Archive 1 Jan 2007 - Feb 2007

Archive Positive Feedback 1 Feb 2007 - March 2007

Please don't delete other people's comments from this page. Also, I moved your comments from the middle of the nominating statement to follow the nominating statement. Please don't insert comments into the middle of the nominating statement. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do from now on. I apologize for my mistake, I thought it was more appropriate to list notable/not notable arguments together. Anynobody 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this, and considering this from last week would you mind if I cite it here? Anynobody 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. Please do keep me posted. Yours, Smee 02:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, my. [1] Kind regards, Orsini 06:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does he really think this is the way things are supposed to work around here, "Yeah I know she's notable, but people use her to bring down the CoS." What he doesn't understand is that we aren't pointing out how her craziness and Scientology are related...in this case the facts do that themselves. Anynobody 06:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and this edit clearly points a COI at him. However the issue of notability is a prime argument in his RfD. The contradiction again: one day she does meet the notability requirement for inclusion - albeit "barely" - but in the RfD statement a short time later, she does not any more? Huh? How does that work? ;-) Kind regards, Orsini 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better keep note of this one. [2] Amazing. Best, Orsini 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was pretty happy with that as a great comeback but I decided that I did not want to lower myself to the level of "psychoanalysing" my "opponents". I will leave that inappropriate activity solely to thems that cares to do it. --Justanother 12:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, what you call "psychoanalysing" is something we are all supposed to do if we notice other editors trying to make edits that can't be explained by logic or supported by facts. If a new editor was insisting that L Ron Hubbard was gay, I'd be having similar conversations with him/her concerning a possible anti-CoS POV as the ones I've had with you concerning your pro-CoS POV. Anynobody 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, Anynobody, if you want this to stop all you have to do is stop. You are the one driving this. I can tell you that it will not end in any great victory for you so you are really wasting your time. Myself, I am not looking for a "victory". This wastes my time too; I just don't invest as much time in it as you do. I really really suggest that you stop letting your new-found friends egg you on into wasting a lot of effort on attacking me. I don't do anything wrong here. I just respond to the weird attacks on me from others and have some fun while I do so. No big deal to me. Best wishes. Take a break and think about how you want to spend you time in life and your time here. Fixating on me is a total waste, man. This is really friendly advice. Think about it OK? --Justanother 05:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me assure you first and foremost that every action I take here is my own, and it is because I believe you are wrong in this case that I have said what I have said. That is not meant as a bait or an insult, it is simply what I have come to believe regarding you and your motives regarding Barbara Schwarz. What really brought in into focus was your reaction to the volcano on the CoS project userbox, and I will explain why I think that is the key to your COI.

• I doubt the volcano on the cover of Dianetics offends you when another Scientologist mentions it. It's when anybody who is not a member of or friendly to the CoS does you assume they mean "Xenu and the erupting volcanoes". There is no way your perception could be the same as every Scientologist, otherwise they'd find something else for the cover. I don't blame you for being sensitive, some critics might very well mean "Xenu" when they talk about volcanoes and Scientology. The problem with your view is that there are even more people, some of whom may be future Scientologists, who mean volcano and not space opera. You're essentially assuming everyone who doesn't "like" Scientology is the enemy, and by treating them as such you're actually ensuring that they stay that way.
• Regarding Barbara Schwarz, I don't know all the specifics about Scientology but I do know that her existence is somewhat of a paradox. A person as insane as her couldn't have been a Scientologist because she would have been cured, or shouldn't exist. Yet there she is, filing FOIA requests and making herself very visible by saying Hubbard is the son of Ike Eisenhower. I could see where somebody who is sensitive about her creating a negative perception of the CoS would have a problem with it, but the perception of the CoS is irrelevant to Wikipedia because not everybody who reads it cares about Scientology.

