate your point. Don't go there. If you review that arb you will see that another user used to use me personally as the "eternal example", as one admin said. The lack of response on the WP:AE page is telling in itself and that is exactly my point. If action were needed then action would have been taken. Remember that our little disputes are just a drop in the ocean here. Every article has its cadre of supporters and detractors. There are few people here without opinion. The system here has "been there, done that" with targeting users rather than content. It is frowned upon. Rather than target Shutterbug, work with her. She, for the most part, has valid things to say and bears listening to, not attempting to silence. Any Scientologist willing to run the gauntlet here should be supported, not attacked, by any editor that seeks to be called "neutral" on the subject. Scientology articles are enormously skewed toward criticism and against any hint that this might possibly be a system of any value, despite the many many thousands of Scientologists and even ex-Scientologists that speak to that value. I do not expect you to agree with the premise that Scientology has value; I would expect you to agree with the observation that many think it does and that view is underrepresented here. Even though there is plenty of press on that point. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All I have to say is that if you feel that a Scientology page is unreasonably skewed, find the source which you believe to be skewing it and contest its reliability. Otherwise, there is nothing that can be done. Wikipedia isn't and will never be a portal to truth; it is a product of adhering to verifiability. Truth can be a highly subjective term in many cases, which is the root of most content disputes. As for whether Scientology has value, that is not for me to decide nor discuss here. It is clear that Scientology is a notable topic and as such must be covered duly. I welcome any constructive contributions to Scientology related articles as long as they are well sourced. If you are trying to promote the positive aspects of your religion, my personal recommendation would be that you focus on the articles that describe precisely what it is that you believe in. If you yourself don't have time to work on improving the sourcing on Scientology beliefs and practices, perhaps you could find a friend in your community that can. ←  Spidern  →  06:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And to the degree that Shutterbug has time to work here, perhaps more time than I, she should be valued for adding sorely needed diversity, see WP:BIAS. Later, my friend. --Justallofthem (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Spidern, you know what the problem skewing these articles is. The problem is the almost complete exclusion of scholarly works, while at the same time editors are asserting that self-published anti-Scientology web pages and celebrity gossip magazines should be viewed as reliable sources on Scientologist theology. You can do as much as anyone to help address it, by looking at the scholarly material and summarising its contents in these articles. Jayen 466 14:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly can, but that's not where I choose to spend the bulk of my time; I much prefer editing. But more importantly, since the content directly concerns Justallofthem out of Wikipedia, he would naturally have much more reason to wish that the page reflects a more accurate viewpoint than it currently does. Not to mention that much of it is not sourced at all. ←  Spidern  →  18:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(left) Spidern, in Scientology we say that many (most?) individuals have fallen away from self-determinism to a state of other-determinism. The other-determined individual is controlled by forces other than his own perspective and his own ability to effect solutions in his life. Scientology is mainly geared toward restoring full self-determinism. The fully self-determined person is charting his own course through life and is vigorously playing the game from his own perspective; imagine a winning football team. There is a state senior to that and that is pan-determinism, responsibility for both (all) sides of the game. To continue the analogy, that would be the the league commission, the rulemakers, the officials. Their job is to be responsible for both sides, to ensure a "level playing field", to make sure both sides can play the game. I see from the tone of your remarks that you are leaning toward a "self-determined" position, that you are a "critic of Scientology" and it is not your place to give Scientology a fair shake - that that is my job and that of my community. And I know that Shutterbug edits from her self-determined position. She is a Scientologist and she believes what her Church says over what some dissatisfied ex-members claim. Both of those positions are fine. But I also see from your remarks that you have the intelligence to assume the more senior position. It might not seem so fun a game as being down there on the field hitting hard and getting dirty but it is a position that can be filled by only the best of us. Some may have crafted a stratagem of pretending to be in that position while really continuing to play the game on the ground but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about researching and including the sympathetic side of the issue at least 50% as diligently as you research and include the unsympathetic. A "player" will scan a source to pick out the bits that support his side, and discard those that do not. "Neutral" people do not edit the Scientology articles in any depth - you have to have some commitment to something to wade through this material and to push to make your voice heard. I strive to remain above my "POV", to remain "pan-determined", at least to my 50% goal. I am more than 50% as likely to remove derogatory material from the article on a critic as from the article on a Scientologist; I have no problem correctly representing a criticism of Scientology and incorporating it in the article or even the lead as I recently did with Jessica Rodriguez. As I said in an earlier version of my page:"I edit from what I call a 'Scientology-sympathetic' viewpoint. However, I also understand where most critics are coming from and do not oppose their right to criticize the Church of Scientology. The Scientology Ethics Officer would likely say that I was in a Condition of Doubt or lower; the Scientology critic would likely say that I am 'still brainwashed'. I would deny both claims, but that is only to be expected. Since extremists on both sides are guilty of bone-headed acts against even moderate individuals on the other side, I will remain justanother - just another editor. Oh, I should mention that I most certainly do not the divide the universe into pro- and anti-Scientologist; I do not even divide the editors working on the Scientology articles here that way; I only put people in those categories that seem to so tightly hold their own POV that they cannot conceive that the other might have some validity too. I would say that they know who they are but, in actual fact, I doubt that they do."No-one will cheer you on if you rise above the game. In fact, both sides might boo you. But I think you have the necessary stuff so I extend my invitation to rise above the playing field. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 18:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Scientology
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology
Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

On your statement you accuse Cirt of being an aggressive POV-warrior. Your post almost entirely covers the conduct of Cirt. To my untrained eye the evidence you presented documents an IP removing sourced content from an article (simple vandalism) and Cirt warning such a vandal. Would you care to elaborate?

