March 2007 - 1 April 2007

Archive Positive Feedback 1 Jan 2007 - April 2007

And AN/I again for you, my friend. --Justanother 13:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort at informing me, but going through the whole WP:ANI list is a pain, so in the future would you please provide a link to the section you're referring to? You can do this by adding a # after the main page name in a wikilink, and the section name. Like this WP:ANI#Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me. If you want it to not show the whole name, but still link there the format would be like this: [[WP:ANI#Another weird one User:Anynobody using Editor Review as a back-door User RfC on me|And AN/I again for you]], my friend.

The WP:ER is not an attempt to back door RfC you. Perhaps you didn't read it very carefully, so I'll point out that it is asking for uninvolved editors to give me feedback on the whole issue we seem to have. Honestly, from the first disagreement I've just been trying to point out mistakes you are making in your reasoning for certain actions, your attitude towards those who don't agree with you, and your inability to either pursue or accept WP:DR.

Either I'm grossly wrong about these issues, the system doesn't work, or prhaps a combination of both. When in a situation like this an outside opinion is the only way to get the real story. I don't agree with any of your points about my motives, and you've mistreated many of the editors I know so editors who know nothing about the situation can give me an unbiased opinion.

Do what you have to on the AN/I board, the ER is about how I dealt with you. I don't need a back door to a RfC for you, frankly several editors are willing to go through with one on you. Before I go any further this seemed like a good idea. Anynobody 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You were involved in a related deletion, and as such, you may wish to comment here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova). Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Sounds good. Smee 06:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As an admin, I can see the deleted text of your request. While you did say you wanted input on your behavior, the questions focused on Justanother's behavior to such an extent that it was clear what you really wanted (and what you really do want, from your comment to me just now) is community input on his behavior. RFC is the appropriate venue for this kind of thing, and a new RFC can achieve that purpose. If you want to try the editor review thing over again, some advice: (1) don't make your interaction with Justanother the only thing you want to know about, (2) don't get into his behavior in detail (or your own, really: just sum things up). And (3) as feedback from me: you have concerns that are not totally unreasonable, but the letter & spirit of WP:AGF is that you do the best you can to work with people despite your concerns about them. If (as an example), Justanother removes something in an article and you disagree with it, spend the discussion on how the article should be written and how the change affects that, argue from WP basic policy, and if disputes still come up, you will have tried to resolve them. Mangojuice^talk 11:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review is much more about your general performance as an editor, not about you trying to minutely examine a specific events even if you do perceive the subject as yourself.

I have read the review as have many others and it comes across as inappropriate and concentrating on the actions of another editor. Editor review is an inappropriate forum for that. The fact that many experienced editors (some admins) are telling you that it was inappropriate yet you continue to pursue it, speaks great volumes about your behaviour in dealing with contetious issues/disputes.

Combine the fact that the main supporter of your RFC springs up to try and help you undelete the review should also send alarm bells as to how it is being perceived, for me it merely comes across an effort to prolong a dispute. --pgk 11:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you both for responding, I honestly appreciate you taking the time to address my concerns. I was presumptuous to assume it would be understood that I'm interested in a review of all my time here, since that is what a WP:ER is for as you've both pointed out. However I was attempting to get those specific questions about Justanother answered because I really think I must be doing something wrong. I included the diffs to mke it easier to spot those edits I'm asking about(I already figured out that the edit summary is good for both remembering what I was doing AND allowing others to figure that out too), I was assuming that in regards to the rest of my work here that any reviewing editor would go over my history and look at what they wanted without suggestion from me. I know I'm making mistakes, but since Justanother is either so afraid of or hates me that anything I say about him is assumed to be an attack that's the possible mistake I am most concerned about). Anynobody 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pgk I didn't ask, but do appreciate Smee's participation in my request for WP:DRV. I understand how that could look suspicious to you, especially since Justanother is accusing us of tag team harassment. The truth is we both, I think, feel a bit cheated by how the first WP:RfC was terminated the way it was. If I had submitted the RfC and it was rejected by whoever reviewed it, I would have let the situation go because an uninvolved party would have said it's not an issue. That is not what happened, the subject requested it be deleted and uninvolved administrators wouldn't. The administrator that Smee consulted and I attempted to work with did. Since that admin and Justanother have had prior dealings and what appeared to me as a friendship I disagreed with said admin's assessment Smee efforts at WP:DR. I personally think the admin was a bit embarrassed that the RfC in question was in fact approved despite their POV.