In regard to stopping, I don't remember asking you to stop discussion in general. I do remember asking you to explain the logic and reasoning you've used to come to your conclusions. I'm still very interested to know. Anynobody 08:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't have said it better or more politely myself. Anynobody, very well put points... Smee 12:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • (EC - speak of the Smee) I just mention that, for your own reasons, it might be healthier for you to not fixate on me. Watching my edits, collecting "evidence", plotting and planning your next RfC. You are wasting your time. I do nothing wrong here. If you show evidence of stopping your fixation with me then I do not mind discussing anything with you. But so long as you are communicating with other about me then I will know that you are still fixated. So lose the fixation first and we can go from there. --Justanother 12:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also Anynobody, I will soon be going on wiki-break or reduced involvement here while I attend to real life issues. You would do well to take my user pages off your watchlist and try to avoid jumping into the middle of any issues that I do address that you would normally not be interested in. In other words, don't go picking a fight with me. If you do that, then, in a bit, when I fully return, you will be in a better frame of mind to address any issues of substance that you might have with me and we can get a 3rd party involved as needed. Later. --Justanother 15:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have personal matters to attend to I strongly encourage you to deal with them as you see fit. I think you should know that matters do proceed whether you are here or not, so if you make a comment I wish to address I'll go ahead and do it (I just won't expect a response as rapidly as they have been coming). Moreover if this break is similar to your last break where you continued to make edits yet expected me to not address you, I will be treating it the same. (It's my understanding that a Wikibreak means you stop editing or responding to comments because you are away, this explains any delay in responding another editor may experience when sending a message to a person on break.) The impression I got from the last time was you needed a break from dealing with me and a few others while you went on editing and pursuing the AfD. Anynobody 03:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just got your message. So I'm confused, you want to keep the B.S. page or have it deleted? Looking at it, honestly, the only reason it's there is because people who dislike Scientology want to load up wikipedia with as much weird and negative information as they can. That's the only reason. This lady is obviously nuts, and that she has chosen to target Scientology doesn't have anything to do with Scientology, it's just a mentally ill woman's delusions. It just doesn't seem noteable or worth keeping on wikipedia. On a website collecting weird stories about Scientology, yeah, but I don't think it is important enough to put here. We don't make wikipedia pages every time a mentally ill person makes rants,unless its big news or stands out. If you were wanting to keep it, how come?

Where's the image of the volcano that justanother didn't like? I don't care about volcanos and things but I don't find them related to Scientology apart from the cover of Dianetics. I would say using the cover of Dianetics with the volcano makes sense but not a random photo of a volcano, when volcanos have nothing to do with Scientology, apart from that story about Xenu but that really isn't what Scientology is a bout and makes no sense to represent it with a volcano.

ttyl Johnpedia 15:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings about spirituality are complicated, but I think I should talk about them to make sure you understand I have no interest in an anti-CoS crusade. Personally I'm agnostic, and believe people ought to be able to worship as they please so long as they don't hurt anybody while they're doing it. If someone does get hurt, I don't think that a religion should be banned unless said religion advocates hurting people. For example, I don't think any Scientologists meant for Lisa McPherson to die. They were just trying to help her the best way they knew how, and she died. The same thing has happened with other religions since the concept of religion began.

I do want to keep Barbara Schwarz, but not because of her relationship with Scientology. I'd honestly be trying to save the article no matter what religion she was affiliated with, because most Americans don't realize that they can use the FOIA too.

My beef is with people who believe crap like: A Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, the Roswell UFO incident, or that UFO and other conspiracy theories concerning Area 51 are true. They usually try to point out how secretive the government is to make their case. I like to point to Ms. Schwarz as an example that the government really does make good faith efforts to be honest with people (not just U.S. citizens) where national security isn't involved. When security is involved at a time like 1947 when the Roswell incident happened, they'll come clean when the risk has passed. They did lie and say it was a weather balloon, because they didn't want the Soviet Union to know that the CIA/NSA/USAAF were developing spy balloons to monitor atmospheric conditions created by a nuclear detonation. In 1947 we knew it was just a matter of time before the USSR tested a nuclear device, and we couldn't count on them to be open about it. The balloons of Project Mogul were supposed to tell us instead. If the Soviets knew that, they'd just shoot down the balloons, so there was no way the government was going to tell the truth at the time. Now that the Cold War is over, thanks to the FOIA the real story is now available. Which goes back to Ms. Schwarz, would a secretive government waste so much time addressing the claims of a person with unusual beliefs? (I honestly wish her ideas had nothing to do with the CoS, it would make things so much easier for me.)

