User talk:Justanother/Archive10

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Justanother/Archive10.

A suggestion

I have a suggestion, which I'm hereby spamming on the talkpages of Smee, Justanother, Lsi John, and Anynobody. (Hi, Lsi John, I don't think we've met.) I don't really expect it to pan out, as it depends on four people agreeing to do something. But please give my proposal some thought before rejecting it, guys. I think some of you might otherwise be headed for the less dignified fate of a community page ban from WP:AN and ANI. My suggestion has two legs:

First, that you all voluntarily agree to stop posting on WP:AN/ANI. Conditionally on the other three doing the same. The way you're going on now isn't doing some of your reputations—or, I bet, stress levels—any good. Smee and Justanother, you're boring everybody. Most of the time, those ANI threads of yours aren't really requests for admin action—which is what the noticeboards are for—they're simply, well, self-expression. And as such, they seem to be getting more and more extreme. For instance, Smee, where do you get off claiming Justanother is in the habit of violating WP:TROLL? And Justanother, when you say Smee has "a history of complaints for tendentious editing," don't you mean a history of complaints from you, hmm?
Secondly, that you also stop posting on each other's user talk pages, other than by express invitation. From what I've seen, you're not really discussing articles there, you know? You're, essentially, trying to make each other look bad. In good faith, no doubt. But what's the point?

Note that I realize Anynobody and Lsi John haven't posted excessively on ANI at all (that I've seen). So in a sense it's unfair to ask them to stop. But obviously—well, it's obvious to me—it wouldn't work to shut out Smee and Justanother while leaving the other two free to take over some of their, uh, functions at the noticeboard. So I'm simply asking Anynobody and Lsi John nicely to do this for the general good and everybody's peace of mind including their own.

So am I suggesting that you stop discussing stuff with each other? No, not at all. I only think it's time to stop discussing your resentments and each other's characters and past histories. As for editing and articles, those are best discussed on article talk pages. It's up to you, collectively. Could you just think about it, please? Wouldn't it leave you a lot of lovely spare time? Mightn't it even be a relief?

Please let me know ASAP if I've missed any editor that in your opinion ought to be included here. And then please take your time to consider my proposal, and let me know if you're up for it. A simple yes or no will do me, in fact I prefer it. You don't have to feel I expect an explanation of the stand you take. And feel free to accept the AN/ANI deal but not the usertalk deal, or vice versa. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Bishonen, for your kind interest and intervention. Yes, I agree (almost) unconditionally to stop posting to AN/ANI about Smee or Anynobody and to refrain from posting to their talk pages unless expressly invited to. That said, there is a third condition that might help the situation and that is that Smee and Anynobody (and Lsi john and myself) stop having conversations on our talk pages about the other pair; in effect stop turning our talk pages into some sort of "virtual AN/I" in the hopes that other editors and admins are watching. In furtherance of that, and to take the first step, I will remove my latest "position piece" from my user page. Oh, and that (almost)? I reserve the right to comment in AN/ANI cases brought by these parties against other editors but I will endeavor to limit my comments to the charges, not try to turn the tables against the accuser. Does that sound fair? --Justanother 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent call, Justanother. I originally meant quite literally not post on AN/ANI, not post at all. But I'm beginning to think that posting about one another is all that should be asked (Lsi John has just responded to that effect on my page, too). So I'm content with your conditions.

Oh, you've been trolling AN and S by having talkpage conversations with LJ...? And vice versa? Oh, man. Thanks for calling it to my attention, and yes, I do agree that everybody needs to stop that, too. For badmouthing each other, please use e-mail only. ;-) I'm going to assume that S, AN, LJ will read this. And thank you very much, Justanother, for giving my attempt such an encouraging start. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.

An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.

Great! And you would be hard-pressed to find a talk page discussion between LJ and I about "the enemy". Sadly, the reciprocal cannot be claimed but perhaps a new day is on the horizon. Father Mathew Remedy works wonders! Not to discount your kind assistance. --Justanother 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

These are just some references as I come across them.

General on Scientology

Sect Commissioner

How do I handle a vandal.

There is a guy deleting stuff from the Scientology main page.Bravehartbear 00:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bear. I am going to give you a bit of a lesson here so please take it in the spirit it is offered, a spirit of help.

1. Please be very slow to characterize another editor's work as vandalism. I saw no vandalism there. You would not appreciate someone calling your edits vandalism or calling you a vandal.

2. Always look carefully to make sure that you understand an edit before you revert it or undo it. It looked to me that the editor was not deleting material, he was changing it into smaller paragraphs but little, if anything, was deleted.

3. Just a tip. Look at the edit history and the number next to each revision is the number of bytes in the article as of that revision. One byte = one letter or space. The entire set of (4) edits removed a total of 30 characters and I could not easily see what exactly was removed, probably nothing of substance. (I saw "methodology" changed to "way", for one.)

So learn from your errors and carry on. That is what we all do here.

And if you run into a real vandal, see WP:VANDAL for how to handle that though you are welcome to ask me for advice anytime. --Justanother 01:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I mess up. Bravehartbear 02:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions and Sorry for my ignorance

Sorry, that I mistrusted all your contributions so badly that I didn't even read some of them fully. I think your contribution was an improvement here. I shouldn't have started arguing! As I began to contribute to the Scientology article, myself and my contributions were attacked in a highly uncivil way and I started to think in "good/bad editors" categories. I will try to be more carefull in my "do-not-assume-good-faith judgements" to editors which oppose my "POV/NPOV". Hope we can stay civil on controversial topics although we may have different POV's on this subject. -- Stan_talk 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, Stan. My only objection is to editors that perpetuate common lies and misrepresentations about Scientology. I know that BT does not do that and so I was happy to come over and work with him. Hopefully I can add you to that list. --Justanother 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is BT ? -- Stan_talk 23:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, BTfromLA, he started that thread. --Justanother 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

I don't think Common-Nation.com is spam. It is the most trusted name is news. AsherUSA 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asher. Nice site you have there. --Justanother 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Asher has been indef blocked as the sockpuppet of a blocked user. He is in his early teens, but he blew another chance. Give him a few years and he could be a productive contributor. People found him disruptive before, and it looked like things haven't changed. Royalbroil 13:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. --Justanother 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of WP:PA

I suggest that you keep your own hands squeaky clean and remove the veiled personal attack in the warning box at the top of your user page. Keep your harassing comments off my talk page.--Fahrenheit451 20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a real good idea to turn down the thermostat here. F451, it would be a sign of good faith if you would refactor your comments to be more polite, regardless of what JA may have done. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, since you're a fair and impartial one around here, mind taking a look at User talk:Tilman, where F451 is, incredulously, vandalizing the page by rearranging other people's comments and adding his own POV header to them, and then accuses others of vandalism for the simple act of reverting his damage? wikipediatrix 20:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451, AN/I in 5 - 10. I am not much into wasting time so if you care to self-revert at Tilman's then that is the end of this episode. --Justanother 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has been accused of vandalism. Looks like obfuscation to me for their pal User:Misou violation of WP:NPA--Fahrenheit451 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked you why you were rearranging people's posts on Tilman's talk page, your reply was "I watch pages for vandalism and other violations of Wikipedia policy." If your reasons have now changed, speak up. wikipediatrix 20:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, please point out exactly where I accused any of the editors on that page of vandalism. I made a statement, not an accusation. Reread it.--Fahrenheit451 21:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451, please don't remove or edit other people's talk page comments when there is any chance of controversy. Do what you want with your own comments. If you have a problem with what somebody else is saying, you can ask them politely to refactor. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediatrix, please feel free to restore comments to the way they were left by their authors, but don't touch anything originally written by F451. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I haven't. Unless you mean his insertion of a header called "Obfuscatory remarks" which is putting words in another editor's mouth. Generally speaking, the title of a header is determined by the editor who starts the thread, which is of course usually the thread's first poster. F451's creation of a header and inserting other editor's comments into it against their will makes it look as if User:Misou was responsible for the header/phrase "Obfuscatory remarks". wikipediatrix 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now back to the matter at hand. I would like the veiled personal attack at the top of Justanother's user page removed. The one in the warning box with a link to a statement I made. --Fahrenheit451 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say please. --Justanother 21:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

F451, it is on AN/I. Wikipediatrix and Jehochman, thank you for your concern and I apologize for the waste of time. --Justanother 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted and responded to.--Fahrenheit451 21:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellows: Why go to AN/I when you already have a perfectly good Arbcom case pending where you can go and lodge these complaints? Better yet, just avoid pestering each other because there's always a chance that Arbcom could get fed up with this drama and ban everybody involved. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly hope Arbcom would be more sensible than to take a "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" approach. wikipediatrix 00:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anti

By the way, just noticed your comment "Wikipediatrix is anti-Scientology, just not rabid about it" on the you-know-what for you-know-who. We've been thru this before: I am neither pro- nor anti. There really is a middle ground, and I am it. I think most of Scientology is silly, but then again, I think most religions are also silly. I wouldn't make a very good Scientologist because I don't get into chains of command, hierarchies, levels, orders, protocol. Some people are attracted to that sort of thing - fine. Let them be Scientologists. Let them be Freemasons. Whatever. I couldn't care less. It's a free world. Let me be perfectly clear: no matter what I may say about them, I do not oppose the Church of Scientology and what they are doing. This doesn't mean I necessarily approve of everything they do, it just means I think they have every right to do it, at least in America.