Honestly it's not just Smee and I who've had difficulty with Justanother. I hate to trouble anyone else, but would it help if I invited a few editors who haven't joined in say a few words about his style of editing? (I assume they haven't weighed in because neither Smee or I have asked them and like all of us have much better things to do than deal with just him). Seriously, I just want a shot at WP:DR and am willing to live with whatever comes of it. The issue here is that hasn't happened in a way that WP:RFC or WP:DR say it should. Anynobody 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Anynobody here, I was simply requesting that the Editor Review be allowed to run its course. This seemed like an unduly hasty maneuver... Smee 02:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem, we seriously need more admins. Hope you run again sometime. Anynobody 23:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to fix this. [1] Lakers 08:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close, the puppeteer is The real Barbara Schwarz blueblueswhatever is the sock. Anynobody 08:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Lakers, I've noted {{Sockpuppet|1=name}} for the future. Anynobody 08:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Lakers 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anynobody, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, and congratulations :) Anynobody 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused, AN. I did not put that there. You did [2]. Again, you are wasting your time over there but you have already demonstrated that you will not listen to me (or anyone else, for that matter, at least on this subject). Enjoy the holiday. No need to reply at my page please. Reply here if you care to but no real reason to, I am not looking for a reply, just returning your mail erroneously addressed to me. Good night. --Justanother 08:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're actually preparing the RfC on your behavior so your diff and comment are out of place there. I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your opinion, or to explain your perspective but that time will be when the RfC is submitted. I promise you that we will let you know before we submit it so you can get prepared, I realize you think my WP:ER was going behind your back somehow (I wanted people to tell me if I was wrong about you). On anything where I'm asking for comment on you I would never just submit it without some sort of mention to you.

It's not so much about "you" as it is about your actions on Barbara Schwarz and refusal to accept WP:DR by asking for the first RfC to be deleted. I'm not looking for any kind of punishment, since it would probably be unfair to punish you so long after the fact. Anynobody 02:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

diff Really sorry to be here again but his relentless creepy preoccupation with me just seems to have no end! Looks like clear misuse of the Editor Review process...Justanother 13:34, 1 April 2007

Why would you post something without expecting a reply? Sorry about the confusion but you do understand that it would be appreciated if you not "help" over there. As I said above we won't blindside you with it. Anynobody 08:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anynobody, this is an official warning to stop trolling and provoking other editors. You were the one who posted Justanother's text in User talk:Orsini/Sandbox3. Justanother wrote it on ANI on April 1 (UTC), you posted it—quoted it—in Orsini's sandbox on April 3. I don't blame you for getting it wrong originally. It was a natural mistake, since you had included Justanother's actual signature in the post, without setting it off typographically in any way. I put that down to inexperience. But it's incomprehensible, and unfortunately of a piece with the rest of your behavior, that you continue to insist, after Justanother has given you a diff demonstrating your error. Here it is again. See the text? With JA's signature in it? See where it says "Anynobody" at the top? I don't know how to make it any clearer. Now apologize nicely and leave him alone. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm glad to hear from you, Bishonen since you're familiar with much of the background between Justanother and I. We also never got a chance to discuss our differences, which really is a misunderstanding. First to the issue you are posting about, I did say that I am sorry about the confusion,(not only here but in the edit summary too, unfortunately the a didn't make into about because of the age of my keyboard and my failure to double check.) Honestly I am sorry about my error. I noticed he edited the page and assumed that was his edit. I honestly would have posted an apology on his talk page, but since he said "No need to reply at my page please." I was afraid it'd come off as sarcastic or trolling, so despite his claim to not be looking for a response I tried here anyway.