The volcano question was prompted because Justanother seems to think people not affiliated with the CoS are being offensive by talking about the volcano and symbology that might be related to it. By not affiliated I mean anyone who isn't a member no matter what their feelings are, I'm neutral on whether the CoS is a good or bad thing. (I thought it was supposed to represent a person's unlocked potential exploding after reading Dianetics, in a good way. I remember seeing a commercial about the book in the 80's and thought that was what it was, a self help guide to tap hidden potential.) Anynobody 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what it is to me as well, just a good symbol to represent what it's like doing Scientology stuff, I don't think it's for any of that weird Xenu stuff.

I don't know, but it seems to me like the Barbara Schwarz page was created for the reason I said before, and the government, FBI, whatever, was really suspicious and interested in Scientology, I think they stole documents and did all kinds of things (which is why they did the same thing back I believe), i don't think any of that means anything, the government were wrong and just needed to chill out and if some lady like Barbara Schwarz was saying nutso stuff, and they're already paranoid about Scientology, they won't be ignoring it. I don't think it needs a page, especially when it just makes me religion look even weirder for nothing that has to do with my religion. It reminds me of having my parents embarrass me and not being able to have any control in that. I don't think Scientology should have to have this crazy lady's named tied to them, it's not right, imo. ttyl Johnpedia 16:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it took so long to respond here, thinking of the best way to convey my displeasure of having to advocate an article about a person who is embarrassing to the CoS but doing so anyway is hard. And then it occured to me, I have a Barbara Schwarz of my own, Madalyn Murray O'Hair. I'm agnostic but that often gets me lumped in with atheism and forced to explain this...person. She was everything most atheists are NOT, and I'd rather her and her family be forgotten. I can't logically back that up because beneath my contempt for her I know she is notable. (If for no other reason than the fact that she was murdered by a former office manager she hired). Seriously, Ms Schwarz has taken craziness to new levels by bogging down courts with her...issues. There's a quote from a movie that fits here if you substitute crazy for dumb,

Look, mister, there's... two kinds of dumb, uh... guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and, uh, guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don't matter, the second one you're kinda forced to deal with.

I bank at a Credit Union, so when I read about tax money and time being wasted by a crazy person I have to call them on it. It gets worse though, she wasted time for the United States Army, United States Navy, Department Of Energy, the Utah State Attorney General and tons more agencies and people that couldn't care less about Scientology but are required by law to respond to any request, no matter how crazy. Seriously, if you live in the U.S. it's your tax dollars at work, here's a response from the National Credit Union Association to one of her requests: I am confident that the NCUA isn't trying to make Scientology look bad, they have no reason to and it's not in their charter. What's amusing is that in the same country are people who haven't got a clue they can make requests too and believe made up crap they bought from someone who wants to sell it. I think FOIA is a great idea, but is clearly broken. P.S. The movie was Hoosiers in case you wanted to know. Anynobody 12:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I think we should wait for him to return, there is no harm in deciding what the best diffs to use should be. I propose discussing them here. Anynobody 08:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here was my attempt to address a dispute with him on his talk page: User talk:Justanother/Archive4#What are you saying, exactly?. In the end he asked me not to add posts about it to his talk page. Anynobody 06:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Evidence of a violation of policy WP:CCC: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)
2. Evidence of violations of policies of WP:CIV,WP:NPA:User talk:Justanother/Archive4#What are you saying, exactly?, User talk:Justanother, several others to be found before submitting...
3. Evidence of a violation of guideline WP:COI: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Barbara_Schwarz__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D
4. Evidence of a violation of guideline WP:DE: Talk:Barbara Schwarz

