User talk:Lsi john/Archive/Archive 01

Category:Large Group Awareness Training[edit]

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Category:Large Group Awareness Training. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. - Alison^☺ 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys - try to iron out your differences on the talk page first, please - Alison^☺ 18:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, I _have_ been trying to take these to the talk page. Please look at the talk pages. Smee has been doing the reverting. If you look, I do an edit and smee reverts it.. I then go to the talk page. Smee ignores it. Lsi john 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if you look closely, you will see that Smee follows me around and reverts virtually all of my edits. Lsi john 18:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison ~ HELP! ~ Smee is now re-adding (REVERTING) categories to articles which are not supported by cited sources within those articles. She clearly told me that doing this was POV PUSHING when she removed my categories to other articles. This is beyond reasonable and needs to stop. She makes up the rules as she goes along and applies them as she sees fit. Lsi john 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lsi john, please calm down, take a breather, and relax. Please stop your usage of CAPS and exclamation points. The categories added were backed up by citations from the list article. Smee 19:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Ok - John, can you specify exactly what your issues with this particular category are on its talk page? Just spell out what the issues are as you see them. From that, Smee will have something to work with and can address the points you make. Right now, that's the best approach 'coz revert-warring on the category won't get either of you anywhere. I'll help out where I can so let's see where this goes ... - Alison^☺ 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, thank you.

I have been informed by Smee that 'reliable published sources' must be used within any article before any claims or statements can be made within that article.

I have also been told by Smee that you cannot use another wiki article as a cited source; that wiki does not qualify as reliable published source.

1) Mind Dynamics - has no 'cited' sources in the article at all. Yet smee has tagged it as LGAT category.

2) PSI World - has no 'cited' sources in the article at all. Yet Smee has tagged it as LGAT category.

This seems to suggest that Smee has concluded that those two companies are LGAT and that would be POV, correct?

3) List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations - lists Large Group Awareness Training in the first statement and also has See also: Large Group Awareness Training .. Is this not redundant?

4) The List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations, uses http://perso.orange.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/ as a cited source to include numerous companies on this list. However, http://perso.orange.fr/eldon.braun/awareness/ is simply a page of LINKS and is NOT a reliable source and should not be used to include these organizations. Inclusion on this list should require a specific reliable source to be cited.

5) Large Group Awareness Training - this term is not scientifically or technically defined anywhere. It is defined by example by each author, depending on what they want to include in the group/term/definition. The term is used, almost exclusively, by anti-cult activists like Rick Ross. It is used as a pejorative term to label groups which have been targeted. It was used on several occasions by authors, to avoid using the term 'cult' and thus to avoid prosecution. A balanced article about this term would include the opposing viewpoint. Yet Smee fights any effort to either a) give a specific definition for the term or b) make the claim that the term is not scientifically defined nor used by the APA Clearly, for anyone who actually reads the articles and sources, the term is ill-defined at best, and undefined at worst. The reason it is on wiki is so that anti-cultist can label companies they have targeted. (This can easily be shown, by looking at who wrote the articles which are tagged LGAT and look at the history of the edits .. and look by #6 below, where smee decided that the article was of no value, once the LGAT references were removed).

6) Klemmer & Associates - edited by Smee from the very beginning, and tagged as an LGAT without ANY supporting evidence of this. On one hand Smee deletes entries she doesnt like, and cites the rules.. and then on articles like this, she adds categories based on her POV and/or allows them to remain. Now that she has been forced to stop adding the LGAT propaganda to the Klemmer article, she has tagged it as an advertisement. This goes to her POV character.

Every few days, she simply goes through my recent list of edits and reverts them, citing some rule as she POV applies it. Lsi john 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, unfortunately, this is not a one-article issue. The entire subject is in dispute and most of the articles have been tagged as biased by one editor or another. When Smee is forced to concede something on one page, it has little or no effect on her actions on another page. When she does not like the way something is headed, she simply re-writes an entire section and forces her counterparts to start over with the corrections/edits disputes. (see history on Large Group Awareness Training where a discussion about the page was fully underway with several individuals and Smee simply re-wrote the entire top 3 or 4 paragraphs. Lsi john 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, additionally, Mind Dynamics has several SEE ALSO references which are unsourced in the article. My understanding of SEE ALSO is that they are 'references' to related material. If these are valid referrals, then the List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations should have similar SEE ALSO references which Smee removes. Additionally, similar examples yield that List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations should be included in the anti-cult category, as both rick ross and margaret singer (both directly sourced in the article) are anti-cult individuals. Yet Smee says that anti-cult cannot be included here because it is included in the articles referenced. This is yet another example of the have-it-both-ways application of the rules I have been up against. Lsi john 20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, as an example, now that third party intervention has been requested, Smee has tagged the page List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations as undergoing major rewrite. There was no group concensus for this re-write and presumably there will be no collaboration on the re-write. Therefore, as cited in other places, Smee is apparently attempting to derail all disputes and force everyone to start over by rewriting the entire page. Lsi john 21:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverts / pov[edit]

The following began in an article talk page and drifted from specific content into a discussion about a pattern of behavior related to the user Smee.

Because it was more directly related to her overall pattern of reverting, I moved it from the specific article talk page to her talk page.

She subsequently removed it from her page.

I believe the pattern of behavior needs to be documented so that other users, who may also find their edits reverted, have additional documentation for this.

I have, therefore, restored the conversation/thread here.

(moved from article talk page by Lsi john 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee, I am as calm as someone being run over can be. You make no effort to assist me with edits, you simply delete or revert my edits and cite rules. Then you turn around and do exactly the same thing I did, on other pages. You are out of control and POV pushing and it is harmful to wiki. Lsi john 19:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lsi john, clearly by this last comment it would be helpful if you took a small break to cool off. Please stop these violations of WP:NPA, and as it states there stick to commenting on content, not contributors. Thanks. Smee 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Smee, you wait 2 or 3 days and then you come in and revert the majority of the edits I have made. You claim that my category addtions are POV and not supported by cited sources. Then you add categories to articles, with _no_ cited sources and claim that because the other 'referenced wiki articles' have sources, it qualifies for your category addition.

An elephant is in the category animal. A list of animals includes monkeys. By your reasoning, an elephant can be put in the category of monkeys. Lsi john 19:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John - Smee has a point here. Rather than discussing her behaviour, etc, could you state clearly and concisely what's wrong with the category on its talk page please. As a neutral observer, I have no clue as to what this dispute is about. If both of you clarify your respective positions, maybe then you can work towards consensus as part of the process. Can I ask you to read over WP:DR first, though? - Alison^☺ 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, at what point or after how many attempts, does it qualify to be about the person's behavior? If you would like, I will make a list of the related articles and talk pages. My edits/edit-tags and the discussion sections should clearly indicate that I have attempted to discuss and work with Smee. At the very minimum she knows the 'balance' I am attempting to bring to the entire series of articles. The rule you cited states: "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." Smee makes no attempt to 'help me' or 'improve the edit', she simply reverts and cites her pov of a rule. Only now that it has escalated has she decided to start discussing things (this pattern is also reflected in other complaints against her). She permits virtually none of my edits to remain and then, in other articles, does exactly what she declared I could not do.

If you are willing to be a third-party for the situation, I welcome your involvement. This entire series of articles needs to have a balance. Lsi john 20:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lsi john 20:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions[edit]

It probably is best to watch for a bit before attempting to have a page deleted. We do not delete pages simply for being POV or poorly written, only if there's really no hope that a sourced article could ever be written on the subject. WP:DELETE goes into more detail on the deletion policy.

As you and Smee seem to be having a lot of disputes, across a lot of articles, you might find that mediation would serve well. If Smee is willing to mediate, you can request an informal mediator through Medcab, or formal mediation through the Mediation Committee. I would strongly encourage both of you to do so before this spirals out of hand and winds up at ArbCom instead.

As to recreations, if an article is deleted at AfD, it can be speedily deleted by any administrator if it is recreated. Editors who repeatedly recreate deleted material get blocked or banned, such behavior is considered disruptive.

Do keep in mind, that with controversial topics, we do note the controversy in their articles. The neutral point of view requires that we not take any side in the controversy, but instead simply note that it exists, what it entails, who it involves, and why.