This is the reason though, that I didn't want to argue the validity of Smee's attempts at conflict resolution regarding Justanother with you before. I noticed that you had and still have a friendly relationship with him, which explained the irritated tone of your reply to our questionsdiff recent action on his behalf by you. I don't mean to accuse you of actively doing anything wrong, but you're bound to turn a blind eye to the actions of a friend. That is the reason I asked for a WP:ER, since many of my friends here have had similar trouble with Justanother I'm not likely to get a truly neutral and therefore truthful opinion from them. Editors who have never heard of either of us are more apt to give me a truthful perspective. (fyi you made a similar mistake as I did by saying Smee ignored your advice since I did the actual ignoringdiff). I also understand that it was probably infuriating to have editors ask for your advice and then discard it, I can only apologize for that. I had hoped by submitting the RfC for an uninvolved party to evaluate it might stop this kind of disagreement.

I am very sorry that it has gone this far, but please understand when you set your wikimood to "rain of frogs" and now "bishzilla" you aren't encouraging me to seek out resolving our dispute. Since you're here though, I wanted to give it a try. Anynobody 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and thanks for the offer. I've actually decided not to request favors or intervention from anyone I voted for though. I don't want anyone to feel they owe me something and thus back me up for the wrong reason. (I'm not saying you would, just explaining why i don't ask in general). Again congrats and good luck! :) Anynobody 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, man, that you refusing to allow your ambiguous use of my username to be corrected is just too weird. You even say in your ES that it can be misinterpreted. I happen to think that my username at the end of a statement, even without a datestamp, looks like I signed that statement. I AGF'ed a simple error on your part but your restoring it makes me wonder why I bother with AGF as far as you are concerned. What were you thinking when you restored that? --Justanother 01:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the idea, but your lack of courtesy in approaching me about it first. Since I've been linking to your user page the whole time we've known each other, I find it weird that you chose to change one of my edits rather than address the questions I was asking you.

Now that you've mentioned it though, why now is it suddenly an issue after the past couple of months? Anynobody 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that I don't plan on changing Antaeus Feldspar's compromise.Anynobody 01:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor change and a pretty polite ES to go with it. Other than that it weirded me out to see my name at the end of that line. So I fixed it. If roles were reversed, I would have had no problem at all so I did as I would have another do with me. All I did was move my name from the end to the beginning of the sentence to clarify that you were addressing me and I was not signing it. Could I have asked you first? Sure. Sorry if I upset you. That was not the intent. --Justanother 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not upset at you Justanother, I just feel that editors should not edit each others statements on talk pages. Honestly, if I had taken this statement you made:

::::The problem with L. Ron Hubbard is that as a human being he had an incredible amount of flaws - See Anynobody, you are hopelessly one-sided. Hubbard had a few flaws, ...

and changed it to what I was actually saying:

::::The problem with L. Ron Hubbard is that as a human being he had an incredible amount of flaws,not the least of which was at best a bad memory of his life at worst his bald faced lies about it. - See Anynobody, you are hopelessly one-sided. Hubbard had a few flaws, ...

I seriously doubt you would have seen it as acceptable. Anynobody 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem then. Yes, your example is unacceptable but it is a straw man as that is not nearly what I did. If you actually wanted to make an appropriate analogy, it would be:

::::The problem with L. Ron Hubbard is that as a human being he had an incredible amount of flaws - See Anynobody, you are hopelessly one-sided. Hubbard had a few flaws, ...

to

::::The problem with L. Ron Hubbard is that as a human being he had an incredible amount of flaws - See, you are hopelessly one-sided, Anynobody. Hubbard had a few flaws, ...