• Anynobody, do you have the DIFF of the independent Admin who suggests that a user RFC is a good way to go? I thought it was made on WP:ANI but I could not find it at the moment... Yours, Smee 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure either, I had a look at various boards and couldn't find it. Is it possible the suggestion was made on a talk page? Here is what I found, maybe I missed it: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] I noticed this board too. I still like the RfC, but would you prefer setting up a section here: Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse Anynobody 00:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I will leave that one up to you. Smee 00:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do you mean the Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse board? Anynobody 01:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes. As stated in my response to you on my talk, I am (in general, for now) trying to avoid baiting, etc. in this situation, so as to avoid conflict. I will, however, support whichever route you wish to take - as a corollary commentator/participant. Thanks for your time. Yours, Smee 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm still interested in the RfC. I honestly think several outside views are needed, but don't want to give the impression I'm unwilling to explore other avenues to get those views.

I honestly don't think you've been baiting or fighting with Justanother, even though he chooses to call it that. It seemed to me that you were just trying to hold him accountable for his actions, albeit in a slightly aggressive way. I think when the entire history comes out, most people will feel similar. If you're afraid of baiting Justanother here, I don't think that applies since he isn't actually an invited participant of this discussion. He can certainly continue to comment, but he can't accuse you of baiting him by discussing how to best bring his behavior to the communities attention on my talk page. If, however, we were discussing this on his talk page...I could see where that might be called baiting because expecting him to not respond would be stupid. So please, don't hesitate to comment or point out actions on his part that I may not notice (like the recent odd commentary you noticed, even though I didn't do anything I found the notice helpful :) Anynobody 01:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee, This is what I'd call baiting by JA... Anynobody 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support. For clarity, I had meant bull-baiting from the individual, not the other way around, but thanks :)... Smee 02:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Whew, I was afraid his accusations were actually getting to you and thus keeping you silent. His baiting just helps illustrate our point, would you agree? Anynobody 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Smee 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Moved from top

That is (another) misrepresentation. In the end I asked you to only post to my page about resolving my dispute with you (if not yours with me) so I am very interested in resolving my dispute with you. --Justanother 13:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I remember you asked me not to post about your religion, which is the heart of the COI matter I was trying to address with you. Of course I could be wrong, but you didn't provide a diff. In the future, would you mind including diffs or proof that I am misrepresenting you? There are two reasons for this: 1) I make it a point to include proof when I point out instances of your specific misrepresentations so you know I'm not making baseless allegations, this goes both ways. 2) Making accusations without some kind of proof is at best an failure of WP:AGF and at worst a violation of WP:NPA, which gives me even more proof for a RfC of your inappropriate behavior. Anynobody 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Smee and Anynobody, please note this: [10] It may take me a few days to add more to Wikipedia anywhere since I have business interests which will tie me up completely again for a few days. Thank you both again for your recent efforts to prevent the deletion of a notable person's article. Kind regards, a very tired Orsini 13:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is awesome Orsini, the format is so easy to read and understand. I'll reformat my citations and add any you haven't covered already. Anynobody 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anynobody: This was a rather odd comment about you on an Admin's talk page:

Hi Jossi. If you are still willing to help me with Anynobody then I think that this reply by me clearly states my problem and my desired outcome. I have been trying to get him to change his tack on his talk page too. He has been ill and Scientologists believe that illness comes only from stress and I can see that his fixation with me is likely one source of stress. Thanks --Justanother 14:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the DIFF. What do you make of this? Yours, Smee 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, this is very odd. User:Justanother seems to be actually trying to address the situation in accordance with WP:DR rather than by violating policy related to User RfC's. I think this is a blockable offense and totally confusing to me. --Justanother 04:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was indeed a blockable offense, as shown by your recent block. This was a communication and solicit for Anynobody's opinion regarding this and not yours. Thank you. Now I would be interested to hear what Anynobody has to say in this subsection, please leave this space open for Anynobody to respond. Thanks. Smee 04:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Blockable? Hardly? And there is plenty of room left over here. But I am done. If Anynobody wants to truly address his dispute with me then I suggest that he stop listening to unhelpful "helpers" and just address the situation according to WP:DR. --Justanother 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But I am done." Good. Then this will give Anynobody a chance to respond to the comment/DIFF above. Smee 04:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much for the heads up Smee. I anticipated an action like this by Justanother. To set an example for him, I'm going to let him take whatever action he thinks necessary toward me without interruption. I don't mean to sound conceited but I think I can defend my actions regarding Justanother. After all, I'm just keeping after him to answer questions he refuses to and participate in a RfC. P.S. I noticed that Barbara Schwarz gets to stay, so I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your efforts on the AfD, Smee. Anynobody 04:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are most welcome, we shall see what transpires with this... What do you think of the recently added PUBLIC DOMAIN court document ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, specifically with regard only to Barbara Schwarz, to the article? Yours, Smee 04:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sigh --Justanother 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, I have an honest question about Scientology. If stress caused my sinus infection why did antibiotics cure it? Anynobody 04:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stress weakens the immune system; the antibiotics supplement the immune system. But the source of the illness was the stress as the germs are with us always. --Justanother 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee the Wikisourcing of the document was great, I was actually going to ask you how you did it. I have several documents regarding the Oregon anti-submarine action of USS PC-815. Justanother, I've been stressed out in the past a lot more than I have been in the past two weeks. I don't understand why i didn't get a sinus infection or other disease that's been with me at that time? I can remember times of incredible stress, like waiting for the results of an HIV test, where I wasn't ill. Anynobody 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are different kinds of stress with different sources and different reactions. But certainly you see that "germs" did not "cause" the illness. The germs are always with us. But, Anynobody, I do not want to discuss much of anything with you until we settle any outstanding issues. So this was a "freebie" since I had mentioned it to Jossi because I felt bad that you were ill and I had not taken definite action to resolve our dispute. If Jossi does not want to try then I will ask someone else. Or you can. --Justanother 05:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you anyway for the freebie, I appreciate the explanation. To assuage any bad feelings you may have had, I can honestly say you are not a source of stress for me. I was concerned in the beginning that perhaps my opinions were insulting to Scientologists in general, since discussing it with some others a few weeks ago the worry is gone.

Please understand that what I am about to say is not meant as a bait or an insult. I think if you ask one of your friends about what I am about to say they will probably agree I have a point. Your behavior has taken away a lot of potential stress, I don't mean to sound like a jerk but you really illustrate the issues I've brought up much better than I could. It's why I'm not trying to interfere with your attempts with Jossi, you are literally making my case for me. I say this because my conscience won't let me watch you self destruct without mentioning it as a warning. I think similar behavior on your part also affected you on the AfD page, when you seemed to go out of your way to comment on every keep vote. Anynobody 05:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should really go shopping for a 3rd party. That is all I have to say to you. Good night. --Justanother 05:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position Justanother, as I've said before though I'd like to hear from more than one third party who doesn't know either of us. I can accept any errors I might have made, so I want the most neutral review possible. If I ask one specific third party, I'm going to feel like I'm asking a friend to back me up which I find inherently compromises the neutrality of the process. Seeing the comments of the many editors who added their input to the AfD convinced me that community involvement is the way to go here, I just don't understand why you have such a huge problem with that. (Especially since you showed that you believe in the idea of community involvement by opening the AfD on Barbara Schwarz) Anynobody 06:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Such a User RfC as you desire is not allowed. But carry on. --Justanother 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Anynobody 23:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because evidently nothing I say is going to influence you. --Justanother 01:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize the RfC is a request for comments from the community? It's not me and somebody else asking YOU for a comment. I don't mean to offend you, but I really suggest you take a look at WP:RFC because you seem to think it's something else than what it is. Anynobody 01:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your convienance here's how the RfC describes it:

A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Carefully read the following before filing an RfC.

I've been trying to get away from just dropping a link to WP, which is why I've posted this. Anynobody 01:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DIFF... Interesting bedfellows... Yours, Smee 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I saw Sm1969 put you on the 3RR board twice yesterday. I noticed that the two reports overlapped and had mostly similar diffs which seems a bit "personal" for lack of a better term. I also noticed that Sm1969 seemed to not have a complete understanding of what WP:3RR is intended for, edit wars. If you revert a page after coming to an agreement with the other editor, it's not 3RR. Nor is it 3RR to revert yourself, as I understand it. (I've only had one 3RR showdown, so I haven't studied the policy as much as I have some others.) Does he/she have some kind of problem with you as an editor, or is this a case of someone misunderstanding WP and trying to "help"?