Again, I would strongly encourage you to seek mediation, it often helps. Do remember to assume good faith, as well. Sometimes that's difficult, but always comment on content, not editors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's no rule against rewriting! If you go down to the bottom of your edit window, you'll see the following:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

Now, of course, what is written must conform to our core policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:ATT, and the like. That's true whether it's reworking what someone else wrote or writing something brand new. But anyone can edit any page any time, that's exactly how we do it! Again, if you and Smee can't come to agreement, I'd pretty strongly suggest you request mediation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it does work that way sometimes-but generally only for a short while. We're pretty good at picking out POV, on the whole. As to the Psi world bit, that will run for five days, and only Smee's commented so far. Most of my AfD nominations do go through, I do a pretty thorough check for sourcing before nominating anything, so it's not often someone finds something I missed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Crazy-busy right now. Sorry!) Have to concur with what Seraphimblade is saying here. May I suggest this be sent to WP:MEDCAB for mediation. Both editors have good points here but you, John, appear to be getting swamped in the rules and etiquette here. What's needed are a bunch of neutral observers who can help you through this and ensure that this is resolved for both of you. I can help with it but am a bit busy right now. - Alison^☺ 23:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Best start with mediation, John, is to look at the medcab stuff at some of the older and/or ongoing cases and get a feel for others' grievances and issues and how the process works in getting things resolved. User:Smee has already indicated that she will gladly follow the dispute resolution process, so that's a good start. Also, there are at least two admins looking on - Alison^☺ 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Alison's given you some good advice as well. As for yours, when I told you that anyone is allowed to edit a page, that includes you. If you think edits need to be made to that page, go ahead and make them! Alison stated that Smee is willing to enter mediation, so I would strongly advise you do so. If you're not comfortable making the request, I'll be happy to file a Medcab request on your behalf, if you would like. Just don't get frustrated or lose your cool, I realize it can be frustrating to see information you think (or even know) to be wrong, but this is still very much a work in progress (and usually, the other guy thinks he's just as right as you think you are). Things do get solved, believe me, I've seen it for myself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is not a court case at all! Basically, it's just someone with more experience, that will help you and Smee talk out a resolution. Just tell your mediator your concerns, about being new here and such, they'll be happy to help you, and I can certainly give you advice as well. I know at first this can seem terribly confusing, and sometimes it is, but one of our core policies is to never look down on editors for being new. We have no interest in shutting you out or not addressing your concerns. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is it binding. Will it have any long lasting impact. Will it only resolve the specific issues? Will I be forced, next week, to return to mediation again for another paragraph on the same article or another article? Unfortunately, I see it as an endless cycle, sucking time and energy without an outcome. I could be wrong, and hope that I am, however that is my feeling based on my experience over the past couple weeks. Lsi john 02:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not binding at all. Although often mediation will come to an agreement that all editors involved can agree to, it's a completely consensual process. You can leave the process or even disregard its results if you like (though that's often looked upon unfavorably in arbitration, which is binding and non-voluntary). Mediation is just a way for someone uninvolved to help you and Smee talk it out, and hopefully come to an agreement you can both live with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above-I've done mediation twice myself, and in both cases, a very satisfactory outcome was reached, and everyone involved respected the consensus the mediator helped us reach. So I do know something of what I'm talking about. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing your situation, I cannot know if the topic was as polarized as this one is. While I would like to assume good-faith, I have not seen any evidence of this. Perhaps I am just cynical, but I suspect that arbitration would be a better path. If I am going to invest the time, I would prefer that the outcome be binding on both parties. She has shown no desire and made no effort to help me thus far and her own comments indicate fairly clearly her position on the issues. I'm willing to follow whatever path you recommend, though her history suggests anything short of 'enforcable' will be unsuccessful. If she were truly willing to write an unbiased article, she would handle herself and her edits completely differently. I'm not trying to remove her work, nor her articles (though I don't feel they POV they represent belong on wiki), I am trying to balance them fairly and I am not equipt to do battle against her knowledge of the rules and her ability to dance around them. Lsi john 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom will just tell you to try mediation first anyway. But if you reach an outcome you agree to in mediation, and someone ignores that, they'll look very unfavorably upon that. And we don't go for following the letter of a rule while violating its spirit either. Arbitration only concentrates on conduct, they will refuse to decide upon content issues. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation it is then. Lsi john 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed the request here. The mediator will contact you and Smee when they're ready to begin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I added some of the articles under dispute. Will look on and see what I can do. SB: I'm not totally au fait with medcab :) - Alison^☺ 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee[edit]

Smee, another member, and I are in mediation. A truce has been reached that was signed by all three parties. Any edit wars involving Smee may cease after that. Plese do not engage Smee, it may make it worse. If you continue to have problems with her let me know I will be glad to help out a newer member. Good luck John196920022001 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not use inappropriate bull-baiting language like: "anti-cult articles", "You, and your anti-cult activists". Thanks. Smee 22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

John196920022001, thank you. I'm far too new to understand all the nuances of editing wiki, but I'm learning. Though I have no desire to 'engage' her, I am a strong advocate of neutrality, fairness and technical accuracy. I have great difficulty accepting 'smoke and mirrors' as valid journalism and, for the sake of wiki and the public, will continue to edit articles with those concepts in mind. Best wishes to you as well. Lsi john 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, Smee is not typical by far of the editors here. Please do not judge the project by her example. Most editors here are happy to see others contribute to articles. Please carry on! --Justanother 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sure I'll catch on to the procedures eventually. I'm not easily discouraged, though I must admit surprise that such biased and one sided editing has been allowed to continue. She'll allow websites like skeptic's dictionary and forum.rickross.com to be cited, when it illustrates her pov, yet she summarily deletes any entry which appears to be counter to her pov, and then labels her deletion as 'invalid' source. I understand why she does it, I don't understand why it is tollerated. Lsi john 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only tolerated because she is just an extreme case of where a lot of people are at these days; I will not spell out more so as to not upset her needlessly. We live in a materialistic society that, as a culture, does not value spirituality. As individuals yes, and as protection for the indvidual's right of expression, usually; but our culture values the material, not the spiritual. And young people traditionally reject the religions of their parents; these days a lot of young are atheists and worse, especially on the 'net. And this is a volunteer website with a young demographic and admins here are pretty tired of all the petty bickering and tend to turn a blind eye so long as everyone is WP:CIVIL. Gotta be civil! It is up to you and I and like-minded editors (like-minded as in finding misuse of this project objectionable) to keep editors like Smee in check. That is all there is to it and it only takes a few of us to do it. --Justanother 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable accusations of vandalism[edit]

Hello Lsi john. You accused me of vandalism [1]. Assume good faith. If maintaining well sourced material is vandalism, then I think there is a discrepancy between your version of vandalism and WP version of vandalism. I would like to know exactly what your definition of vandalism is. Please enlighten me. Docleaf 18:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Docleaf, thank you for stopping by. I appreciate that you have brought this matter up for discussion. Your first edit/revert was not called, classified or referred to as vandalism. In fact I assumed Good Faith, and I was careful to clearly document why I [reverted] your revert.

Your, older, version of the article has been questioned per WP:BRD and is being discussed. And, I specifically informed you of this on [your page] and your reply, rather disrespectfully discounted other editor's opinions:

"There's no need to discuss the reversion of high quality sources"

Sir the items are not being questioned for the quality of their sources. I believe they are being questioned for their relevance and significance.

When you then ignored wiki policy on WP:CONSENSUS and reverted a [second time] with the comment (rvt. You can discuss rearranging high quality sourced facts and views, there is no question high quality sources should be part of Wikipedia), it moved into either WP:TE or vandalism, but certainly was no longer a WP:AGF edit.

By forcefully reverting, disregarding an open discussion and disregarding a specific invitation to participate in that discussion, it is my opinion that your edit was vandalism.

Remember, WP:AGF applies to my edit as well. In good faith, it appeared that you were intentionally vandalizing the page to make a WP:POINT.

Thanks again for dropping by, I hope this has cleared up the issue for you.

I look forward to your participation in the discussion.

Lsi john 19:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Docleaf, after reviewing the definition at WP:VANDALISM I have concluded that your edit was not vandalism. Though I believe the edit was harmful to wiki, it is not my belief which constitutes vandalism. Only your motivation and intent can qualify an edit for vandalism, and I do not belive that you intended to harm wiki. I do, however, still believe the edit to be WP:TE and edit warring, rather than an WP:AGF attempt to participate in the discussion.

I apologize for using the term vandalism in my edit summary to describe your edit.

Lsi john 01:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klemmer & Associates[edit]

Sorry about that! Sometimes I do get quite a bit of traffic and miss something in the shuffle, if I do, please don't hesitate to ping me again like you did. As to the company, I've had a quick look at the article. Please do refrain from using edit summaries like this one, I realize things can get frustrating sometimes, but that only tends to inflame things further. As to the article itself, I can't find any secondary sourcing on it whatsoever, so it certainly may be a candidate for AfD. I'll do some further looking, I always do look for anything that might justify keeping an article before attempting to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amused to read your misinterpretation...[edit]

Also, User:Antaeus Feldspar brags about being anti-cult on his page:

"I have been accused of being a "cult PR agent" by anti-cult activists and an anti-cult fanatic by cult supporters. I must be doing something right. Strange; one might conclude that I must enjoy working on cult articles, but such is not the case..."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antaeus_Feldspar

- User talk:Jossi/Archives/15#Rick Ross

It really does say a lot about you that you read the quote above and apparently only half of it actually got through to you. I wonder if some anti-cult activist is even now copying the very same quote behind my back to yet another talk page and saying "Just look at how he brags about being a cult PR agent!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus Feldspar, thank you for your feedback. Without feedback, we cannot make course corrections and we do not learn.

Actually, very little is lost on me and it is interesting that you would assume that only half of your message got through to me. I suspect that more 'got through' than you intended to divulge when you wrote your glib repartee. At worst, I quoted you out of context, by saying that you 'brag about being anti-cult'. In reality, your 'quote' "appears" to brag about being able to annoy two parties "anti-cult activists" and "cult supporters" equally. In my opinion, this is hardly in the wiki spirit of cooperation.

Personally, I find the glib manner, with which you seem to proudly be able to annoy two sides, to be rather distasteful.

I suppose it equally says a lot about you, that you cite my opening remark and then omit the basis for it, below, where your actual actions were cited as reference to backup the claim.

The fact is, your statement makes no claim at all regarding your position on cults. You imply that you are neutral by making a joke about two sides accusing you of being on the other side, as if to imply that you are so perfectly neutral that both sides dislike you. You claim that you "must be doing something right" if you can annoy (and be seen as an adversary by) two sides.

I would suggest that, rather than being proud of annoying two groups, you consider modifying your style so that you are able to make this claim:

I have achieved such a balance in my editing that I am seen as a "cult PR agent" by cult supporters and an anti-cult fanatic by anti-cult activists. I must be doing something right.