But as far as Wikipedia goes, I'm a stickler for accuracy and fairness. That's all. Nothing more. Hubbard lovers? Hubbard haters? In the immortal words of William S. Burroughs: "fuck 'em all, squares on both sides." While I don't want to see these articles turned into mouthpiece advertisements hawking Dianetics courses, I also don't want to see a relatively small group of malcontents turn it into what one critic excitedly called an "entheta-palooza" and taking special glee in noting that their additions to the Catherine Bell article were "none too flattering". Sounds uncannily like the "fair game" philosophy they claim to be against. I won't align myself with such people, and object to being lumped in with them. wikipediatrix 03:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 'trix. I am not sure how comfortable you are discussing you past editing history in this open forum so I will not do that pending word from you. It is not really important anyway. If you want to discuss that privately feel free to drop me an e-mail. First, let me apologize if I have again mischaracterized you. I know that you do not like that and that was not my intent. While you are not "middle ground", you are an intelligent and informed editor that brings needed balance to the equation here. I consider you a mirror image of myself in that you are as far on your side of "middle ground" as I am on mine. We, neither of us, like the abuses on either side and do not want to be "lumped in". While you think the subject matter (not the actions) is all nonsense and derivative, I think that it is not. I happen to think that I have the advantage of having actually studied it, used it, and seen and felt the effects of it. Just one example, I did a touch assist on a woman dying of cancer and both she and I felt something quite transcendant, a laying on of hands, if you will. I achieved that because, in that instance and for the first time, I discarded everything I hade been "taught" and coached on how to do that assist and instead I did it exactly the way Hubbard said to do it. And did Scientology "cure" her cancer? No. Did it extend her life, give her strength, and ease her suffering? I think so, certainly the latter two. What you must understand, 'trix, is that there is something that scientific instruments cannot measure; there are capabilities of the human spirit that James Randi cannot capture on film. Hubbard did not "invent" those capabilites; he attempted to discover them, characterize them, and invent techniques to handle them directly and powerfully. Thousands of Scientologists attest to the success he had. So whether Hubbard was a braggart or a bit of a con man or whatever, it is not all naked emperor stuff. There is something there, something powerful. Something that speaks to the human spirit and addresses it powerfully. For better or worse, 'trix, in the subject of human spiritual potential, Scientology may well be the best thing out there. So it is Scientology or something less effective, something with less "truth". Or it is nothing. --Justanother 16:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

Important to me at least. I am having technical problems editing from home. Until I sort it out, I can only edit from my office and that is something that I should not be doing. So I will not be posting much until I sort out my technical problem at home. --Justanother 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I switched back to my old DSL modem and I can edit again. I installed a new DSL modem a bit ago and even though I disabled the firewall in the modem there is still some issue that needs to be addressed. But for now all is well. --Justanother 21:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got an interesting little editing problem, maybe you can help

I'm doing a little work over at the David Miscavige article, and I decide to check the veracity of this reference that's used to justify the line "(in which IRS tax analysts were ordered to ignore the substantive issues)". I went to the NY Times Website to try and compare the article to make sure it was correct. I've been trying to buy the article, and I've been running into trouble doing that. However, I discovered that the website owner changed the article title from "Scientology's Puzzling Journey From Tax Rebel to Tax Exempt" to "The Shadowy Story Behind Scientology's Tax-Exempt Status ". Without being able to verify the veracity of the information being referenced, I did the least extreme edit I could think of and changed the article's title within the ref tag.

My quesiton is, is that enough? It seems to me that the website owner's willingness to alter information to push a point of view does not make him a reliable source. Sure, it's a NY Times article, but how do we know that it's really the article? What do you think should be done?HubcapD 22:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is really quite simple and a subject that I have addressed time and again and have found that most editors agree with me. The point is the the source is the source. Not some illegal copy of it on a parochial, biased, website. And we, as editors, are expected to do our work and do our research and base the article on the real source, not some suspect copy. So the "right" thing to do is to buy the article or go to the library and read it for free. And the correct way to cite it in the article is to cite the real source, not some suspect, illegal, copy. And we should not link to that suspect copy either for "convenience". We are expected to act and research and edit professionally here. That said, I realize that many of us do not want to buy the article or go to the library. We are cheap and/or lazy. Fair enough. If we want to take a chance and use the suspect copy ourselves then do as you will. But keep it to yourself. As far as the projct is concerned you did it the right way. Does that answer your question? --Justanother 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps, you didn't get this from me. Wink. Nudge. Lazy. Cheap. Me. Too. --Justanother 02:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look what I found on this dead Chinaman! This helps immensely! Watch for what I do!HubcapD 03:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close . . . but no cigar. The source is the source. The NY Times. Not holysmoke or any other site other than the NY Times. And you do not need a website at all. Just cite the article. There is absolutely no rule that references need be available online. Most are not. --Justanother 07:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Barbara Schwarz

I came across that article today. I don't assume bad faith with the creator of this article but think that some editors overestimated the noteability of this woman due to personal expieriences. The article is not noteable but really inappropriate for WP and really does harm to an individual. An article wich has apperently no more usefulness than suggesting that Scientologists are not all supermen but the opposite and for that literally may destroy a persons life has no place in WP. The first thing wich came to my mind was "don't be evil"(google). It is not a WP:Policy but WP has a similar for living people (:."don't harm" I really want to delete the entire article but noticed already 4 AFD's. However, I will make a new one if I am able to bring up new evidence and WP policy. I noticed you made the last one wich was maybe with too much arguing and less evidences not well presented. It was easy for some critics to make plausible objections against your afd. To make the next AFD a success I invite you to participate on my. I've created a sandbox especially for this reason and already wrote some thoughts down. Feel free to edit it, giving usefull advices and policies or make grammar corrections if you are interested.-- Stan_talk 12:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stan, that is a great idea. You are right, I was too wordy. I will contribute as I can but am very busy these days. I will also let User:Steve Dufour know, he also thinks along these lines. --Justanother 16:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not bring it up too fast anyway and only if it is reasonable at the end. Everything else would be a waste of time for many editors. At least a week or two to make sure that it is wikified. Don't have to much time too and it will be a quite controversial AfD wich should be placed thoughtfull. Next weekend I will probably draft the AFD if I findd enough evidence and policies wich agree with it.-- Stan_talk 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stan. I will give my full support. The main problem the other AfD's ran into was that the issue was decided by a vote count, which was dominated by lock-step anti-Scientologists. Steve Dufour 16:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit more optimistic. I still believe that most editors are commited to WP guidelines. Lets see! (: -- Stan_talk 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you! If you like and have time just go ahead and add any ideas,arguments or policies to the sandbox or even write a draft. (: -- Stan_talk 18:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have seems fine to me. Steve Dufour 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I drafted it. But one of you should go over it first because it might need some rewording and grammar. Also a hint what I might have forgotten or what is redundant is appreciated. -- Stan_talk 09:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The workshop

Like being pecked to death by ducks, isn't it? Been there. Sympathies. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It never ends and never gets anywhere. That is why it needs 3rd-party enforcement. Thank you again. --Justanother 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dianazene: RFC

Just a quick note to inform you of this current RfC concerning the Dianazene article. Raymond Hill 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Raymond. --Justanother 20:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of this article, just a friendly note to watch your reverting. There was no way in my right mind that I would block you for this, but in the future, remain on the safe side of things please :) Cheers, and good luck with everything, Daniel 08:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Obviously, a disruptive editor on a little-trafficked article puts one in delicate situation. On the other articles that he was going 3RR and 4RR there were other editors interested. But point taken. --Justanother 13:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that this was something else. It was Anynobody. Interesting as he is just about to be prohibited from being "interested" in me as per the current arbitration. I thought this was a byproduct of my report on RookZERO. OK, thanks. --Justanother 13:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Youth for Human Rights International‎