Right? And if there was an actual reason to do that I would have no problem with it. But I am to blame for all this wasted time as I did not ask and since you are "opposing" me, I should have asked. If we were not being "opposed", you would not have thought twice about it and would likely have thanked me for clearing up the ambiguity. Sorry, again. --Justanother 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, I would have reverted anyone who edited my comments without mentioning it to me first (aside from an obvious typo or spelling error).

I'd still also like to encourage you to please respond to the question/points I made on the talk page where the incident in question happened. I'm still curious to know why the issue of linking to your page when mentioning you, as I do with everyone else, has suddenly become an issue now? Anynobody 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a fool for talking to you, AN? Why are you pretending to not understand my issue there? Antaeus saw what I meant and made an effort to fix it. My fix was better, IMO, but I appreciate his effort. So if I am so stupid as to play games with you about something as simple as this, how stupid would I have to be to continue a discussion on a much more nuanced subject. I have already said plenty. Makes me pretty stupid, I guess. --Justanother 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my question was unclear:

1. This is your signature in bold to compare with the statement below:

   --Justanother 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

2. This is the post you edited, I've added bold text to highlight the specific statment you edited:

   I've actually come to that conclusion based on his own writings, several primary sources, and the ever changing biography the CoS puts out. Here are a few examples of the info which convinced me that Hubbard was a liar Justanother.

Sourced text from article:

1. Hubbard became the protegé of "Old Tom, a Blackfoot Indian medicine man ... [who] passe[d] on much of the tribal lore to his young friend" and that at the age of six, he was "honored with the status of blood brother of the Blackfeet in a ceremony ". Blackfeet historian Hugh Dempsey has commented that the act of blood brotherhood was "never done among the Blackfeet",
2. Church biographies routinely state that he was "the nation's youngest Eagle Scout."[10] According to the Boy Scouts of America, however, at the time they only kept an alphabetical record of Eagle Scouts, with no reference to their ages — thus there was no way of telling who was the youngest.

Off Wikipedia info: #Documents on Wikimedia Commons

1. Flash of 5 inch guns He said his eyes were burned by the flash of a 5 inch gun firing. If he was standing close enough to be burned by the flash, the concussion would have probably killed him.
2. Document 1
3. Document 2
4. Reply to Document 2
5. Document 3
6. Document 3-2
7. Document 3-3

With all due respect, you are only citing Scientology sources for his "exploits" and those have changed as previous ones proved inaccurate or outright lies. Frankly the difference between us is that if one can find proof from a neutral source that he WAS everything he said he was I might change my opinion. You will probably never change your opinion of him no matter what sources can be found, since you seem to believe people who don't believe everything he said are editing here under an agenda. I guess you don't realize it, but you are actually the one who is editing from a one sided view and editing with an agenda. Point our recent edit counts:Justanother Anynobody. I've noticed that it takes a much longer time and more edits to get anything done on a Scientology related page not inline with the views of the CoS no matter how well sourced. Anynobody 03:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please helpme understand why you confused part of my post with your signature? (Especially since mine didn't have the time, --, and I've been doing it since we met.)(diff).

I'm sorry you're getting bent out of shape, but you brought this up and to keep a similar situation from happening again I'd like to know what caused you to edit my comments this time? Honestly, it doesn't sound like too much to ask considering I still can't understand how you confused this Justanother with this --Justanother 00:00 Month Year? At times I've started to get the impression you stop reading my posts after the first sentence or two, so if I'm confusing you somehow we should address that. Anynobody 05:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus Feldspar. There have been times where you have been less than civil with him and as such he still went to bat for you. :diff Anynobody 05:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted things DeWolf, however, said; and he talked a lot. I don't know when he retracted all that? Don't you think we could come back to the first version, and then you could add the acurate reference and subject of retractation. Sometimes people make a retractation for false reasons (fear, for example). Did he explain why he has retracted his statments? That should be interesting.. Thanks. 16 April 2007