And now, to be honest, you probably do not even see the flaw in your own statement:

The views of anti-cultists are basically, either you are against cults, or you are for cults. Anti-cult activists toss the cult label around freely, and anyone who disagrees with them on any given group, is termed a 'cult supporter'. They allow no middle-ground. They permit no views which are counter to their conclusions (and thus their facts) that an organization is a cult.

How do you account for the group which defends an organization, that has unfairly and unjustly been tagged as a cult? Must they be, as your statement suggests, "cult supporters"?

This is the flaw in your statement, which stands out and which "got through to me" loud and clear. Either you are ignorant of the issue, which I seriously doubt, or you are in the anti-cult camp. Only an anti-cult activist would presume to label the 'other side' as "cult supporters".

Thank you again. Your views are always welcome. Lsi john 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, you are making the mistake of thinking that if I use terms which will successfully convey to the reader that I am talking about a particular group, that I must be automatically endorsing certain assumptions which you think are inherent. I suggest a much simpler theory that explains the evidence: I was using the term because it successfully conveyed who I was talking about in the incidents I was referring to. Yes, I could have written, instead of "cult supporters", something like "those who advocate vehemently and militantly on behalf of particular organizations which have faced allegations that they are cults and in fact are advocating for those organizations specifically against the charge that they are cults". Should I have gone with that phrasing, just so that you couldn't use it as a reason to decide that I am either "ignorant of the issue ... or ... in the anti-cult camp"?

Secondly, I am at a loss to figure out where you think you got your evidence that I am somehow "proudly" bragging about an ability to "annoy" two different camps. If you, Lsi john, told me "Anti-cult activists think I'm a cult supporter," would it be logical for me to say "Shame on you, Lsi john! You are clearly bragging about your ability to annoy anti-cult activists! How distasteful!" I am also perplexed at your vision of what I should aim for: you seem to think that someone whose edits apparently please everyone (if such a mythical beast ever existed) would somehow be automatically someone with "balance" in his editing. Some people will never be satisfied by anything less than totally submission to their point of view; is being omnidirectionally submissive the same thing as being balanced?

Thirdly. I am not perfect and I acknowledge that I have much to learn. However, it's hard for me to think I have much to learn about attaining a certain attribute from someone who does not display that attribute themselves. Consider this, for instance: "The views of anti-cultists are basically, either you are against cults, or you are for cults. Anti-cult activists toss the cult label around freely, and anyone who disagrees with them on any given group, is termed a 'cult supporter'. They allow no middle-ground. They permit no views which are counter to their conclusions (and thus their facts) that an organization is a cult." Why would I regard the person who holds such prejudiced views as someone I should be looking to for lessons in open-mindedness?

At the beginning of your remarks, you said "without feedback, we cannot make course corrections and we do not learn" and yet you go on to outline a set of views which, as you describe them, would seem to serve as a very efficient filter blocking out any feedback which could challenge your assumptions. You will never learn from someone you consider an "anti-cultist" about very good reasons they may have for considering a particular group a dangerous cult -- you will just tell yourself "oh, he tossed the cult label around freely, that's all he did. That's what his kind does. He did not examine the premise that this group might be a non-dangerous or generally beneficial cult, and reject that premise because the evidence did not support it and supported the premise of a dangerous cult instead -- his kind allows no middle ground. He did not refine his views by seeking the feedback of others, obviously -- his kind never permits views which are counter to their conclusions. It's a shame their kind can never honestly consider anything anyone else has to say. That's why I don't have to bother honestly considering anything they have to say." Doubtless you will protest that I am, at the very least, exaggerating your views -- and yes, I probably am exaggerating the strength of your views. But at the same time, you chose to outline how you see anti-cultists, and you outlined a set of rigid stereotypes . -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

"...you are making the mistake of thinking that if I use terms which will successfully convey (my message? -ed) to the reader that I am talking about a particular group"-- Antaeus Feldspar

On the surface, you appear to be claiming to have achieved a noteworthy degree of balance, and glibly cite that both sides disagree with you and therefore you must be doing something right. However, in contrast to your claim that only half of your meaning got through, I looked to the deeper (Freudian) meaning which you have conveyed by your choice of wording.

Your words must stand on their own. Without giving background references to your reader, you alone are responsible for conveying your message through your choice of words. In once case I see "anti-cult activist" as a term that the anti-cult community hears used to label them, and in the other case I see "cult supporter" as a term that the anti-cult community uses to brand anyone who doesnt agree with them.

In order to 'successfully' convey to the reader which particular group you are describing, your description of the group needs to be the description they use on themselves, or at least an accurate description of the group. The reader must take your words at face value. In your case, it appears that both of your descriptions were from an anti-cult perspective. So the deeper question here is: from who's perspective did you intend "cult supporter" to be?

The reader only has your words and, therefore, must conclude that you feel the two sides view themselves (not each other) as cult supporters and anti-cult extremists, respectively. However, in this case the usage is flawed, as neither side applies those labels to themselves and the reader is left to guess at your meaning. You appear to have juxtaposed the use of the labels and introduced confusion. e.g. Perhaps, more clearly, what you wanted to convey is I am seen as an anti-cult activist by anti-cult opposition and as a cult-defender/supporter by cult-oponents. However, this is not what you said and, by your choice of wording, a deeper meaning came through.

You chose the words, I read them and see a deeper Freudian (secondary) message. If you are truly neutral on the issues, then a much clearer choice would have been "anti-cult opponents", which does not require all the words that you suggest.

Should I have gone with that phrasing, just so that you couldn't use it as a reason to decide that I am either "ignorant of the issue ... or ... in the anti-cult camp"?"-- Antaeus Feldspar

There is no 'should' or 'should not'. You alone are responsible for the choice of wording in your message. Thus, you alone are responsible for the message that you convey. You chose the term cult supporter which seems to clearly convey "one who supports cults". This implies that either "you" believe your oponents (in those cases) were defending or supporting a cult or "your opponent" believes he was defending a cult. If neither of these are the case, then you have chosen your words poorly.

Anti-cult activists may disagree with the adjective 'activist' but they seem to be fine with the 'anti-cult' part as long as it is not applied in a pejorative fashion. Whereas, in contrast, anti-cult-activist opponents are not 'by definition' necessarily defending or supporting any particular organization or group. They are often simply against what they perceive as a(n) unprovoked, unreasonable and unjustifed attack(s) coming from what they perceive is a radical and biased group.

Additionally, "cult Defender" and "cult Supporter" are rhetoric terms right off of the Rick Ross forum, used to brand anyone with views which, for any reason, oppose the anti-cult party line. They are not terms used by anti-cult opponents. Whether or not that is the message you intended, the fact is that is the message you sent and it is the message that I received. They are your words (not mine) and I went to great detail to explain how and why I formed the opinion that I did.

Now that you know that your words can convey this message, you are welcome to leave them or adjust them in order to more accurately convey the message you wish to convey.

"Secondly, I am at a loss to figure out where you think you got your evidence that I am somehow "proudly" bragging about an ability to "annoy" two different camps.Antaeus Feldspar

I got it from this:

I am seen as a cult PR agent by anti-cult activists and an anti-cult fanatic by cult supporters. I must be doing something right.-- Antaeus Feldspar

This seems to (proudly?) convey the message that you "must be doing something right" if you are seen as "radical" opponent from the perspective of both sides of an issue.

you seem to think that someone whose edits apparently please everyone (if such a mythical beast ever existed) would somehow be automatically someone with "balance" in his editing. Some people will never be satisfied by anything less than totally submission to their point of view; is being omnidirectionally submissive the same thing as being balanced?.-- Antaeus Feldspar

I did not make the claim that it was possible to achieve such a balance. I suggested that striving to become such a 'beast' would be a much more admirable goal than the one you claim to have achieved in being rejected by both sides of an issue. I believe that any factual article on such a heated and contentious subject, which is viewed by both sides as 'accurately representing their position' is the very definition of balance and what every wiki contributor should be striving to achieve.

However, it's hard for me to think I have much to learn about attaining a certain attribute from someone who does not display that attribute themselves

That is your choice not mine. I neither suggested that you have "much to learn" nor, more specifcally, that you have much to learn "from me". We can all learn (gain) something from every experience in our lives. Sometimes we learn things about ourselves, sometimes we learn things about someone else. Sometimes we learn how our words are being perceived and whether or not the message which we intended to send is actually being received. Whether or not you choose to learn something (from me or anyone else), is, again, your choice.

Why would I regard the person who holds such prejudiced views as someone I should be looking to for lessons in open-mindedness? -- Antaeus Feldspar

I never suggested that you should "look to me" for open mindedness. Perhaps you could learn by using me as an example of what not to be. Or perhaps you could step back and see if you have misunderstood my message. I was, in fact, talking about a specific and extreme group "anti-cult activists", who blatently target groups or organizations, and label them cult without scientific merit or foundation. I was not describing any person or group which merely opposes cults.

As I am responsible (see above) for the mssage which I convey, I apoligze for not being more clear.

I believe that people fit into four (perhaps more) groups or camps.

Anti-Cult activists/extremists - those who toss around a poorly or mis-used cult label like candy and label virtually everything as a cult. The term 'activist', to me, means that the person is actively seeking out and attacking numerous organizations without having scientific merit behind the allegations. An extremist means the person refuses to present any logical defense or evidence for their claims and refuses to hear any logical or rational case which refutes their claims. Activist/extremists plug their ears and cover their eyes to avoid seeing anything which might force them to change their mind and they quickly apply the label "cult defender" or "cult supporter" to anyone with a view which opposes theirs.