March in the morning, coffee and chocolate in the afternoon. --Justanother 16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand - why would you two want to march together in Belgium ? I'm confused. What does that have to do with YHRI and the Church of Scientology's being potentially indicted as a criminal fraudulent organization ? Orangerhymes 17:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Nothing to do with YHRI. But if the CofS is put on trial in Belgium, you can bet that Andrik Schapers and the rest of us will be a-marchin! Y'all are invited!! --Justanother 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Andrik Schapers? I still do not understand why Justanother and Wikipediatrix want to march together - where would you march? It's just going to be an orderly trial for fraud, right? Or am I mistaken about the press announcement? Orangerhymes 18:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Orderly with 10,000 Scientologists marching and singing outside the courtroom, you mean. Right? --Justanother 18:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you want to have a Scientology organized march against the Belgian government? But why would Wikipediatrix want to be there? Orangerhymes 18:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You will have to ask her but I suspect it is the chocolate. --Justanother 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, so unless Wikipediatrix lives near the area, you are saying Wikipediatrix will travel all the way to Belgium, to meet up with you and watch you march with a Scientology organized march, just for ... chocolate. That's weird, to say the least. And another question - 10,000 Scientologists?. That sounds a little odd, considering that is about at least roughly ten percent of all the Scientologists in the world. That would be an amazing feat to get them all into Belgium in one place, and pay for it all... Orangerhymes 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, she said she was going to hang out at the Callebaut. --Justanother 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orangerhymes, why are you still harping on this? I assumed Justanother's invitation to march was an obvious joke. wikipediatrix 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this here cause it was getting way too long in the article talk. --Justanother 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently Justanother wanted to end this thread, so I am respecting her wishes. Orangerhymes 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
"His wishes". No, I invited you to continue it here. --Justanother 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had thought he moved it here so as to get it quickly away from the other page for being non-relevant, i.e., wanted to discontinue the thread. Didn't you say you were done editing for the day, hm? Orangerhymes 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why, are you tired of me already? --Justanother 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just thought you said you were done for the day, and now you're not, that's all. You're still here. Orangerhymes 20:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Schwarz

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of merging it with Freedom of information in the United States. Keep the two Salt Lake Tribune, and one Oregonian sources, and dump the rest. The only problem I see is creating an undue weight situation in the FOIA article. Are there other abuses of FOIA that can be documented as well? Perhaps another section on notable failures of govt. agencies to comply with legitimate requests would be called for as well. - Crockspot 20:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I will support a merge but I do not consider myself the right person to initiate it so if you care to then please do. Thanks. --Justanother 01:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RookZERO

I am sure you will be sad to hear that RookZERO has been indef blocked for edit warring and disruption. As I promised, we are going to restore civility to the editing of these articles. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad to know that an apparently intelligent editor was not able to engage in discourse here in a fair and moderate manner. I do not like that on any side of the issue. It is good that admins here are addressing such in a fair-handed manner. That has not always been the case, in my experience. Thanks for the update. --Justanother 11:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he will agree to mentoring and make a speedy return. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medcab case involving you

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation

Dear Justanother/Archive10: Hello, my name is Arknascar44; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31 David Miscavige

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Arky ^¡Hablar! 21:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have not edited in the article since 25 June 2007 but I should certainly be able to speak intelligently about the issues involved. So sure, I'll help. --Justanother 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Thank you and thank you for clerking. --Justanother 03:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article slated for deletion

If anyone is interested the article Psychiatric abuse is slated for deletion. Please read the article and vote on whether to keep it if you are so inclined.S. M. Sullivan 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-hem

Yes, stupid, I know... However, may I direct your attention to an exciting discussion on AndroidCats Talk page? Shutterbug 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who you calling "stupid"? --Justanother 18:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, the circumstances, something like that. Full sentence: "Yes, that was stupid, I do know that, please don't remind me.". Shutterbug 02:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I reverted a harsh response to you, see my history. Reason I reverted it is that, upon reflection, I think I understand what you saw in that one revision that I reference but you went about it wrong, IIMBSB. The commie paragraph. What you see in that paragraph is an OR exposition loosely based in the source material. There is more there than the given source has. Better would be to leave the source in place for the bits it covers and {{fact}} what it doesn't. --Justanother 02:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I had not seen the "harsh" one, thanks for your info and ideas. Please watch not to be provoked the same way. Some guys count on your, my and others impatience in view of lies and obvious falsifications, and will continue adding them in just for the hell of it. After all this is Wikipedia here and nobody is responsible for anything anyway. Shutterbug 06:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of good people here and fair people, some of them are even critics of Scientology. If you set yourself against the project as a whole then you are sure to lose. And we need all the help we can get here so I do not want you to lose. Be careful. --Justanother 13:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible deal

Hi Justanother. I just made an offer on Talk:Barbara Schwarz‎ which could take me out of Project Scientology. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Steve Dufour 07:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I might be finished with the project. Anyway it's been great working with you and I hope that I have done some good here. Steve Dufour 09:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good meeting you too. I agree that the article has improved and I made mental note of that the last time I edited in it. But there are no "deals" to be made here except possibly those that are made by the arbitration committee or Jimbo. Anything below that level (AfD, mediation, etc.) can be revisited easily. You know what we say in Scientology? "The price of freedom: Constant alertness, constant willingness to fight back. There is no other price." Keeping this project free of bias carries the same price. I think you know that. However, if you have had your fill then so be it. You are, of course, welcome to soldier on at any level of involvement that suits you. All the best! --Justanother 13:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It really has been great working with you. I'm going to keep my side of the "deal." I expect that other people will come in to take my place on the project.Steve Dufour 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Later. --Justanother 17:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they will break their side of the deal and then I will have to come back. :-) Steve Dufour 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justanother, Steve. Sorry that I gave up my intention to place a new Afd for now because I think it would be contraproductive and fail anyway. For now I will just try to help that her article presents her with the respect that every BLP in Wikipedia deserves. Steve, if you are really leaving the project... was nice to meet you, wish you the best ! -- Stan_talk 22:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It looks like more people, like you, are coming into the project so maybe I am not so needed there anymore. Of course, like I told Justanother, I might have to come back. I do have some other things to work on now. Steve Dufour 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

		Ready to swab the decks!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman ^Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiver me timbers and pass the grog, me hearty! --Justanother 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to talk accepted

Let's talk Misou... I saw the public results of the checkuser, and it confirmed those accounts as socks. I don't want to believe it, but I find it very plausible. Their editing styles are all very similar, and both Shutterbug and Misou attacked me on a couple of occasions in edit comments in very similar manners. They edit from the same IP address. I know, it's claimed to be a shared address, but if three accounts edited Microsoft's page from the same Microsoft IP with the same editing styles, wouldn't you be suspicious? Anyway, I trust you to be fair, so what's your take on this? --GoodDamon 07:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damon, I will need to draft a very cogent response as a number of editors and admins here are under a misapprehension that was specifically addressed in the checkuser case and was a bit of a given during the arbitration, i.e. they seem to not realize that we are not talking sockpuppets here and never have been except at the very start of the checkuser. I will alert you when I post it and where. It will likely be late this evening. --Justanother 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damon, please see Misou's talk page; the blocking admin has it right now and withdrew all the new blocks and what we have now is all three under the original 30-day ban on Shutterbug that ends on Nov 1, I guess. The basic idea being taken is "multiple editors speaking with one voice". --Justanother 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughly updated Personality section

Hey-o, just a heads up that I've thoroughly updated the Personality Sandbox, and was hoping you could take a look at it. Also hoping you've dug up some additional positive refs to add. --GoodDamon 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References on Hubbard's personality

Hey, I've thought a long time about this before sending this your way. Please don't take any of this the wrong way... I'm still hopeful that you can point me towards some reliable sources on Hubbard's personality that put him in a positive light, but I have to admit I'm beginning to wonder if they even exist. So far, I've turned up bubkes. In the well-known negative articles about Hubbard, there are minor notes about his personality here and there (he was "charming," he had a certain charisma, etc.), but there just don't seem to be any positive articles about him that pass muster as reliable sources, and I'm stumped. The refs you dug up just don't qualify, and Church sources definitely don't. I've managed to pluck a few choice citations from the mostly negative refs, but they're like a drop in the ocean.

So anyway, at this point I'm asking for help. I really don't want to side with Anynobody in this, because the L. Ron Hubbard article is already very negative, and positive portrayals of his personality would help balance it. But only if those portrayals come from non-Church, authoritative, reliable sources. No press releases, no gossip columns. Basically, what we need is nothing short of the equivalent of a Time or Newsweek article that casts some positive light on him, and I haven't found a single one.