Also you seemingly are trying to say that Cirt has some sort of a record. Would you mind elaborating on that?

To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?

-- Cat chi? 18:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I appreciate you looking into this. I will give you some food for thought in the course of the next day or two. Please check my contributions under this account and also under and  - those are the accounts I did almost all of my editing in the Scientology-series before my present account. Later. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

While the past is typically (quickly) forgotten (and forgiven) on wikipedia, it certainly has bearing in the present context, as the same types of mistakes are still occurring some 60,000 edits later.

Is it relevant, I wonder, that when was editing as  and, he was well known by the front office, and that the wikipedia attorneys were involved due to the POV pushing and undisclosed legal issues? I would think the arbitrators might want to know that, assuming they don't already.

As you're aware, my extremely distasteful experiences with Smee, and my later encounters with Durova (subsequently de-sysop'd), are why I have chosen to no longer edit here.

Interesting []. Also loaded with complaints about Smee []

With Smee's talkpage and Smeelgova's edit history and accounts conveniently deleted, you may wish to go through my edit history to find countless examples of POV and edit warring.

You seem to be a survivor here. Best of luck with your continued editing.

Lsi john (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi John. Good to hear from you! Please present your evidence at the arb evidence page. Anyone may present evidence, it does not matter that you are not actively editing. You raise valid points as to whether this tiger has changed her stripes and the arbitrators should have the benefit of your perspective. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Primary Sources and Self published sources WP:SPS.
Hi, I just want to understand what is going on. There has been a great amount of deletions in the Scientology page claiming Primary Sources but these were not Primary Sources these were actually Self published sources. Self published that talk about themselves are ok in WP as long as it meets the following criteria.

"WP:SPS Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:


 * 1) the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
 * 2) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 4) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 5) there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
 * 6) the article is not based primarily on such sources;
 * 7) the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source."

So self-published about Scientology believes and practices are ok because they are talking about them selves. Now a secondary source is the ideal but in the absence of a secondary source a self published source about them self is ok.

What you think? Bravehartbear (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany
New article; would you like to have a look through it? If they are any major issues or sources missing, please advise on the article's talk page. Cheers, Jayen 466 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thinking this over
The proposals I posted today were influenced in a large measure by the checkuser finding. If it turns out that result was false, or if substantial doubt arises, then of course I'll withdraw them. Can you affirm that you haven't done any socking at all since Bish unblocked you? Durova Charge! 21:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true. The only alternate account I used did not make any edits outside of user space and was used only to keep some things I was working on for the arb saved and away from prying eyes until ready. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And just so you know, my so-called "IP range" covers a large provider in a large population area with perhaps millions of users. If there is another editor with interests similar to mine in the area I would like to sit down with them over coffee but they ain't me and I have no idea who it is nor had I seen that user before. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Many people have large providers. Sometimes that makes a difference and sometimes it doesn't.  The edit interests of Truthtell do look very similar to yours.  I'll chew on this.  Of course, I'm not an arb and those proposals are only workshop proposals--they hold no real weight.  But it's important to be fair.  Durova Charge! 22:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many Scientologists and ex-Scientologists in the world; many people that might make edits similar to ones that I make were they so inclined. In actual fact what surprises and dismays me is that so few do. The "similarity of interest" thing is a very weak argument. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkusers have a variety of options in writing their reports, to indicate degrees of confidence in the result. I haven't 'wikisleuthed' you for possible alternate accounts beyond what the checkuser reported (and would appreciate it if you withdrew that part of your evidence in good faith). All I've done is trusted the checkuser's conclusions. If it were merely a matter of two people with similar interests from the same ISP range in the same large metro area, then it's doubtful the checkuser would have written the finding that way. Although it might be possible that two different checkusers would weigh matters differently. Will wait and see how this plays out.