Note: The term 'anti-cult extremist' says nothing about the groups being labeled as cults. Clearly cults exist and some of the organizations targeted by anti-cult groups (extremists and activists included) are indeed cults. It is by actively attacking non-cults, however, that the extremist earns their label.

Cult-Supporters - members of actual cults who do not see their particular group as a cult. I believe that, in general, cult-supporters are (probably) against cults, they just do not see their partiular group as a cult. Cult-supporters would probably classify themselves as neutral.
Neutral parties - those who are able to remain unbiased and apply a strict critera and definition to lables like 'cult' and come to a rational and unemotional conclusion based on the evidence presented. Neutral parties, for example, have no problem with including cult allegations in an article on wiki, as long as the charges are well-founded (not simply cited and alledged). They would, however, take issue with an (balanced) article which seems to exclusively focus on the cult aspect and which includes dozens of citations which back up the cult claim, yet contains very little information about the organization itself or its accomplishments (if any) and philosophy from the organizations perspective.

I oppose cults. I support anyone or any group which labels something as a cult, as long as a rigorous and scientific standard of measure has been applied to the term/label and as long as the organization being labled meets that scientific test.

I am not an anti-cult activist extremist. I do not support the use of poorly defined terms or abuse and mis-application of lables and branding.

I am open minded. I will listen to any logical and rational case which is presented. I will weight the facts and the evidence presented. I will not accept "XYZ is a cult because Mr ABC said so". Anti-cult activists/extremists are not open minded and they hide behind vague definitions and resist any requests for scientific backing of their claims or charges.

Lsi john 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that Antaeus is saying that he is seen as "pro-cult" because he reverts silly vandalism by know-nothing wannabes that blank the Scientology page with statements like "SCIENTOLOGY IS A LOAD OF HORSESHIT - GET A CLUE!!!!" And he does revert vandalism; as do most editors no matter what their beliefs. I seem to remember either him or his ex-partner, User:Wikipediatrix, making the argument that their reverting vandalism means something as regards their neutrality. It does not and Antaeus falls very firmly into the "anti-Scientology" camp. That does not mean that he lets his POV influence his edits; I do not see that as the problem. My experience with him has been that he relently defends existing POV versions but he may not be as rabid as he used to be so I cannot speak for his present activities as he is not that active an editor in the Scn articles although he still votes the anti-Scientology bloc party line in disputes. You are right that the words are telling because a truly NPOV editor that had the level of knowledge that Antaeus has would know better that to call people like me or you "cult supporters". Note also that he uses a term of choice, "anti-cult activists", for his team. They do not like terms like "anti-cultist" or even "cult opponents". I should note that I would love to see any diffs of a real "anti-cult activist" disavowing Antaeus. --Justanother 15:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mis-read his claim. I see now that he claims to be accepted as an activist by both sides, not an opponent. Lsi john 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I miss the difference. --Justanother 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I had mis-quoted his user-page and transposed his words. He is claiming to be an adversary to both sides. Lsi john 16:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, Lsi john, Justanother's a good example. You'll never find him admitting that people can be firmly opposed to Scientology because of a careful examination and a thoughtful evaluation of the evidence. In his mind there are "neutral" editors, those who weigh and evaluate evidence, and there are "anti-Scientology" editors, and never the twain shall meet. He's voiced these views many times, usually in explaining why anyone who disagrees with him about a Scientology-related issue is biased and should be disregarded. It's a shame; he's another who would see a lot more of the world if he wasn't filtering out so much. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus, you make a fair point. It is just that I cannot see how you can be said to have evaluated the evidence without talking to experienced Scientologists that have gotten a lot out of Scientology. And believing them. I really do not think that you have; I think that you have only read a lot, maybe on both sides. But the real evidence in subjective. Certainly that is an opinion on my part. Another thing, Antaeus, is that you always vote (and revert) the straight party line. Compare that to AndroidCat, that, while a critic, does not follow party line but "thinks for himself". Point is that, to me, everything I know about you points to someone that has made up his mind without really taking a look at the other side. I think that is because you come in to the discussion from an anti-Church, anti-religious, position as an atheist, no? I think that people that give Scientology a fair shake have a more spiritual outlook and there is a lot about Scientology that speaks to them (if they know it) even if they hate some aspects of it. For you, there is no sympathetic aspect so your POV and, IMO, lack of experience with Scientologists, dictates your position. Obviously I am out on a limb a bit but I wanted to give you my take on it because you make a fair point about me but one that is not perhaps so true as you suppose. --Justanother 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent: Now who is using judgemental phrasing? It is a slippery slope, isn't it? I'm not a scientologist, yet I've had no disagreements with him. I respect his right to hold his views on his issue where it relates to his religion. If he were to deface Jewish, Muslim (or any other) websites by injecting unfounded Scientology jargon, then there would be an issue to discuss. (Note that I did not say that Scientology views are necessarily unfounded nor jargon, only that if he used unfounded views or jargon). If he were go go to an article on cancer surgery and inject a view that medical procedures are wrong, then there would be a discussion. Similarly, injecting unfounded and vague claims against scientology, or claiming that it is a cult is unacceptable unless one can show that it absolutely meets some rigid standard which defines cult. Lsi john 17:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this is what specifically identifies someone as an anti-cult activist/extremist. They do not need any facts and they neither need, nor want, to be constrained by any formal process of definition. They use vaguely defined terms which, with no hard definition, cannot be contested. They know what they know what they know and therefore they are righteously justified in their crusade, facts to the contrary notwithstanding. Lsi john 17:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another mark of an anti-cult activist/extremist, is that they show no indication of assuming 'good faith' on the part of the company/organization they are labeling. There is never an effort to mention anything good which might have come from said organizations. Based on the rick ross forum, though not citable as WP:RS, there is clearly an undertone of 'guilty' and 'hang em', and, other than by so-called "cult defendors" or "apologists", there is no mention of accomplishments nor any constructive discussion of workable solutions which would allow the companies to continue to exist, to accomplish their (good?) works in a safe and acceptable manner. This is because, to the anti-cult activist, there is no acceptable solution which involves the continued existence of the organization they have branded. Lsi john 17:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who identifies something as a cult is an anti-cult activist, and similarly, not everyone who stands in opposition to a particular usage of cult is a cult-apologist, cult-defender or cult-supporter. Only after carefully evaluating the facts in each case, can a determination be made about the validity of a specific claim. And, only after repeated failures to jusity multiple claims, can someone be called anti-cult activist. Lsi john 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

advice[edit]

Word of advice, John. Statements like this "I request that you stop using this incendiary, non-factual language." are red herrings to draw you off your argument and into a different argument - one that is about you, not about the article. That is a hard-won lesson for me and one that I am still learning. Stay on point, phrase things however you care to just so long as you are WP:CIVIL, keep your attention on the article, and just ignore the fish. --Justanother 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I have not given an indication of falling victim to any red herrings baiting. I think pov arguements, or dropping into personal debates with extremists, is a waste of time and counter productive. Two quotes come to mind.. "Arguing on the internet is just dumb. Even if you're right, you lose." and "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig".

I try to base all my communication in established and documented fact. If you should see me falling victim to baiting, just box my ears and I'll sit up straight and jump back on track. Thanks. Lsi john 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better then that you babysit me! Good on!! --Justanother 02:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hi. I am willing to help you in a kinda mentoring way, if you don't mind. I have made my share of mistakes but have had my share of success too so perhaps I can help. You would have to point me at where you need help, please, and take me through it slow (as in a little at a time). --Justanother 04:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is this Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10 Large Group Awareness Training. You can present a couple of instances where you have had trouble with Smee and ask the mediator if s/he has any need of another editor's experience in unrelated articles. My guess is no and the mediator will want to just deal with you two, but I could be wrong. However, as I have edited in the LGAT list article, I may be an appropriate interested party. I would have to review the edit history and see if I had trouble with Smee in that article. --Justanother 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont suppose you'd be available IRL ? Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10 Large Group Awareness Training Lsi john 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRL? --Justanother 04:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in real life Lsi john 04:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More articles are involved than just the one cited in the subject. Smee appears to already be trying to weaken or minimize the affect of mediation, based on her comments in the mediation. After expressing my overall concerns to two editors, I was under the impression that mediation would have some effect on Smee's overall conduct on reverts. It appears that she has no such understanding. Lsi john 04:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must realize that is also how it appears from your actions as well. Let us all take a step back and wait for the mediator. Smee 04:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Smee, please do not try to step on John's commnication to me. If you need to talk to him please open a new topic. --Justanother 04:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, Not sure what you want by IRL. If you mean by e-mail, I would prefer to keep everything out in the open. I reserve e-mail for non-wikipedia topics and you are certainly welcome to e-mail me about non-wikipedia topics. OK, don't worry too much, the mediators are experienced and they will not be thrown by misdirection. The important thing is that you should have a desired outcome in mind, both in how you feel that the various sources should be dealt with and how you feel Smee should act during a conflict with you, what changes she needs to make. Just spell out what it is that you are trying to achieve in those areas and leave any other personal or personality stuff out. --Justanother 04:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is that you should have a desired outcome in mind, both in how you feel that the various sources should be dealt with and how you feel Smee should act during a conflict with you, what changes she needs to make. Just spell out what it is that you are trying to achieve in those areas and leave any other personal or personality stuff out. - I agree with this. Smee 04:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Parenting proposal[edit]

Hey John, would you like to be adopted? Like by JA here or myself? Misou 05:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou, thank you for the offer. Though, I must admit, here too, that I am not sure exactly what that means, nor what I would be asking of you were I to accept the offer.