And the walls of awards and citations you posted (preserved in the archive here) are worse than no help here, unfortunately. Without being able to even see a single one of them clearly, none of them can be remotely verified, even the ones that aren't pretty obviously photoshopped.

I feel like I'm spinning my wheels. I do want the articles to have more balance, and I keep getting told positive refs about Hubbard's personality exist, but I'm just not seeing it. Help me out. --GoodDamon 23:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damon, I appreciate your effort. Let me tell you what is going on here. The only "reliable sources" that you seem to have (easy) access to are smear pieces where they went and interviewed everyone that they could find that had a bone to pick with Hubbard or Scientology (or rehashed same old same old material) and did not try to interview anyone else. That is evident because there are tons of pepole that think extremely highly of Hubbard. How do I prove that to you? Well there is primary materials that will give you some insight. I am thinking right off the bat of recommendations for Hubbard's appointment to the military. I am also thinking of a fairly recent deposition or cross of his old XO in the navy. I will find those for you but they are not RS or not available in an RS archive. Meanwhile, did you look through the links that I have above - they are pretty unorganized but maybe you will find something and at least you will see some more favorable press. --Justanother 01:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable? Yes. Easy? No. This has been bothering me so much, I ended up going down to my local library, and searched for everything they had on Hubbard. Then I stripped out all the Church and Church-related sources, Bare-Faced Messiah and all the other usual negative sources, and was left with very little, all of it negative. They had a microfilm with his military records and some detail about the Freewinds, but the rest was negative article after negative article. If I used even half of the reliable sources I found just in the public library, the article would become practically a comedy of well-sourced negativity. I'd be happy to see any primary materials you've got, but you must know none of it is trustworthy and none of it can go in the article.

So here's what it comes down to... If Hubbard really did get a lot of awards, degrees, honors, and so forth, if he really did get "tons" of non-Scientologists honoring him at every turn, if he really has amassed an incredible number of proclamations and such from reputable, non-Scientology organizations, and so on... someone must have reported on it. It could be newspaper articles, it could be documents from governing bodies, it could be verifiable records from the organizations bequeathing the honors. These would be much, much better than any primary materials. They could go right into the articles almost instantly. If they exist, where are they? --GoodDamon 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you forgetting the stuff I put on the talk page already. Granted it ain't the Pope but we had a couple of community leaders praising him. Though I guess that is not exactly "personality". The main problem being, of course, that presenting Hubbard as a genius that created a philosophy that perhaps millions of people have found helpful and who was perhaps a mercurial fellow of extremes both good and bad does not sell many books or newspapers. Or maybe he was not so extreme, maybe he just had a temper - I certainly know about having a temper, at least my own! Sorry, I am not any great archiver of things Hubbard, I just have a lot of experience in the subject of Scientolgy and in the criticism of it. --Justanother 03:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's just that the stuff you put on the talk page already didn't qualify as reliable sources for Hubbard's personality. I hate to keep pointing that out, but it's true.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "does not sell many books or newspapers" comment. When notable people -- and I'm sure we can both agree that Hubbard was notable -- do much of anything, it ends up in the newspapers, because it does sell. If, for example, Hubbard got an honorary degree from a reputable university, wouldn't you think that would at least make the local news? Or even just the student newspaper? Or if he received a citation or the key to a city for humanitarian work, like feeding the homeless, wouldn't that merit at least a blurb? You're asking me to trust that he is the man you represent him to be without any reliable evidence. And with considerable evidence to the contrary. Whether or not its the truth is beside the point for the purposes of an encyclopedia. It has to be verifiable. Unfortunately, if the verifiable record is extremely negative, then it's not POV to present the prevalent position. AndroidCat is right. I'm not happy about that, because I was really hoping the article was biased, and it could be neutralized, but that doesn't appear to be the case. --GoodDamon 06:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh (as we say on Wikipedia). It is a situation that the Church has IN PART brought on itself. The Church will generally not communicate with the press if they think that the ensuing article will be at all critical and no journalist seeking to write in-depth on Hubbard or Scientology will ignore the well-sourced criticisms. So those Scientologists that knew Hubbard personally (a dwindling resource) are not made available to the press. I have spoken with a few of them personally, heard a few more in small meetings, and seen many more on video (seen many non-Scientologists praise Hubbard of video too) so I have a different perspective. Can't prove it though. I will find you that testimony by his old XO as the loyalty and respect for Hubbard that he has 40 years later is very representative of what I have seen. Going back to the IN PART, when we are talking strictly about Hubbard's personality we are, as I mentioned, talking about a fairly small universe of people that can testify to knowing him personally. The critics and haters are very vocal and are easy to find. Current Church members are not accessible for reasons as I mention above. There are lots of others that knew him but they are not easy to find without expending a considerable amount of effort and having specific data as to Hubbard's history and whereabouts, data again that the Church guards. So we have the inevitability that articles and books will be negative. As I said . . . Meh. --Justanother 14:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of that makes good sense, and thank you for noting the Church's own responsibility for it, but that's still just a partial explanation. The loyalty of friends and comrades is certainly something I can believe, and would be a great resource for Hubbard's personality if you can turn up an interview with, say, his XO. But would the Church even be involved with the press if Hubbard received, for instance, an honorary degree? I still don't see an explanation for the lack of news articles about notable events, regardless of Church involvement. Let me put it this way... The only degrees or certificates I know for sure Hubbard actually received after starting Dianetics and Scientology are like the Sequoia one and the Blackfeet document, known forgeries or degree mill diplomas. You say there are many, many real ones. Where? Who granted them? Where are the news articles about them? Or the campuses, city governments, and statesmen who can be contacted to verify them? Do you see my frustration, here? I want to help, and it's pretty obvious you and editors like Misou, Shutterbug, etc. feel the pages about Scientology are hopelessly biased, but the only way to change that is to come up with reliable bona fides for Hubbard.

If I want to look up Nelson Mandela's humanitarian work, it's easy. Try googling nelson mandela human rights and you get 740,000 hits, one of the first few being a reference to the Kaiser Family Foundation naming a human rights award after him. Proving Mandela a great humanitarian takes about three minutes. If you go to a library and pull up a list of his humanitarian works, maybe another twenty minutes or so, but you end up with enough material to fill a book or three. The news articles about awards he's received are practically limitless.

Now, if Hubbard was a humanitarian in the same league as Nelson Mandela, and his contributions to society really have received accolades as humanitarian endeavors from authoritative, prestigious institutions that aren't already aligned with Scientology or one of the Scientology-associated groups like Narconon, I have to wonder how the newspapers could all miss it, even accounting for the Church's aversion to negative press. You'd think this would be the kind of positive press they would promote to the very heavens, and it would go a very long way towards countering the negativity in Wikipedia's articles about Hubbard.

But it sounds as if those sources just don't exist, and I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that for Scientologists, Hubbard's extraordinary life is a matter of faith, not proof. Please don't take that as derogatory, because I really don't mean it that way. There's nothing wrong with faith that lacks proof (frankly, all religions are similar in that regard), but you can't write an encyclopedia that way. Sigh... Guess I'm just venting now. I've found this whole thing very disappointing and frustrating. --GoodDamon 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving out Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa for a moment, do you mean that you doubt he received recognitions such as this? You seem to be making the point that because you cannot find these recognitions in the press that they are somehow forgeries or myths? Hey, they ain't the Nobel Peace Prize but they are not fake. You seem to be mixing up three issues; 1) whether Hubbard led an extraordinary life and 2) whether he received extraordinary recognition as a humanitarian and 3) how Scientologists generally regard Hubbard. Those issues are not related. I think that even critics will agree that Hubbard led an extraordinary life. And neither 1) nor 2) are really related to his "personality" either. I mean, was/is Mandela a bad husband? Did/does he have a temper? Who knows, you certainly won't find out in our article on him. But if someone decided to write a smear piece on him I am sure that they can find as many people that will say something bad about his "personality" as we see in our Hubbard pieces. Re 3) This is not about my having some "faith" or other, this is about how I view Hubbard after intimate experience with his creations, Dianetics and Scientology and reading, IDK, millions of his words, and listening to hundreds of hours of lectures. I think that entitles me to have an opinion without getting all mystical and talking "faith". I am sorry that you are getting frustrated but the simple point is that so long as the "truth" about Hubbard as I see it (which, incidentally, factors in the criticisms) does not seem to be in the press then I will feel that what is there is undoubtedly one-sided. You want me to somehow persuade how that what I have come to feel based on a LOT of experience (and extensive research into the criticisms) is "truer" than what some journalist wrote after talking to some few critics? You know that I cannot do that. That is why I am left with "Meh". --Justanother 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of ironic that in the act of writing all that, you actually did include an example of the kind of thing that could establish some credentials for Hubbard. I have to admit, when I saw on the Scientology site that March 13th was L. Ron Hubbard day in some cities, I was skeptical. It would be better if it were one earned by him while he was still alive (this one was in 2004, and I would guess came about from lobbying by the Church), but it's certainly legit.