In the meantime will be busy on other things. From respect for last night's plane crash am doing a restoration related to the history of Buffalo, New York. And am planning a new article about African textiles. So ping me at my user talk please if new independent evidence emerges. Durova Charge! 22:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please to look again: "I do not know how YM "wiki-sluethed" that bit out" - I mention YM as the "sleuth" not you. You are simply named as making a false claim. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, following up. A second checkuser has confirmed the finding. Durova Charge! 20:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Please take a look at Jayen's analysis on YM's talk and the CU talk page. Jayen did the "sluething" that is supposed to be done *before* a checkuser is run. I get the very distinct feeling that your "boy" Cirt just emailed his DYK bud to run an abusive, intrusive, and out-of-process CU just because Cirt wanted to know who the "new" editor was. That ain't how CU is supposed to work and you know that and that is an abuse of the trust that is granted Cirt here. Of course, I believe that Cirt specifically gained that trust so as to knowingly abuse it but I do not expect you to agree with that. I do expect you to agree with the proper use of CU to ensure fairness and anonymity on this project. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I double checked about the propriety of the use of checkuser also. Not that I seriously doubted its propriety.  Under the present circumstances it may serve your best interests to refrain from bad faith speculation.  Durova Charge! 21:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, rolling over ain't my style. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then, in good faith it might be the case that neither you nor Jayen are very familiar with Checkuser, because both of you appear to be a bit off target in your assumptions. But there's another concern. At the case evidence you say the account cannot be you because it predates your first edit as Justanother. Here you conjecture it was the newness of the account that attracted attention. Editors who actually have violated serious policies sometimes get desperate and assert contradictory arguments in their own defense, and often make frivolous claims of malfeasance against the volunteers who detect the problem. It doesn't help your situation to act in a way that takes on that appearance.

If you really aren't Truthtell and appearances are against you, then here's something you can do. This other account you mentioned that edited only in userspace, go ahead and disclose it. Not to me; to the Committee. You could ask them to run a third checkuser in light of the data associated with that account. If you're being straightforward and circumstances are against you, then that could shed a new light on the two checkuser findings that have already come in. Durova Charge! 07:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If one of the arbs want that username then they can ask me for it. It would serve no purpose as it would not change the fact that Truthtell is in my metro area and has the provider that I recently switched to. Meh. Your argument re my alleged inconsistency is just silly and is stretching a simple situation to impugn me. Simple: the Truthtell account predates me but had not edited in a long time and not since Smee/Cirt came along and just showed up and made a few edits, i.e. from Smee's and my POV it's, "who is this new editor?". Smee's answer to a new editor in Scn? Ask for a CU out-of-process even though there is nothing untoward going on. No doubt Smee thought it was a COFS sock and just got lucky that there is coincidental intersection with me. The whole issue is meaningless anyway. Even if that was my sock there is little actionable there - all that was accomplished was that another Scn editor got blocked. A win for Smee but nothing new to me. If Truthtell cares then he can pursue an unblock. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument looks a bit like one of the first vandals I encountered. His ISP was AOL, which doesn't even reveal the customer's geographic area.  And he edited articles about a religion too (a much larger one than yours).  And he insisted that there was no way to distinguish him from tens of millions of other AOL customers, until checkuser was actually run.  It caught a bunch of his sleeper socks too.  And some of those had edit habits that didn't even vaguely resemble his main interests.  Durova Charge! 17:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go, more guilt by association. You are basically saying that all users from the same geographic area and/or the same humongous provider that edit in the same large area of Wikipedia are socks of one user. I am sure that you have at least some appreciation of how weak your argument sounds. All that shows is that checkuser is unreliable and indicative of nothing. I have an advantage over you though, I guess, I know that I am not Truthtell so the failings are perhaps more obvious to me than they are to you. However, if you search your memory of interactions with me you might notice one thing; whatever else I may be, I am not a liar. Neither is Cirt, I give her that. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ps your example of "It caught a bunch of his sleeper socks too. And some of those had edit habits that didn't even vaguely resemble his main interests" reminds me a bit of trial by drowning. Were they "sleeper socks" or simply dormant editors? More likely the latter, methinks. No matter, they are dead, now --Justallofthem (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova, I don't buy it. I might buy it if you show me an edit by Justallofthem or Justanother adding several dozen Hubbard publications to L. Ron Hubbard, the way Truthtell has done on multiple occasions separated by several years. Failing something like that, everything – and I mean everything – in the stylometric evidence speaks against Justallofthem having anything in common with Truthtell, apart from a geographical location that is home to a great many Scientologists. I does not strike me as unlikely that one other Scientologist from the same metropolitan area as Justallofthem, using the same provider, should have made two dozen edits to Wikipedia over the space of half a decade. Since you assert that you satisfied yourself of the appropriateness of this Checkuser, I would appreciate any further details you can give; though I suspect you may not feel at liberty to discuss this here. All I can say is that I also have questions in my mind about how appropriate this was. Jayen 466 01:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems nothing I post here is likely to satisfy either of you. I was offering to change a workshop proposal under certain circumstances. The evidence has since strengthened with the input of a second checkuser, and Justallofthem refuses to take the initiative toward supplying new evidence for a third follow-up checkuser. Came here for a serious effort to be fair and forthcoming, but the responses (especially Justallofthem's most recent edit summary) don't appear prepared to take this input seriously. Under such circumstances your questions are better asked and answered elsewhere. Best regards, Durova Charge! 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Which venue would you suggest as more appropriate? Jayen 466 01:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if there's a specific venue. Suggest you select someone who's knowledgeable in the relevant area and whose opinion you'd respect.  Durova Charge! 02:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)