I did have an interesting revelation this morning with a rather ironic twist. My son, who is away at college and has no knowledge of my recent involvement with wiki, was talking to his mother (my wife) on the phone yesterday. He is currently taking two government classes and is doing research for a class report. In the conversation he mentioned that he would be using wiki as a research tool. My wife, who _is_ aware of my current struggles here, was concerned about the quality of his research and started to inject.. "Son! Do you know.." and he cut her off with this "Mom, relax, in our classwork we use wiki articles and their references as examples of biased opinions, and then we do real research to show the falacies presented on wiki." In another conversation with a friend, who also had no prior knowledge of my involvement here, I mentioned wiki and he volunteered that when his kids try to use wiki as a reference source, he won't allow them and referred to wiki as a "'blogapedia' full of opinion and bias".

Ironic, indeed, that the very things I have been fighting against, here on wiki, have been seen by and were confirmed by two independent sources on the same day.

Given that, perhaps I'm not supposed to fight against it, but allow it to continue and thrive.

Its also ironic (and sad in my pov) that the very rules and rights which give us all freedom of speech are used to undermine the fabric of the society which grants those rights.

I would actually like to discuss wiki and my role or value here outside of these posts and can be contacted by email.

Thank you again. Lsi john 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, you underscore the problem editors like you or I face as editors that are concerned about bias and truth in articles that we are very knowledgable about personally and for which a lot of bias and lies are floating around. We could leave Wikipedia alone and hope that its continued blatantly biased nature will serve to continue to sufficiently undermine its credibility so that it either collapses under its own weight or continues to be a disparaged source. Or we can try to improve the articles that concern us and bring balance. But by doing the latter, we might be doing ourselves a disservice as, until there are sufficient numbers of us here to actually do any good, all we are doing is adding the apparency of neutrality to a still-biased source. To clarify; let's say that if left alone the articles are 9/10 biased but the site is disparaged while if we fight like dogs (or gods) to make an impact against the tidal wave of bias and mediocrity here and manage to get it to 7/10 biased but have improved the apparency of neurtality so that more people "trust" it; have we done a good thing or not? Especially as the instant we turn our backs it jumps up to 8/10 biased. I do not really have an answer to that. My hope is that, if I continue to plug away, the neutral editors here will begin to support me and others that seek to reduce the bias. I think that I see that occurring but I may just be kidding myself. Regarding e-mail, let me clarify please that you are welcome to discuss wikipedia with me by e-mail. What I do not do is WP:CABAL; meaning that any co-ordination of activities that I do will be done in the open for all to see. Some people will still say I am "conspiring" but they are deluded. --Justanother 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those who are looking for conspiracy will find it. The fact that it does not exist and therefore no evidence exists is proof for them that the evidence is hidden and therefore the conspiracy must exist. They thrive on 'do you still beat your wife' questions, where any answer at all is presumed to accept the very basis of the question itself and any answer which refutes the question is proclaimed as avoiding the question and thus proof of guilt. No amount of logic or rational argument is effective, as they simply ignore anything which does not fit nicely into their pre-determined conclusions. 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The saddest part of all is that many of them truly believe they are champions of good and do not see that they are part of a brainwashed cult-mindset themselves, blindly following their 'leaders' and lapping up the drivel and circular logic. And, taken to the extreme, they will completely destroy the very society which protects them and their right to destroy the society.

However, in truth, the people doing the most harm are not the radical activsts. Their hysteria and shadow fighting, though extreme, can be understood and explained. The real harm is being done by the passive majority who are going about their lives with their heads in the sand (or clouds), choosing to ignore the damage being done. And, like the ocean gradually eroding the beach, by the time they notice the damage, may be too late to stop it. 19:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have not read Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged, I highly recommend it. You should probably avoid the poorly written wiki article on the book. Not suprisingly it seems to also be a rather highly contested article and, though it contains details, it does not convey the message that Ayn gave me from her book. I suppose everyone will see their own message in the novel. To be quite candid, the message I saw, scared the hell out of me. The book, written '57?, applies as much today as it did then.

The reason for my request for r/l discussion, was to facilitate a mutual understanding, a relationship and more rapid communication and learning than can be obtained by posting on public talk-blogs. Though I suppose it could be done, I have neither the time, the desire, nor the energy to coordinate some magical conspiracy to overthrow wiki (or whatever the presumed conspiracy would be intended to overthrow). Peace. Lsi john 19:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read Ayn Rand when I was a teenager and that was a looong time ago. Not meant to disparage her. I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance when it first came out and I got a lot out of that too. I liked Illusions (novel) an awful lot too. And of course Stranger in a Strange Land, again as a teen. I was a voracious reader when I was a teen, sometimes one or two books per day. Last decent book I was reading a couple weeks ago was Misquoting Jesus but a Sea Org member saw it and expressed strong interest so I gave it to him to read. On Rand, I think that Scientology Ethics has her all beat to Peoria and back. She has just one eighth of the puzzle as the Scientologist would say that she tries to reduce everything to the 1st Dynamic - Self. Again, you are welcome to contact me by e-mail; I just don't do co-ordination of edits by e-mail, that is all. --Justanother 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger in a Strange Land was soooo awesome, and some more recent most excellent sci-fi books include The Time Traveler's Wife and Jumper (novel), soon to be made into a movie with Hayden Christensen. Smee 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Quotefarm[edit]

I believe there should be a quotefarm tag there, and so I'm bold and put one on the article.
If you think the article is not neutral enough, there are tons of WikiProjects and dispute resolution (Mediation cabal/committee, ArbCom) options available.
"Only when its bias is so grossly obvious, will the neutrality be introduced by its obvious absence." - this is not the Wikipedia way of introducing neutrality. See above point.
Though you can respond to this, I will probably not act upon it, as I'm not interested in getting involved in this dispute more than I currently am. I will keep the quotefarm tag on the article as long as it's an obvious farm of quotes.

--User:Krator (t c) 14:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last note then - my intention with the quotefarm tag is not related to neutrality or (N)POV, or alleged bias. It has to do with the fact that it is a badly written article that doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article. I'm not qualified to judge NPOV in this case, but I am a Wikipedia reader (more than an editor) - and I flag articles that read awfully. --User:Krator (t c) 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

I have accepted your mediation case. Please watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-10_Large_Group_Awareness_Training

I will go through the discussion pages and history later today.

RogueNinja_talk 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your question[edit]

That ruling has already been made, a very long time ago. You can find it at WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. In effect, if there's a reliable source who says that they're part of "LGAT", we may say so, attributing that claim to the source. (If that claim is disputed, the handling of that can be found at WP:NPOV, we must frame and summarize the dispute without "taking a side" or editorializing.) If there are no reliable sources which make this claim, we cannot make it either. To make a claim which reliable sources do not make, based upon an editor's own interpretation, is original research and is prohibited. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3O Talk[edit]

I have posted this on the Third Opinion Talk page, and am copying it here in case you do not check there regularly:

If you have escalated to the point that you are in mediation, you are already past the purview of Third Opinion. Perhaps you should take it to Community Enforceable Mediation, and if that doesn't work, take it to the Arbitration Committee.

However, I see the Mediation process here has just begun; give it some time to play out before you escalate it to the next level. Snuppy 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross[edit]

I have followed the debate over Rick Ross and the reliabiity of his website and I just wanted you to know that I understand why you are raising the issue. I'm not really involved in the other debate with Smee and others who may wish to use him as a source. I just wanted you to know that I understand your frustration with such Anti-Cult sites. I have no idea if you are coming at this from the direction of having involvement in a new religious movement, but if you are, I just wanted to add for the record that I admire the late Jeffrey Hadden very much. One of the individuals who died at Waco was a childhood friend of mine. I was raised a Catholic myself. I have no idea when he turned to Branch Davidianism, but i do know he was happy there. He died early in the conflict, most likely from outside gunfire. When I was very new in my field (Anthropology, archeology and linguistics), I did a lot of work on the historic Shaker communites and it amazed me at how much resistance they met with in their time. I also know a couple of adults who left the religion of their youth who were subjected to captive deprogramming and it permanently fractured their families - a very sad outcome indeed. My interest in helping to edit articles on new religious movements and "cult experts" is to try to keep a balance. I often get accused of being a "cult apologist" as a result. As for Scientology, I have many friends in the Church and have enjoyed socialized with them at various events at Authors' Services. I feel that there's room for all of us under the sun and no need for such antipathy. I suspect you feel the same. Peace to you and just know I DO grasp the nature of your cocnern over Rick Ross's site as a RS.LiPollis 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

For more information on archiving, see User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto. For non-user talkpages and general info, Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page is also helpful. Smee 23:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually I meant archiving specific sections.. like you did with the one you just removed. Ive had other people remove sections, but i didn't know if simple DELETE was proper. There are a couple on my page I want to remove. Lsi john 23:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice my CAPS above, its really a habit, not intended to offend. I didnt even realize it until i went back just now and read it. I trust we can overlook each others annoying habits as often as possible. Thanks Lsi john 00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. In most cases, it's not a good idea to simply delete stuff from talk pages. Once you have figured out using an archiver like User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto, or a different one, it is not to hard to then manually archive certain sections as well... Smee 00:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

skeptics[edit]

Opinions on skeptics dictionary as WP:RS and WP:EL

3O Skepdic is reliable, per media coverage on the site, notability of contributors, and factual information to support the articles there. I've heard of the site in a good way, though I'm not interested in the field of scepticism and paranormal stuff at all. --User:Krator (t c) 16:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on the nature of the information being cited with a skepdic.com article, and the nature of the article. In general, it's a reliable source in it's field, as globalsecurity.org is in the field of foreign relations for example. There are no sources that don't make mistakes. --User:Krator (t c) 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles by the main editor of skepdic.com are written by a reliable source in the field, see above. As an example, I think it's safe to include the page you linked as a source for a Wikipedia article. --User:Krator (t c) 06:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The logic behind my decisions? Well, I read through the relevant policy pages, which lead me to this piece of text in WP:V:

“

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field.