Boy, we've bounced around on this a lot. We've definitely gotten off the topic of Hubbard's personality, and at this point I've been basically just trying to find anything positive I can on him. Thanks for putting up with my endless querying. :) --GoodDamon 20:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the "Hubbard Day", I thought you might like that. I will see if I can fnd some more of them but they likely are not often put on the web and rarely, IMO, noted in the press. --Justanother 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary life

http://www.sitnews.us/JuneAllen/Hubbard/011905_hubbard.html

Now that's what I'm talkin' bout (Willis)! ;) There's some real detail in this one, some actual statements about his personality and interests, many of them positive! And finally, it's a real reliable source. If you can't mine good material for the Personality section from that, I'll eat my hat. There's a lot of confirmation that he, shall we say, "exaggerated" about himself, too. But on balance, I'd call it a generally positive piece. --GoodDamon 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting piece that speaks to many aspects of Hubbard's personality, both "good" and "bad". --Justanother 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proclamations

http://www.syracuse.ny.us/mayorDocs/2/L.Ron%20Hubbard%20Day.3-13-04.pdf
http://www.gov.state.la.us/assets/docs/Proclamations/honorary/2004/6_goodexamplemorale.pdf
http://scientology-buffalo.org/en_US/community/opening/page05.html Do you really think they fabricated this?

Sorry it took so long to respond to these, I missed the update on my watchlist somehow. Anyway, no, I don't think they fabricated that. But like the earlier one you mentioned, it's a shame these all happened after Hubbard died. They carry a lot less weight, and judging by the wording in the first one -- Through the breakthrough technology of study researched and developed by L. Ron Hubbard, over three million people have been empowered to read and write; -- were written by the Church of Scientology, and given to these mayors to sign. Only Scientologists use the word "technology" in that manner, and I seriously doubt Hubbard's study instruction has really been instrumental in three million people learning to read and write. At least, I would want a good source on that.

Guess you'll see this when you're back from your wikibreak. --GoodDamon 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

http://www.lynwood.ca.us/elected/elected_council_alfreddie_johnson.htm

I'm not sure a councilman's bio page is the best source for that information, as it's a primary source, not a secondary one. Do you have a newspaper article about it? That could be useful. --GoodDamon 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Justanother on break, ask JustaHulk to watch his page. --JustaHulk 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Take a Halloween break and get rid of the ghosts haunting you ;)! JustaHulk, take care of him, you are responsible now. Shutterbug 02:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ungrammatical, lame

"I will leave the warning in place tho for your terrible choice in quotes. That one is ungrammatical and and lame." - you

Thus was the point - ungrammatical & lame. You get a golf clap. Natasha Amazing (talk) 11:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nanner nanner --JustaHulk (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChineseSolitaire.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ChineseSolitaire.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week for harassment and edit-warring

You have been blocked for one week for using an IP address to edit-war on Shawn Lonsdale and to harass Cirt (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 05:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may need to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Jehochman ^Talk 05:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way ahead of ya ... Blueboy 96 05:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Justanother (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is idiocy. Unlogged in, I made good sourced edits to Shawn Lonsdale and Cirt edit-warred with me (as in "with me"). Then Cirt spammed my IP talk page with inappropriate warnings and repeatedly put them back after I removed them as is my right. See User talk:74.225.175.133 and the history of that page. In other words he harassed me. So unblock me and block Cirt. Or at least give us equal blocks. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Sorry, I think this block is totally justified under the Scientology article probation which you are aware of. Clearly, you were edit warring (a little) on a Scientology-related article there. You also made incivil comments in edit summaries, and although you are welcome to edit without logging in, I think your decision not to log in is at least partly motivated by your lengthy block history and how that would reflect on the article probation issue. A 1-week ban may be harsher than I would have chosen, but it's certainly within reason. Mango juice^talk 06:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reviewing admin please note: unblock request on IP sock was denied because it contained a personal attack.[1] This block is discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Justanother_personal_attacks_and_edit_warring_on_IP_address. Durova^Charge! 06:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, how is it OK for Cirt to edit-war with me on a probation article and harass me with inappropriate and repeated "warnings" on my user page. Do you think that is OK just because I do not care to log in? --72.144.8.24 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cirt was not edit warring, and in terms of his warnings, I think they were appropriate assuming he didn't know it was you. And I think he didn't, since you were editing without logging in, and you never said who you were until your response on WP:AIV -- after which point Cirt stopped templating you. Mango juice^talk 06:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, if you wish to make a show of good faith, you could start by removing the part of your userpage where you insult Cirt by calling him a propagandist. Please remove that uncivil statement from your sock account's userpage too. Durova^Charge! 07:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I did not call Cirt a propagandist, you just did. --72.144.8.24 (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most recently, I found myself objecting strongly to a prolific propagandist successfully embedding him/herself in this project and at WikiNews" (User:JustaHulk#Announcement). Who does this refer to? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I did not name Cirt, Durova did. Only people that already know the situation and know what I think of Cirt would have made that connection so I was not trying to reach a new audience but simply trying to state the case behind my activity or inactivity here. The fact is what it is. I could as well say that a number of outspoken off-wiki critics of Scientology have embedded themselves here as admins and above but, seeing as they do not seem to make Scientology their career here, then that statement would be a bit stupid on my part. My statement on Cirt is accurate. His main interest is what it is - the rest is window-dressing and beard. --72.144.8.24 (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Mangojuice

OK, at least you looked a bit at the article history. Now, did you actually look at the edits I made. The fact is that the anti-Scn POV-pushers made a big mention of Mike getting arrested but completely leave out that the Assistant State Attorney dropped the charges after reviewing the tape that clearly shows mutual aggression. That edit needed to be in there and Cirt certainly could have been the one to do it as he himself added the relevant source under "Further reading" (here and again here). I know that if I had found such material to correct a WP:BLP violation, I would have raced to correct the article. Cirt had little interest in that as he is as much an anti-Scn POV-pusher as anyone here. And speaking of WP:BLP violations, I removed the link to the primary source booking log as that sort of ORish digging is disallowed under WP:BLP and Cirt knows that. Yet he reinserted the link twice. So, if there was any edit-warring on my part it was in response to his WP:BLP-violating edit-warring. Then in the midst of his offensive edit-warring he repeatedly plasters my IP talk page with trollish "warnings" (here, here, here) leading me to make my huge "personal attack" of wondering WTF. Not to mention his inappropriately reporting me for "vandalism" on WP:AIV (here). So I am being harassed and wonder WTF, "are you on drugs" and I am a terrible guy. I don't think so. So again, please give Cirt a symmetrical block or unblock me. Oh, and I don't log in because I am not actively editing and just came to correct a WP:BLP violation. It is certainly not to hide my block history which had been clean for almost one year before this undeserved block. I could as well make the charge that Cirt is trying to hide his block history as Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). But I won't bother. So please symmetrical block, unblock, or at the very least unblock me to take this to arbitration or elsewhere. If you cannot see your way clear to do one of those then please bring this up again at AN/I and refer to the evidence I present here. Thanks --72.144.8.24 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, you named Cirt on Jimbo's talk page and accused him of being a full-time paid propagandist when you compared Cirt to a crack whore.[2] In this statement last night you claim to have already worked it out with Cirt.[3] Cirt calls that a falsehood, and is very offended by these insults.[4] I was hoping in good faith that it wasn't a deliberate falsehood, and suggesting a way you could begin to make good on the claim. Durova^Charge! 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova dear, you are misintepreting (again). I called WikiNews a crack whore, not Cirt. Surely that should be clear from the title of the post "WikiNews is a crack whore". How you twist that around to me comparing Cirt to a crack whore is beyond me. --72.144.8.24 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I have been misinterpreting; I hoped you made the statement about reconciliation with good intentions. It would delight me if you changed your mind and lived up to that. Durova^Charge! 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Down the rabbit hole with Durova (and Anynobody and others)

Durova, this is for you. I know that you can evaluate a situation well enough if you take the time to. You did me the disservice of not taking that time and precipitating an injustice and an undeserved black mark on my record. I am not happy about that and if my tone reflects my unhappiness perhaps you will understand. I, as I have said before, do not bear you ill will but once again you seem to be inventing a reality inconsistent with the facts (i.e. "looks like he's taken to IP sock disruption"); facts easily discernible by simply inspecting the edits I made the other day and Cirt's response to them. Let's take it by the numbers here because it looks like this will have to go to DR if you and others insist on defaming me with misinterpretations.