This could become an irritating problem because I seem to remember Justanother having a similar perception of WP:3RR as Sm1969. Anynobody 21:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Smee 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • This may be a good example of "Asking the other parent" - DIFF. You may wish to add it to the RFC evidence. Also this one, more inappropriate behaviour, could be added to the RFC evidence: "Spare us, will you Smee. You are not the Mommmy, here." Let me know what you think, and/or just add to the RFC page that is building with evidence... Yours, Smee 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I wouldn't call this asking the other parent, it looks like more of an error in WP:DR since he is again asking for an admin to intervene rather than try to resolve it himself. As to the interaction he's complaining about, he is clearly violating WP:CIVIL in one of two ways: 1) Petty example of Rudeness at best or a 2) Serious example of Taunting at worst. Asking a sarcastic question in a forum like an AfD of an editor who voted against his POV seems to make this more serious.

I have one small piece of constructive criticism, and it should only be taken as a suggestion. (I hate making criticism) When you are addressing improper behavior on his part it may be helpful to imagine him as an angry child. If you are "short" with him, it could portray you in a negative way to anyone who is unfamiliar with his past behavior, and earn him unwitting allies. If you explain to him what he is doing like an understanding parent it makes you look "better" because you aren't: 1) Engaging him on his "level" and you are 2) Setting an example, which makes his attacks look even worse. It gets repetitive, but it can prevent a similar misunderstanding such as Shenme and Tilman recently had.(Tilman said Justanother should be banned on the Schwarz AfD. Shenme thought Tilman was being hostile).

To be clear, I think you are already doing a great job keeping the "higher" moral ground re: Justanother. I just think you could be in a position where all of his accusations serve to work against him. Anynobody 00:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Constructive criticism noted, and it is very wise at that. Sort of in-line with what User:TedFrank has already said:
• I sympathize with your plight. From personal experience, when one is dealing with a disruptive editor, the most effective strategy is to minimize one's own disruptive actions so that third-party editors can quickly see who is at fault. If the other editor is truly disruptive, they'll hang themselves quickly; if they're not truly disruptive, then hanging back and avoiding provocation can save both parties tsuris. -- TedFrank 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Here is the DIFF I think it is very sage advice and I thanked him for it on his talk page. Smee 00:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

TedFrank summarized my point perfectly, had I known of it before I would have just reaffirmed his advice :). Anynobody 00:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, DIFF Yours, Smee 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I wonder how he'll handle the feedback, but I suspect I know. The statement is true, fair, and nicely worded so it must be an "attack". Anynobody 01:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured he'd argue about it, but am not surprised he didn't admit wrongdoing. Anynobody 03:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DIFF More of this "Asking the other parent" - obviously trying to get me blocked any way he can... Sigh. Oh well... Smee 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Considering how out of sorts he got when I discussed him with Johnpedia you'd think if such conversations were so wrong he'd avoid them himself. Your best bet is to watch from a distance because they both seem to not understand what they are trying to accuse you of. Jersey Devil doesn't seem like the kind of admin who enjoys mediating disputes between editors the way Justanother seems to be asking. You might consider apologizing for mentioning Scientology and Landmark in the conspiracy remark to minimize the chances of either Justanother or Sm1969 using it against you. Anynobody 04:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Already done, before I saw your notice here - I actually thought it deserved an apology in any regard... Smee 04:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You've turned a possible gaffe into proof of what a great editor you are, everybody says things they shouldn't but the people who actually apologize are rare. Rarer still are people who apologize without prompting, which is what you did. Good work :) Anynobody 04:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you. Hopefully others will see it that way... Smee 04:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If they don't, I can point to several examples of worse behavior on Justanother's part. Anynobody 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, unfortunately, you are exactly right... By the way, what do you think of the sources I had added that are now being summarily removed from Clouds Blur the Rainbow??? What do you think of the article's notability??? Thanks for your time. Smee 05:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