”

--User:Krator (t c) 06:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

WP:ANI, Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), related to warnings you had posted on the user's talk page. Smee 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your note[edit]

Yes, it getting a little bothersome. Thanks for your help. Crum375 18:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't seen that much vandalism there so far, while there are sometimes useful comments from anon-IPs. Crum375 14:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input![edit]

Thank you very much. If you look at my talk page, you can see that Smee is making some promises. I feel that it is appropriate that I give her the chance to make the necessary changes in her behavior. That is me and is not binding on you nor on anyone else. What I recommend that you do is edit in the articles that interest you to correct any problems that they might have (see WP:PILLARS) and let's see how she does. I will be doing the same at my end. If you need any help, just hollar. Thanks again and Happy Editing! --Justanother 14:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comaze[edit]

As per your comment on LGAT, I'll hold on Lsi john. --Comaze 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lsi john 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only had small excerpt of conversation[edit]

Yes, I know that I had only a small excerpt of the conversation, and, from how it sounded there, it seemed inappropriate. I never meant to offend you by my comment on his talk page, and I sincerely apologize. - hmwith talk 14:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thanks! Ditto, and happy wikying! - hmwith talk 15:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are your answers?[edit]

relocated to approriate user page. (relocated from User talk:Lsi_john)Lsi john 12:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (returned to originally intended editor)[reply]

I want to first explain that I try to strike a balance between people's feelings and my actions. I had planned to give you another 12 hours from around the time you were blocked to return these, but by getting blocked you won't be able to do that. I had also planned on pointing out again, in detail, how unhelpful your answers were if it was necessary for me to return this feedback to you. I'll skip the details since you're probably feeling less than great and suggest you just archive this.

Frankly I feel like crap having to do this now, and though I know I could always choose to let it go, it seems like something that could cause other problems if I don't make myself clear in a firm but neutral manner. If you honestly think you answered my questions then I'm just saying your perception is wrong in this case. If it happens again with other editors you'll have at least two people saying the same thing, if not it'll just be a lonely piece of your archive. Either way, this wouldn't be happening if you'd left them here in the first place. Anynobody 10:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to mention this on the talk page and interfere with any new editors who wish to comment. You could've at least cited a .gov website or formal name of a department but this is what you answered when I asked for more specific information about your understanding of the process involved:

How are government reports created?

Well, presumably in one case, the CRS could write a report and send it to Congress, then Congress could add/subtract/delete or leave it intact, and then Congress would bless the report as Officially a GOVERNMENT REPORT on behalf of whatever agency it represented. But the initial CRS report is not a Government Report until it gets all the fancy doo-dads of an official Government Report.
Who writes them (which department)?

Any number of people can write them. Each Branch of the government designates that for themselves. CRS is not designated to write official "Government Reports" on behalf of any branch of the US Government.
What makes a report, a "government" report? (participation by a senior government official? etc.)

A decision to release it under the banner of Government Report by whomever is designated to make such a decision for whichever agency is releasing the report as a Government Report.

Well, presumably in one case, - not very descriptive of how government reports are created. Unless you are saying there is only one way they are created.

:Any number of people can write them. - could you name a few? Each Branch of the government designates that for themselves. - how? does each branch have it's own agency to do that, if so which agenicies are those? CRS is not designated to write official "Government Reports" on behalf of any branch of the US Government. - who would designate them, and who HAVE they designated to write them?

A decision to release it under the banner of Government Report by whomever is designated to make such a decision could you please be a bit more specific than that, words like whomever don't indicate you "know" the answer but are just guessing how you think it ought to be. for whichever agency is releasing the report which agencies release government reports? CRS is a government agency, but if they can't issue government reports then there must be designated agencies, which ones are they? as a Government Report.

This is what I got from your answers

Government Report: any number of people can write them depending on who has been designated to do so within their branch of government, it becomes a government report when a decsion is made by whomever is designated to release the report by whatever agency is releasing the report under a banner of being an official government report. You may have typed a response, but you didn't answer my questions. Anynobody 05:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, stick with a Congressional Report, which we seem to both agree is a Government Report. Answer the questions yourself and I'll look them over. Because I'm not sure who actually writes them. As far as I know a college staff member could write them for a committee. It would be printed up and distributed. Then the committee would vote on the wording and argue and debate. And so forth and so on.. At some point (this is more detail than I know, remember I'm a mathmatician) the committee votes and declares the report to accurately represent what they want to say. Then it may, or not have to go to the full Congress for ratification. You tell me, what is the process for releasing an official Congresional report?
The easiest way to end this is to do exactly what you want me to do. Go find a citation for Government Report which provides your definition. Until then, you are no more right than I am.
Please keep all this together and don't bring it over to my talk-page. Lsi john 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Lsi john, I don't know what kind of citation you are hoping for since each agency releases reports based on it's own procedures (for example CRS sends it's reports to Congress, and Congress calls them reports. Members of Congress then may release them if requested by one or more of their constituents).
I think it would be easier if you either gave more specific information OR admitted you really don't have an idea how these things work. You say you don't know who writes them, and your answer indicates you also don't know how they are written, or what happens to them once written since you cite unnamed committees debating them. You also insist that CRS is not "designated" to write official government reports, my position is that any agency of the us government writes their own reports and don't require "designation". Since I've shown examples of reports from various agencies, YOU need to find proof to back up your suggestion.
Also this section is feedback to you about your comment claiming you have answered my questions on the talk page this subject involves. Therefore it belongs on your talk page, I'll give you a chance to move it back before I put it back myself. (After all, you haven't answered my questions.) Anynobody 21:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

3O edit[edit]

My mistake. I simply thought that one person accidentally made two entries, not knowing any better. Thanks for letting me know of my mistake, and I will be more careful in the future. - hmwith talk 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way[edit]

John, please don't do this again. Moving my talk page comments to another user's talk page - esp. when it's something contentious - is just a little rude. I had no opportunity to reply nor clarify my comments, esp. if taken out of context. Can you see my point here? - Alison ☺ 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, when i do that, I ALWAYS explain why and where.. and I ALWAYS let you (or whomever) know that I did it.. I was blocked by a 3RR and cant get to your page right now..

Another tilman/smee thing. Lsi john 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Alison, notice how quickly Smee showed up here after the 3RR? Notice that he nicely FIXED my page for me and then posted right away and offered help?

Remember where he said he'd stay away from my pages? See how it works? Nice Smee, Polite Smee, helpful Smee.. just has to poke the nest.. Lsi john 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, please accept my sincere apologies for not being able to properly or fully document the citation.

Also please accept my sincere apologies for not being able to finish the edit that I had in progress at the time of this 3RR block.

Citing someone out of context is NOT something I do. And citing someone without telling them, is also NOT something I do. I consider it rude and improper. All I can say is that i was in the middle of an edit on your page, when the 3RR block stopped me from letting you know. I had not yet gone back to wikipediatrix's page to cite the source of the quote on your userpage and that specific area. I am terribly sorry.

You are correct, I need to step away. Smee is being a very large dick and is laughing about it. He won.

If Smee is really acting in good faith, why is this page still there? (not to mention why did he create it to begin with)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lsi john Lsi john 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I've deleted the page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you very much. Lsi john

Ok - I accept that you didn't do that deliberately and that you got blocked before you could finish. No problem - Alison ☺ 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply stated that you do not wish the help, I can take a hint. I am sorry, I will stop offering help and posting here. Yeesh. Even so, hope the unblock template help was helpful to you. I am taking your talk page off of my watchlist. Good bye for now... Smee 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Smee stop being a dickhead(whatever the citation for that page is). You cant even honor your promise to stay away from my page for 5 minutes without breaking your word. Lsi john 21:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok - enough already. Any more of that 'dickhead' stuff, regardless of context, and I will extend your block. You need to cool off in a big way here. Clear? - Alison ☺ 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes mam it is. I didn't appreciate being called one by Nishkid64 (above) which was the indirect result of Smee coming here to make trouble by poking me again and a direct result of my reaction to his visit.

However, that is no excuse, and it was childish to repeat it to him.

He has me off balance and you are correct, that is something I need to adjust.

The block was my own doing for not being more careful. It came at a terrible time. My frustration at only getting to 1/2 my citation, and leaving you in an ackward situation with another admin is rather high right now. Lsi john 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3RR[edit]

Regarding reversions[2] made on May 9 2007 to Youth for Human Rights International[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Very nice. Would it be possible to undo this, since we're in the middle of something now? I'd also like the opportunity to discuss this 3RR as well. It would have been nice to have had some notice and a chance to defend my actions here.

Lsi john 20:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you can request an unblock request/review by other Admins, that is usually the way to go about this. Please ask me to stop if you do not want my help on how to do this. Smee 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

what is the thrill you get here by bullying me? I really dont get it. Even now you pop in.. after telling alison you wouldnt do this shit.. you pop in and 'adjust' my page for me.. and point out that yo know how to get an unblock request..