03:50, 2 March 2008 The rest of the story with source - I make a couple of good edits to Shawn Lonsdale addressing the fact that our critics of Scientology somehow managed to omit the fact that the Scientologist that scuffled with Lonsdale had charges dropped. That edit needed to be in there and Cirt certainly could have been the one to do it as he himself added the relevant source under "Further reading" (here and again here). I know that if I had found such material to correct a WP:BLP violation, I would have raced to correct the article. In the same edits (and this is important), I removed the link to the primary source booking log on the Scientologist as that sort of ORish digging is disallowed under WP:BLP and Cirt knows that. This is a particularly egregious example of violating WP:BLP as it is personal information on a rather non-notable individual that was cleared of even the misdemeanor charge he had been arrested on. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for that information to be in this project in any way, shape. or form.
03:52, 2 March 2008 add back source that was removed by anon ip - Cirt adds back in the WP:BLP violation. OK, anybody can make a mistake.
03:57, 2 March 2008 Sorry, you know that sort of in-depth research into primary sources violates WP:BLP. There is no need for that, the story is well-covered in RS. - I very nicely correct the violation and inform Cirt of my reasoning.
04:00, 2 March 2008 add - Cirt re-adds the BLP-offending link under "Further reading". That link has no place in this project and Cirt should know that or at least have had the good sense to not reinsert.
04:01, 2 March 2008 Sorry, you know that sort of in-depth research into primary sources violates WP:BLP. There is no need for that, the story is well-covered in RS. - I again nicely make the correction. I am not looking to fight with anyone, just trying to correct a blatant WP:BLP issue. And Cirt by now should certainly have recognized my style though if he says he did know it was me then OK (s/he has not said that, AFAIK).
5b. 04:01, 2 March 2008 alpha sort - Cirt reinserts the offending BLP violation for the third time, wrongly marks the edit as minor, and gives it a deceptive edit summary. I WP:AGFed that he had alphasorted a category or a DEFAULTSORT template and did not check the edit until much later.
So at this point we have me trying to correct a BLP violation, clearing stating that as my intention, and Cirt edit-warring with me over it.
04:02, 2 March 2008 General note: Page blanking, removal of content or templates on Shawn Lonsdale. using TW - Cirt leaves an inappropriate warning on my talk page.
04:03, 2 March 2008 rem spammy trolling (trolly spamming?) - I remove same, as is my right.
04:03, 2 March 2008 Undid revision 195257731 by 74.225.175.133 (talk) Restored talk page warning of vandalism. - Cirt undoes my legitimate edit on my talk page.
04:04, 2 March 2008 coughing) - Again I remove the edit as is my right even if it was legit, which it was not. And if Cirt does not know it is me by now, I can't see how as the "cough" is one of my habits and he has mocked me on it in the past.
4:05, 2 March 2008 Reverted 1 edit by 74.225.175.133 identified as vandalism to last revision by Cirt. using TW - Cirt again reverts my rightful edits on my talk page and calls them vandalism.
So at this point I am starting feel rather harassed and wondering WTF?
04:06, 2 March 2008 Are you on drugs, Cirt? Leave my talk page alone unless you are keen to waste time at AN/I. - So, feeling harassed, I snap at Cirt telling him to leave me alone. This is my big PERSONAL ATTACK worthy of a week's block - a snippy edit summary on an IP talk page edit after being consistently harassed for the past 15 minutes.
04:07, 2 March 2008 General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. using TW - For some odd reason another editor has jumped right in here. I did not realize at first that it was another editor and blanked again thinking it was Cirt. My bad.
04:09, 2 March 2008 Reporting 74.225.175.133. using TW - Cirt wrongly reports me as an IP vandal on WP:AIV without informing me of the report.
04:16, 2 March 2008 dumb - Forgot how I found out about this report, maybe by looking at Cirts contribs, but I make my point of how surreal this seems to me.
04:23, 2 March 2008 add - Cirt now is making a big noise on AIV about blocks on me a year ago in an effort to influence an admin. Same old Cirt.
04:23, 2 March 2008 comment - Cirt is informed on AIV that I did no vandalism. Duh. Cirt knows what vandalism is and is not. Why did s/he hassle and report me? Harassment, that is why.
04:40, 2 March 2008 its fine - There is a bit of back-and-forth on my IP talk page with another editor but by 4:40 I figure this is all done.
Little did I know that . . .
05:03, 2 March 2008 05:03, 2 March 2008 - In a post to WP:ANI (Justanother personal attacks and edit warring on IP address) that is rife with misrepresentations, Durova attacks me as a vandal and a disruptive editor with "minimal productive contributions" who "compares Cirt to a crack whore". (I would call them lies but I think I know Durova too well to think that she does this sort of stuff "on purpose"). The fact is that 1) there was no vandalism involved, 2) I have thousands of mainspace edits, thousands of Reference Desk edits (I founded WP:RDAC), and quite a productive history here, 3) I never compared Cirt to a crack whore (laff) and explained that to Durova in a previous post above. Durova failed to extend me the simple courtesy of notifying me that she had reported me. So what followed came as a complete surprise and I perhaps did not react as calmly as I might have.
05:52, 2 March 2008 blocked, IP has been used by Justanother - User:Blueboy96 blocks my IP. I did not know about Durova's report, did not know anyone was attacking me, and figured that Blueboy96 thought Justanother was an indef blocked account or something. I really did a major WTF and snapped back at Blueboy96 calling him an "idiotic pseudo-admin" in my unblock request. OK, not a good idea but harassed and attacked parties have a tendency to snap and I, for one, think a bit of slack applies in that case. Others might not. No biggie. I can apologize for "pseudo-admin" though I still think his actions were idiotic as they do not seem to reflect any thinking on his part but a rather bad knee-jerk reaction (and his first action as an admin).
05:28, 2 March 2008 Blocked for one week for harassment and edit-warring: new section] - User:Blueboy96 blocks Justanother account. I put this out of sequence because I was not aware of this block as I was not logged in and, in fact, have not used the Justanother account in months.
05:43, 2 March 2008 Not a problem: new section] - Blueboy96 on Cirt's talk page:
I just got the mop tonight ... nice way to get my feet wet. Blueboy 96 05:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
'Nuf said.
That is pretty much the ugly story. Mangojuice looked at it in my unblock request but I doubt he thoroughly reviewed the edits. He said that I edit-warred "a little" and the block seemed a bit harsh. I need a fair admin (Mango is fine) to really take a look at these diffs and apply some fairness here. I am as much or more the "victim" here as Cirt so please either unblock me or give Cirt a symmetrical block for his edit-warring and harassment. --65.10.246.233 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice, if you decide to overlook the block evasion and consider this fourth unblock request seriously, please contact me. Justanother has been removing the suspected sockpuppet tags that uninvolved editors have been leaving on his increasing number of IP addresses. I have a list of others, along with diffs of their disruptive behavior, but I really haven't wanted to put Justanother on the spot by dragging them out. I wish he'd just remove the personal attacks from his user pages, shake hands, and move forward. Regards, Durova^Charge! 04:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the obvious and perhaps forgivable post on Mango's page, the fact is that I have done no zero none zilch of prescribed sockpuppet activity from an IP so all these "sockpuppet" tags on dynamic IP addresses are nothing but silliness at best and harassment at worse. Durova, please show me where I have done anything wrong with an IP and I will put the tag back myself. Other than that and regarding my post on his page, I am just trying to treat Mango respectfully as I am not sure how active he is and I would like a fair hearing in some reasonable time frame. If he wants to take another look with the full evidence laid out for him then that is great. One way or another I will get my hearing on this wrongness. --65.10.246.233 (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Almost missed Classic Durova:

I have a list of others, along with diffs of their disruptive behavior, but I really haven't wanted to put Justanother on the spot by dragging them out.

The vague accusation of unspecified wrongdoing. No, you drag them out. Please. I insist. Put me on the spot. --65.10.246.233 (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, I don't have the time (as you suspected) to look into this that much more deeply. What I can say is, I saw edit warring when it came to the source you removed three times, claiming BLP. The problem in my view is that BLP never suggests an action like that: you left the text but removed the source. Since the text was adequately sourced from the source you included, this was not a BLP issue, it's more a question of whether to include a supplementary source. So there was no pressing need to be removing the source three times instead of discussing the issue on the talk page. That combined with your incivility led me to endorse the ban. The behavior of Cirt, however, is something I hadn't addressed before. If Cirt had known from the beginning that you were the other party, I think it would be safe to say he/she was edit warring back with you. However, if I were in Cirt's place I would have been confused about you editing from an IP and been suspicious. If that doesn't justify all the reverts over the source, it at least justifies one or two of them. So at worst Cirt's behavior still isn't as bad as yours. Furthermore, I think your 1-week ban is more than I would have given; I might have done 48 hours for you, and maybe 24 hours for Cirt. Or maybe nothing for Cirt -- all the incivility came from you, and that was part of the problem. Now, maybe Blueboy96 could have looked more critically at Cirt's behavior in the first place, but I honestly can't say I blame him, given your hostile and dismissive unblock requests. And maybe I'm extending too much good faith to Cirt: I can't be sure when he/she figured out that you were the one editing from that IP address.