After skimming the book, and browsing the background of the discussion (who Fred Newman is etc.) I'd say that the it's notability is in the same echelon as comparative books about other causes, like The Mind Benders in the Scientology debate. In a way it's funny, Newman is almost like the worst nightmare of Scientology about psychiatry come to life. Anynobody 05:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting analysis, I had not thought of it that way. Indeed, I wonder what the folks at the Religious Technology Center, and the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights would have to say about the whole Client cult phenomena... Smee 05:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Excellent question, on one hand I can see Scientology trying to stop Newman at any cost. They both suffer from similar problems too, so I could also see them working together. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend logic), I think I'll look into this a bit more. Anynobody 05:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, they do all have some weird "friends" in strange times... Smee 06:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm trying to find the external links to a reference to this specifically... Smee 06:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I remember some other mentions of this, but it appears there were simultaneous lawsuits from these 2 organizations, attacking the OLD Cult Awareness Network: [11] I know there is more to this, trying to find the other coupla links I vaguely remember seeing... Smee 06:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I couldn't find anything else of substance. The more I read about it the more I think Scientology and these groups may or may not abhor each other but they $hare a lot in common. Anynobody 07:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little slow, but '$hare', are you implyingn Scientology is about money? Are you a member of xenu.net?Johnpedia 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Johnpedia, I'm not saying the CoS or Landmark are only about money, but they both do require payment to advance so it is something they share in common (they also both have vocal critics). It's interesting to me because Scientology is anti-psychology and groups like Landmark (especially when it was est) attempt to apply psychology in their methods. I'm surprised I couldn't find much about how Scientology views groups like that, can you point me to some? (I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but I'm interested in how they appear to be polar opposites). Anynobody 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that the money goes to keep the church running, so I don't know. They say nobody profts off of it, etc. and the FBI cleared them on all of that. And Scientology is anti-psychiatry , not anti-pyschology. Johnpedia 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might be confused, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I know that Scientology has problems with the drugs and electro-shock therapy that psychiatrists authorized to proscribe. It was my understanding that psychiatrists and psychologists are both trained in the same type of talk therapy, but psychiatrists also receive training about drugs. I hadn't ever heard Scientology endorse going to a psychologist, so I figured they disagreed with their approach too.

Do you know if Scientology has an opinion of people like Fred Newman? Anynobody 04:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And now this... Quite ironic, that instead of shaping up the individual's behaviour patterns, sarcasm, language, and disruptive editing, the editor instead wishes to start a User RFC on me. Most amusing stuff actually. Smee 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unbelievable, but it could actually work against Justanother. !) I doubt people will see it his way. 2) He's likely to "question" editors on such an RfC who disagree with him. 3) It could also give us a forum to turn the tables on him. You are right though, it is very amusing. Anynobody 03:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... for your moderating influence. Anynobody, just wanted to take a moment to say thanks. No barnstar this time, just words. You really are able to keep a level head and be polite and civil, and it is most appreciated. Thank you. Yours, Smee 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for taking my concern so well :) (barnstars are optional and never expected, thank yous are also not required either but appreciated.) Anynobody 07:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I just have a quick question. How many AfDs have you participated in? -- The Hybrid 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just flipped through your contributions. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck ;) -- The Hybrid 05:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Hybrid for asking, and answering your question. In case anyone else wants to know I'll post my guess, one Barbara Schwarz which I did not support. I also mentioned why I thought the Tilman Hausherr article should not be merged into a critics of Scientology article or deleted, with the caveat that I've worked with him. I also find myself browsing here more and more, Wikipedia:Archived_delete_debates. Anynobody 06:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've kept a copy of your signature in case I ever had to contact you for some reason (I prefer using people's signatures to address them if I can). I noticed you eliminated the Asian (I thought Kanji) characters from your signature: The Hybrid. Should I update my key? Anynobody 06:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can I, in all good faith, suggest you withdraw from RfA. I do not believe you will be successful and a graceful withdrawal will show you in good light when you run again in a while. I think you have the makings of a great admin; just not yet. --Dweller 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]