You could have asked alison, or krator, or any number of other people to come help me.. but no.. you had to do it yourself.. you had to gloat..

Sir, you are a pathetic example of humanity and its truly sad.

Lsi john 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Whatever "defense" you may use won't distort the fact that you violated WP:3RR. Judging from your edits on this talk page, it seems you are knowledgeable of 3RR policy, which is why I didn't let you off with just a warning. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm currently involved in a harassment process with Smee. I'd appreciate a couple hours leave if you wouldnt mind.
- and I'd like an opportunity to discuss the 3RR. That we can do here.. the other bits, involve posting on admin userpages. Lsi john 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see only 2 actual REVERTS on that page, though I may be miscounting.

[this] was an edit.

Tilman edited [here] with the comment (rv to version of 14:43, 8 May 2007 Like.liberation - don't delete sourced material)

His revert was to a version that was 3 or 4 versions old. The revert was not directed at me, as I had not DELETED any sourced material.

Based on his edit comment that he was REVERTING IN sourced material and the fact that the version he used was 3-4 versions OLD, it was clear to me that he had accidentally deleted the SOURCED MATERIAL that I had just included.

So [here] I restored the material accidentally deleted by his revert to an older version.

That should not count as a revert.

However, [this] and [this] were reverts.. thats TWO.

Even if you count another as a revert, its still only 3, not a violation of more than 3?

Lsi john 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope you do not mind this, and please tell me if you do not wish for me to provide helpful info like this again to you, but if you truly wish to be even considered for an unblock request the proper thing to do is to provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock|your_reason_here}} to your talk page. And please, do not swear and use foul language at me, it is most rude. Smee 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Lsi john, here's how I counted. partial revert of material previously added by Tilman two days earlier (see WP:REVERT), [3], [4], and [5]. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the admin so its your call. I was not aware of the 1st as qualifying for a revert, thats a strict interpretation, and you're certainly allowed to penalize me for it. I counted 2 .. and allowed for 3 .. I'm aware of what 3RR is, I was not aware that the first edit was a revert.

Sort of amusing, since I was there as a neutral editor.

Sort of unfortunate timing, since I was in the middle of documenting a copy/paste from Alison's page and got blocked when i was trying to properly cite it. Which didn't help appearances any.

Its up to you. Ive explained how I saw it.

Thanks for your time. Lsi john 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, john, Smee came here politely, yet you've been acting like a dick to him. Remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64, no he didn't. I know it looked that way. Please see Alison's discussion page. Smee had just promised NOT to come here. That is the open issue right now which got interrupted by this 3RR. I have several actions open against Smee for harassment and stalking. He's fully aware that he is not wanted here.

He came here to gloat and he makes it look innocent and nice.

Lsi john 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello Lsi john/Archive/Archive 01! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Neutral Point of View Attribution Cite your sources Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome from Ratagonia[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Lsi John, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Try our tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
Keep the Five Pillars of Wikipedia in mind, and remember to write from a neutral point of view.
Sign your posts on talk pages using the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~, or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~.
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

To me, the most important point is to Assume Good Faith, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Study the policies, remain calm, and don't let yourself be bullied. The wiki is a collaborative effort, and everyone's contribution is valuable, despite what some other editors may think.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question at the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome, and good luck! Ratagonia 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratagonia, thank you for your words of encouragement and welcome. I must admit that it is very disillusioning to see such biased articles on wikipedia. It's frustrating to make edits and have them reverted by someone with more power and knowledge of the workings of Wiki. To be honest, my opinion of wiki has dropped significantly based upon my experience so far with the fanatical anti-cult activists. The fact that they can write such biased articles and legitimize their pejorative labeling is sad. Its funny, yet also sad, that they are actually a cult themselves and don't even realize it. Lsi john 15:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well. Nothing good persists on its own. It took me 6 months of studying wikipedia till I was up to speed enough to arm wrestle with these folks. And we seem to be getting a small squad of wikipedians cooperatively working to get some of these things (glacially slowly) into line. It's also good to go out and work on less contentious articles where you can just have fun and contribute without the wiki-stress. Ratagonia 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee-II[edit]

As a product of our mediation, I agreed not to edit any article which you have actively edited within the past 3 months (at the time of my edit).

I have abided by this agreement. I have posted suggestions in talk. I have participated in discussions and compromise.

It seems lately that you are less interested in discussion, based particularly on recent reverts instead of discussion participation.

If you are not interested in showing respect to a group discussion and participating in compromise, then I believe it is unfair to hold me to this agreement.

I will continue to honor the agreement until released from it.

At this time, I respectfully request that you allow me out of that agreement.

Lsi john 22:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is best in that case to instead re-open mediation. But I find it very odd that all you wish to do is try to comment constantly on your perceptions of me, rather than on the content of articles. It is very silly and counter-productive and inappropriate. Smee 22:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- It is very silly and counter-productive and inappropriate

That is a hurtful personal attack. Calling my conduct silly, is very unnecessary. If I had said it to you, you would have removed it from your page and said I was being hurtful. If you cannot refrain from attacking and name calling, then please stop posting on my page. Lsi john 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-What I wish to accomplish is

a working environment of cooperation and consensus and negotiation and compromise.
neutral and unbiased wiki articles.

I have been polite.
I have bent over backwards to avoid using any language which could possibly offend you.
I have submitted suggestions in discussion and asked your opinion.
I have not complained when you arbitrarily ignored my input and did what you wanted anyway.

-What do you wish to accomplish?

You give me platitudes of ok and then you make the edit you want the way you wanted it.

You ignore my suggestions, or you make 1 comment about a wiki rule, which does not address my suggestions.

You object when someone does something to you, exactly the way you did it to someone else.

You revert, without discussion. Yet you object and warn anyone who reverts you.

You edit other people's comments, which I believe is against wiki policy and is rude.

You constantly talk down to your fellow contributors. Your communications are curt, abrupt and rude. You declare your opinion as fact and thus shut down anyone who might disagree.

I find your behavior to be both hurtful and rude.

If you wish to open a mediation, then I am acceptable to that. Though I would like to know what we are mediating.

All I am asking for at this time, is to be able to edit articles, since you have shown disrespect to my opinion and the opinion's and input of others.

Lsi john 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on my talk page RE: the other issue. With respect, I did not mean to offend. But I will reiterate here again: I think it is best if we both refrain from criticizing each others' perceived behaviour patterns, and instead stick to discussing articles' contents on the article talk pages. Clearly we have a tendency to misinterpret wording/advice when it is not strictly about article content. Smee 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Smee, I really do believe that you mean well. Truly. I also believe that you come across just as I have stated above. My polite suggestions and observations were intended to help you understand what other people see and why they react to you the way they do. You have now made it quite clear that you are not interested in that feedback and therefore I will stop.

Please understand though, that if you are not open to feedback, then it seems that you are saying you don't care why we feel the way we do. Yet, if I can understand why someone is reacting to me in a certain way, then I can modify my behavior and obtain a different response from them.

You might recall that, once I realized you were actually sensitive and really were hurt by what you considered to be harsh words, I stopped using them. I was able to modify my communication with you because I cared about knowing why you were offended by me. And look at the result: We started working together in discussion and you even said it was fun.

I didn't have to do that. I could have continued along the path we were on. Throwing WP:LABELS at each other. Both knowing we were right.

But I saw what I was doing was unproductive. I saw that I was choosing to stay engaged with you. I saw that I was being stubborn. I saw that I was being righteous. In fact, I saw that I had become a reflection of you and it was not getting either of us anywhere.

So I chose differently. I chose to try to work with you. I chose to give up actively editing pages and, instead, to attempt discussion and compromise. It was a risk. I will not go back on my word, and therefore I would be unable to ever edit any wiki article that you had edited within the recent 3 month period. You could effectively block my participation on wiki. I gave you that power both as a sign of good faith, and because I knew that without your agreement, I would never make any lasting contribution to wiki anyway.

You have asked me not to give opinion or suggestion about your behavior, and I will respect that request.

In return, I request that you never declare any of my edits, comments or suggestions, or my behavior to be anything at all. If you have an opinion, I request that you include "in my opinion" in your statement. If you believe an edit is vandalism then I request that you state it as "I believe it is vandalism" and not flatly declare "it is vandalism". If you feel you are being attacked, then say "I feel that is a violation of WP:NPA" not simply "that is WP:NPA". If you believe something is hurtful then please say "I believe that was hurtful" or say "that hurt me", but do not simply declare "that was a WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA violation" without a formal wiki ruling on the incident.

In this way, I (and others), will know that you respect that we can also have an opinion and that it might be different from yours.

I respectfully, again, request to be released from the mediation agreement that I not edit any article you are editing.

Lsi john 00:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was something you imposed on yourself. However, in light of some of your more recent statements, I think it best if we ask the mediator to re-open the mediation. If you are agreeable to this, I will do so. Is that alright? Smee 00:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I do not think it is necessary to re-open the previous one. That one was opened on my behalf and I consider it closed.

If you wish to open a new mediation then I am willing to participate.

May I inquire as to what you wish to have mediated that we cannot resolve without a mediator?

I am unaware that you have made any requests of me that I have not agreed to.

Lsi john 00:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply that this is an issue that the previous mediator was involved in and familiar with. Smee 00:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Which is all the more reason to have a different mediator for a new mediation about new issues.

The previous mediation was opened on my behalf and has nothing to do with your desire for a mediation.

Again, I ask, what issues do you feel need to be mediated? What have you asked me to do that I have not agreed to do?