Is this all unfair? Maybe. I'm okay with that, because the encyclopedia is what matters most, not the fairness, and I don't think the encyclopedia is served by blocking or banning Cirt. And also, you could avoid future unfairness of this type if you would log in. IP editors are welcome on Wikipedia but anyone can tell you they don't get treated equally, even if they should. It's your choice to not log in, but you have to take what comes with that. Mango juice^talk 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, btw, I removed your committed identity since you were using it wrong. If you need help setting this up, email me and I'll help you. Mango juice^talk 05:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I knew that you could look at this fairly. Cirt's actions certainly bear scrutiny in this instance. If he did not know it was me (doubtful) then he is guilty of WP:BITE. He consistently attacked my edits as vandalism when they were no such thing. The incivility came after I was harassed by Cirt, I was very civil at first. My stupidity came after I was blocked wrongly or unfairly as I was angry at that. OK. Cirt does not get a free pass because of his number of edits/month (don't get me started on his edits). Especially in light of his hidden block history as Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AKA Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As far as the WP:BLP issue, please take a deeper look at the policy as the removal was definitely a BLP issue and this sort of issue has come up before between Cirt and I. Publicizing this man's address and date of birth in this manner is a violation of BLP. We do not get so very interested in people like this Scientologist as to go digging up primary information, no matter how much anti-Scientology haters think we should "expose" every Scientologist. Cirt knows this and knows the reason I pulled that link. In light of all I mention here and the way it went down, Cirt instigated this and does not deserve a free pass. While I think that no blocks or symmetrical blocks are appropriate I am OK with 48 for me for being stupid and 24 for Cirt for the harassment, edit-warring over BLP, and instigation. If you would like to make that adjustment then I will consider the matter closed. I will even do what Durova asked me to do in the bargain re the statement on my user pages. Because I am all about fair (smile). --65.10.246.233 (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I won't make the adjustment. My philosophy of block reviews is that I will not change the block to suit my personal preference, but I will discuss the issue or reverse the block if there's some kind of error, and the assessment the original admin made was badly wrong. Here, as I said initially, the 1-week choice wouldn't have been my choice, but it is within the bounds of reason in my opinion. (And seriously, 48 hours for you would be kind of light, you were really abusive in some of those edits.) (2) As for Cirt, like I said, I think the period for acting on what he did has passed, for better or for worse. But I will point Cirt to my assessment. (Yes, WP:BITE maybe, but I wouldn't block an established user for a bite violation without warning. It's really only the Scientology article probation where anything would be required here). (3) As for the BLP issue, Ok I see your point now. I still don't think this is really a BLP issue, but that's a good argument against having the extra primary source when it isn't necessary. But if it required this much explanation, you really should have been discussing it rather than edit warring over it. Also, Cirt is not the only other editor that matters -- maybe Cirt did and maybe Cirt did not know what your objection was but it was your responsibility to make it clear, not just for Cirt but for anyone else who edits the page. Mango juice^talk 07:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still don't see it. Please show me where I was "really abusive in some of those edits" before I was blocked. Because I honestly do not see where I was very abusive before I was blocked but I do see where a brand-new admin bought into Durova's misrepresentation of what was occurring. If you really think my points here are without value then please unblock me so I can pursue this issue (and only this issue) elsewhere. Thanks. --65.10.246.233 (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Mango, if you would please just reduce my block to "time served" I will move on given that you have strongly warned Cirt and this issue is indeed old. I am not about wasting a whole bunch more of everyone's time on this, especially my own. --65.10.246.233 (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the vandalism warning "spammy trolling." "Are you on drugs." ".. and then we go waste some time." That's unproductive. This is why I will not lift the ban. I would unblock you immediately since the Arbcom ruling only allows you to be banned from Scientology-related articles, but you have to agree to log in for the rest of the week at least. Mango juice^talk 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the limitations of the ban. Good call. I cannot log in, I have inactivated my accounts as I really do not have the time. I only made those edits related to the BLP because no-one else will bother and that was important to me for personal reasons. I can see why you want to make logging in a condition but I will not edit in the Scn series until the week is up as that is consistent with my previous request for conditional unblock anyway. If the block was wrongly done then that is an error that should be corrected. Thanks --65.10.246.233 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt was more offensive than I realized

Holy Cow, Cirt was more offensive than I realized. Check out the below edit where he reinserts the offending BLP violation for the third time, marks the edit as minor and gives it a deceptive edit summary. I WP:AGFed that he had alphasorted a category or a DEFAULTSORT template and did not check the edit. This deception on Cirt's part, followed by his inappropriate talk page warnings and false AIV report shows extreme bad faith on his part and is all the more reason that he should NOT get a free pass on this. --65.87.105.7 (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5b. 04:01, 2 March 2008 alpha sort - Cirt reinserts the offending BLP violation for the third time, wrongly marks the edit as minor, and gives it a deceptive edit summary.

For great justice!

For great justice, this wrong should be righted! --65.87.105.7 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice - Cirt's sense of humor

Hi. I see that Cirt is "joking around" on his user page (gotta be careful about "personal attacks"). One of his jokes is:

"I was busy editing the Shawn Lonsdale article when Justanother (talk · contribs) came along on the IP"

How is one edit in the 42 hours before I arrived there "busy editing the Shawn Lonsdale article"? Another joke is:

"I'm worried that he's following me"

This because I edited one article of personal concern to myself that he also happened to have edited? I especially enjoy this joke:

"Really, I just wish the fellow would leave me alone."

Yes, I repeatedly reverted his correct edit and I repeatedly and deceptively reinserted a WP:BLP violation. Then I went over to his talk page and pasted and repasted inappropriate warnings. Then I inappropriately reported him on WP:AIV. Finally, I e-mailed my friend Durova so she could come over and stir the pot so some green admin will block him. Yes, I should really have left Cirt alone. Ha. Ha. Ha. Funny jokes. --65.87.105.7 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Justanother (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was wrongly blocked by a new admin unfamiliar with the terms under which he was to apply the block (arbcom ruling). Not to mention that an injustice was done! Please see my exact sequence above ("down the rabbit hole") that led to my being blocked one week for removing a WP:BLP violation while the editor that edit-warred with me, repeatedly and deceptively reinserted the violation, and wrongly accused me of vandalism got a pat on the back from the same new admin but later a logged warning from Mangojuice. Mangojuice made the very good point that I should not have been blocked at all but subject banned for the period and he was willing to unblock me if I logged in. But I cannot log in. See explanation above. Mangojuice is not very active so I do not know when he will come back to address the issue of the block v. ban. So I would like another to please do that. I also found another edit (5b above) by Cirt that is really egregious and I think bears another look at him getting a symmetrical block/ban to mine under article probation. Not to mention Cirt's recent misrepresentations to Mangojuice ("jokes" above) on Cirt's talk page. Oh and if this is all tl;dr (too long;didn't read) then please do not do a quicky "decline request" but leave it for another that might be willing to make the effort to go through the diffs and see if I am right about the injustice and error. Thanks.

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not explain how the block violates our blocking policy or how it is based on a factual error made by the blocking admin. I will not read through your entire talk page to find out. Requests for another user to be blocked have no place in an unblock request. — Sandstein (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is the editor's fifth unblock request for the same block. See tu quoque. Durova^Charge! 05:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, why don't you find another hobby? It is your misrepresentations that precipitated this and your continued misrepresentations that fuel it to a degree. Those misrepresentations are catalogued in detail above. --65.10.246.233 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you are even misrepresenting what is going on here. Mango and I had a dialog and he put forth a condition under which he would correct the block v. ban issue.

"I would unblock you immediately since the Arbcom ruling only allows you to be banned from Scientology-related articles, but you have to agree to log in for the rest of the week at least."

I cannot log in as he requested and instead promised to not edit the series for the period of the original block. Since he has not responded and we know that he is not very active at present I put it to another to carry on with that. That and the additional egregious edit by Cirt I uncovered and his current misrepresentations on his talk page are also of concern. --65.10.246.233 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you could log in if you wanted to. If you have an email account listed, you should be able to request a reset to your password. Mango juice^talk 06:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a liar, Mango. I am disappointed as you know that this was unfair and you know the block was incorrectly done and I offered in good faith to do essentially what you asked of me, i.e. not edit the series for the week, and instead you assume I am lying.

I will wait for the block to expire and take whatever action as regards Cirt and Durova that I feel is appropriate. I do not think Cirt deserves a free pass for violating the article probation as he did given his persistent POV-pushing in these articles. In actual fact, he should be subject banned permanently and continue his excellent record of contributing to the project in areas where he is better able to maintain his neutrality. --65.10.246.233 (talk) 13:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this account is permanently inaccessible, you should register a new one and stick to that. Either way that would be fine. My point is, editing anonymously is part of the problem. Mango juice^talk 14:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want a new account - I am taking a break from editing and have made my accounts inaccessible to enforce that upon myself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with editing from an IP and I did nothing wrong in this instance beyond getting a little annoyed at Cirt's edit-warring and harassment. So I said "Are you on drugs?" in an edit summary on an IP talk page that no-one will ever see. And in exchange, Cirt wrongly reports me on AIV and Durova posts a bunch of lies on AN/I and a brand new admin bites at the trolling. And, except for yourself, other admins are more concerned that I dot my i's and cross my t's in my unblock request than simply go though the relevant diffs.

I do not anticipate editing much but if I see a particularly egregious BLP violation I will address it as that is one of my hot buttons, the disrespect and bigotry shown by critics of Scientology against individual Scientologists. I do not want a new account - I am proud of my history here and, if my personal situation changes, I may well become active again. That would involve me proving my identity to the office, something that I will not undertake lightly. There, now you have the full explanation. --65.87.105.7 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong with you editing anonymously if you are going to continue the same kind of editing you have been involved in. That's what I'm saying. Having an account doesn't mean you can't take a break -- you don't have to edit. (And I'll note, not having an account doesn't seem to be stopping you from editing anyway.) In any case, I will not be lifting the block. You understand the restrictions you're required to obey, and lifting the block is pointless if you can't use the account. Mango juice^talk 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main "kind of editing" I was involved in was removing a BLP violation. That was it. Then I snapped at someone that harassed me and then I got mad at an admin that bought into a bunch of crap. I do not get your remark. And the point of lifting the block is that if I post anywhere other than my own talk page then I am violating the block and that is undeserved as the only really pushy thing I did before getting blocked was try to get a BLP violation off the article against Cirt's reinsertion of it, a more egregious violation of article probation than anything I did. My talk page edit summaries were somewhat uncivil but so what, this guy was harassing me! People that are being harassed sometimes are uncivil. You don't punish them for that and pat the harasser on the back (well, I wish that were true but I have seen it happen too many times here). --65.87.105.7 (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for the block to expire and take whatever action as regards Cirt and Durova that I feel is appropriate. Could you explain what this would be, please? It looks like a veiled threat. If it's possible to work things out productively and amicably, I'd be glad to. Durova^Charge! 22:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP reverts Cirt's edits multiple times and and makes uncivil comments. Justanother also complained about Cirt earlier but is now on a wikibreak. The IP claims to be Justanother but also claims not to be able to log in. I believed this yesterday but it doesn't look consistent to me anymore after a review of the IP's last edits. Could an anonymous user ridicule an established user that easily? In mind that Justanother is actually on a wikibreak and changed his blockable behaviour almost a year ago I find the whole thread to be more and more questionable?!. Or did I miss something? -- Stan_talk 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother ceased using his main account as of October 28, 2007.[5] He continued editing on his disclosed sockpuppet account JustaHulk until 12 February 2008.[6]

On 28 February 2008 he edited as 65.2.75.88.[7] From the context of that edit history I take it as credible that this really is Justanother. See this uncivil message to Cirt's user talk, where the IP refers Justanother in the first person. The rest of the posts from that IP address are all to image deletion nominations of Justanother's uploads. Cirt nominates many images for deletion, and it's commonplace for anyone who does that kind of custodial work to look through the logs when they come across a user who seems to have a consistent problem. These images had been posted to a retired user's talk page and Justanother later went on Wikibreak, so Cirt probably didn't think it would offend anyone to do a routine set of nominations. I doubt anyone other than Justanother himself would take that personally. Notice the obscene response.[8]

So although, as I wrote above, it isn't my intention to put anyone on the spot, it looks to me like Justanother has claimed to be on wikibreak when he actually isn't, and has been following Cirt's edits on a series of sockpuppets for the purpose of harassing Cirt. Note that the last edits on the JustaHulk account were almost entirely focused on attacking Cirt. The article where Cirt was editing the other day has been deleted, so I can't reverify this, but if my recollection is correct Justanother showed up there on the IP shortly after Cirt began improving it. The page was in terrible shape and Cirt had started by adding a list of reliable sources. Justanother is demanding a topic ban for Cirt and calling him biased, but I don't know how he can substantiate that claim when so much of Cirt's contributions have passed good article candidacy and featured article candidacy after review by unbiased editors. To the best of my knowledge, Justanother has contributed no quality content in a year and a half as a Wikipedian. I'd love it if he did, and hold no grudges. Durova^Charge! 01:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get me wrong. I named my comment "paranoid comment"(refrering to myself) on purpose because I only wanted to question whether this IPs are actually Justanother. Assuming that Justanother is on wikibreak it would be awful if an IP pretends to be him and causes this "scandal". I didn't intend to interfere in this ongoing discussion at all nor do I want to be part of judging Justanother or Cirt.~~(Sorry if I did)~~ -- Stan_talk 02:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your assesment despite your sentence before last. I consider some contributions made by Justanother as very valuable. Not sure if this qualifies for "quality content" but I remember that he helped to solve a very polarized conflict between wikipedians(including me as a party) and ended the edit war. I usually don't agree with him but have to acknowledge that he is often one of the reasonable editors in the Scientology controversy and his contributions are often appreciated by pro and contra editors(its always a highlight if someones contribution are not condemned by either one side in Scientology related articles). -- Stan_talk 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. The term quality content refers specifically to good articles and featured material, at least in the world of featured portals (where I've been familiarizing myself lately). What I intended to convey is that I find it odd that Justanother calls for a topic ban on someone whose article space contributions consistently get promoted to GA and FA. I'd love it if Justanother wrote featured articles also, but I've never seen evidence that he has. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the images, Cirt made a mini-project of going after images that I had uploaded to use on talk pages or just because I thought they might have value. Allowable images. I do not mind any of my unused images being deleted by a neutral editor but I wonder why Cirt decided that he just HAD to be the one. Borders on harassment. And I did not follow him around, he posted the notices on my talk page. I would not say that I am actively editing but I do keep an eye on my talk page and I was certainly surprised to see Cirt going after my harmless images. And I gave my opinion of what I observed and I used the adult term for it. Wikipedia is for grownups.

Stan, I appreciate your support and that of coffeepusher too but I do admit that I have a temper when it comes to being harassed. And if you go through the rundown I made above of the edits that night you might see that Cirt did the more aggressive reverting in main space and I did allowable removal of talk page edits.

Durova, regarding any "threat" what in the world do you think I mean? I have already explained my objections to your and Cirt's actions. I reserve the right to use whatever WP:DR remedies I deem appropriate and worthy of the effort.

As for you and Cirt, you both could have just moved on instead of making further misrepresentations, Cirt on his talk page and you here. Cirt I understand. And yes, my last edits as JustaHulk were mainly about Cirt. That is what I explain in my user page comment (another example of you "sleuthing" out the obvious?) I found myself expending what little time I could spare for Wikipedia complaining about Cirt and that is not what I want to be here.

It is "humorous" to me that, in this case, I simply tried to correct an obvious BLP issue (so obvious to anyone with a shred of neutrality that when a VERY experienced admin looked at the article he ~~shit-canned~~ the entire thing for WP:BLP and WP:COAT) and find myself playing the same old game again due to Cirt's evident inability to understand NPOV. All Cirt does understand is that POV edits must be sourced properly. That is his "quality content" when it comes to topics such as Scientology; one-sided cherry-picked articles that are impeccably sourced - that is if all you look for are sources that support your POV. See, I am doing it again. Do me a favor, Durova, and don't post here any more, you are not helping. --72.153.75.136 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I will strike the adult word for you. Anyway, thanks for respecting my wishes regarding posting here. However, please DO notify me of any action that you may take against me as a named party. Would that you had done that simple courtesy in the first place and maybe we would have wasted less time and effort. Good night. Sleep tight. --72.153.75.136 (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]