Lsi john 00:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this has to do with your agreements from a prior mediation, as well as your opinion that my citation of policies would constitute opinion rather than a cite to the policies themselves, which was affirmed by the mediator in the prior mediation, I think it best to re-open and continue that mediation. For example, the comments made by that mediator with regard to the policy of WP:RS are very relevant and material. Smee 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No mam. You have very seriously misunderstood my words. You are welcome and encouraged to cite any wiki policy that you feel is relevant. You are NOT welcome to declare your opinion about whether or not something complies with that policy to be a fact. You are welcome to cite your opinion as opinion. Lsi john 00:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that my statements are my opinions are self-evident, just as yours are yours. But I reserve the right to call out violations of policy as I see them. Smee 00:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ok. I will not pursue it. This is going nowhere. You want to state your opinion as a fact, and thus dismiss everyone else's opinion, yet you consider it to be rude and hurtful when people do that to you.

If you want to be seen as a bully and declare your opinion to be fact then that is your choice. I have attempted open and honest communication and dialog. Clearly you are not interested, if it means you have to change anything about your behavior. Lsi john 01:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the prior mediation to be closed.

The previous mediator stated, quite clearly, that my promise was not involved with the mediation. He would be unable to enforce it. My promise was to you. My promise is only enforcible because I choose to enforce it myself. I gave my word, and that is something I will not break. You and only you can release me from it.

Mediation implies that two people have tried to resolve something, and have been unable to do so. I am unaware of any requests that you have made, to which I have not agreed. I am unaware of any impasse that we have reached which requires the need for a neutral third party to arbitrate between us.

The only pending issue that I am aware of, is my request to be released from my voluntary promise not to edit articles which you have edited in a prior 3 month period.

What issue do we have pending that relates to WP:RS (or anything else) that we cannot agree on?

Lsi john 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may do whatever you wish. Don't feel that I am binding you to anything with regard to editing, except insofar as well all should hold to policies as with anyone else - and as reiterated in the prior mediation. Smee 00:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The only agreement you made in the previous mediation, was to agree to follow wiki rules.
I agree to follow wiki rules, the same as you did, in the prior mediation. You do not get to declare whether or not those rules are violated, any more than I do. You do not get to declare what is or is not a WP:RS. That is done by someone else. You and I are allowed to have an opinion, nothing more. Lsi john 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my word not to edit articles you have edited, and my word is my bond. Are you releasing me from it? Lsi john 01:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Smee 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. Lsi john 03:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance[edit]

I noticed that on April 30 the help request I posted on your behalf was marked 'Resolve via medcab'; is this true? Have you received the assistance you feel you need? Anchoress 04:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoress, Thank you for inquiring.

I typed too much in medcab and Smee was able to subvert the process down to a promise to follow wiki rules. He began the entire mediation by informing me that mediation was not about his overall conduct on wiki or about his behavior with other editors.

At the time of the mediation, I was taking it personally and thought one person (me) might be able to stop subtle abuse. I see now that I was wrong and I no longer confront Smee or take his abuses personally.

He has learned how to use 2RR subtly across multiple articles and has learned how to wait several days and come back later and get his way with a rewrite or another revert.

It is difficult to document the abuse in one or two lines in a complaint because the WP:TE is very subtle and he is generally careful not to push so hard that he gets caught or reported. If pushed to 2RR, he rewrites a section and includes his material that way.

Smee's edit pattern is to revert-first (regardless of how many edits were done in a series) with comment extremely well cited sources. Then revert again with dont remove cited material. He does not enter discussion (first) and give any explanations. When explanations are given, it is usually done by Anynobody on Smee's behalf.

It would take an amin with lots of time, to carefully study the timestamps on discussions and edits, and admin time is too valuable to use tracking down the subtle abuses of one editor.

Not once have I seen him enter discussion based on WP:BRD without being forced to by 2RR.

It appears that his theory is.. keep pushing and eventually other editors will get tired and give up.

I no longer engage Smee on his WP:TE and 3RR level and in discussions about his POV behavior.

The two editors who rush to his assistance are Anynobody and Jeffrire. Both can be counted on to add a comment to show up in almost any article discussion to support Smee. And I have not seen either of them ever critidize a single one of his edits or viewpoints.

Based on the above being too difficult to concisely document in an AN/I report, I am not spending time or energy on it. I'll report what I see and move on. His TE wont be stopped until it is recognized by more senior editors and admins and that isn't my job here.

Regarding the AN/I that I recently filed, that was not a complaint on behalf of myself, it was simply reporting a situation that I saw between Smee and other editors, to which I was a witness. Whether it is resolved or simply closed is up to the admin who makes that decision. I reported it and I have moved on.

Your comments, suggestions and feedback are always welcome.

Peace in God. Lsi john 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info. Good luck! Anchoress 12:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Smee, why do you insert yourself here in a disruptive fashion? Anyway, John, what I came here to say is that I do not know where Anchoress stands on our issues of mutual concern (respect for the viewpoints of people who believe other than you do) but I can say that, based on my interactions with her elsewhere, I have a lot of respect for her as editor and as an individual. So if she is offering to help you may want to consider accepting the help. She could probably provide some valuable insight from an uninvolved party. --Justanother 12:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee, it is extremely disruptive as you are trying to disrupt the communication between LSI John and a neutral third-party editor and, IMO, because John is discussing something that you do not want anyone to talk about. Please do not post further in this thread as John is deleting your remarks - you may continue this on my talk page if you care to. --Justanother 12:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoress / Justanother, I am always open to feedback and suggestions.

My intention (above) was to express both my concern about the abuses I am seeing, as well as explain that I am not holding energy around them, but am moving on and continuing to edit articles.

If you have any ideas or suggestions (or even criticizm) I'm more than open to hear them. It is my desire to be a productive editor on wiki and to help produce neutral articles which do not support an adjenda.

Thanks again to you both. Peace in God. Lsi john 13:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoress as an example, you will notice the disruptive comments Smee attempted to inject in here to distract the conversation, then jumped to his own userpage and documented it as some sort of abuse against himself. *sigh* This is the typical childishness that we have to deal with. Lsi john 13:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already read all the diffs in this exchange, even the deleted ones. I am not going to be visiting Smee's userpage, so I'll take your word for what is there. FWIW, I am interested in improving the encyclopedia, not cataloguing or being party to the cataloguing of a litany of wrongs on any side. The VERY best wishes with your future editing, Lsi John, and please call upon me for clarification of WP policies, if needed.

And @JustAnother: thanks very very much for the kind words. Anchoress 13:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoress well said. I hope that is also what you got from my comments. Initially I thought cataloguing the conduct would help stop it. I found that it won't and I have no desire to catalog them. Thank you for your offer, and you will probably be hearing from me as questions come up. Peace in God. Lsi john 13:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TE solution[edit]

John, I suggest that you start a log of every instance of WP:TE. You can do it at User:Lsi john/Log and I will do the same at User:Justanother/Log. The log is not to "knock" another editor but simply to track and document article changes. I would make a section for each instance where you changed something that you felt was inappropriate. Just the article, the text you changed, and each instance of it being restored, either by direct revert or by paraphrased rewrite. My agreement with Smee is that she get only 1RR on one of my changes then I go 1RR and then Smee has to ask for outside input. She has been pushing the boundaries of that with recurrent 2RR and that should stop. But if she is coming back later and reinserting without following our agreed procedure then I would find that egregious. I do not know if that is the case with my edits and I will start maintaining a log. The log is essentially just a log of diffs and there is no way that anyone could fault you doing that. Then if we need to take Smee to ArbCom we will have our case ready-made. --Justanother 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your agreement with Smee was a form of what I wanted to get. I wanted smee to agree to that across the board with every editor. Which is basically following WP:BRD.

It is sad to have to do exactly what I said I didn't want to have to do. catalogue of a litany of wrongs. *Sigh* Lsi john 14:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want that agreement then you should ask her for it. And if she will not grant it then go to MedCom again or ask the mediator to reopen your previous MedCom (the best route, IMO). My agreement with her is in my talk page archives - please let me know if you would like me to show you exactly where. --Justanother 14:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll give that some thought. Now, rather than wait for comments, he has opened 2x 3O requests to game the system. Lsi john 14:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, rather than let his attacks become personal, I'm going to step back and watch for a bit. Lsi john 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies...[edit]

For rewording your third opinion request. Though I may have felt the wording was inappropriate, and accusatory of another editor as opposed to focused on a content dispute, making an issue out of that on the third opinion page was not necessary. Smee 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your apology for your wrongful and inappropriate behavior is accepted.

Thank you. Lsi john 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Obviously this one really got to you and I'm sorry. Smee 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not at all. You apologized for inappropriate conduct and I have accepted the apology. Lsi john 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks. Smee 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Agreement[edit]

Smee, on multiple occasions you have reverted my article tags using this same (1 is sufficient) reason, and it gets tiresome. When I add tags, I add them because i feel they are justified and appropriate. I add comments with each tag to explain why it was added and I add a section in discussion for each tag.

Each tag has its own meaning and its own reason for existing. Therefore, if multiple problems exist in an article, I believe it is appropriate for all of the correct and appropriate tags to be attached to the article.

You did not state that you objected to my tag because the article didn't qualify for the tag. You stated that "only 1 tag was necessary" and you chose which one to delete. I maintain that is not your place and not your decision to make. As an involved editor, removing the tags is a conflict of interest.

Tags are not like article content. They are there to identify that a reader has an issue with something in the article. They should not simply be swept away because one editor doesn't happen to agree with them, or doesn't want them there, or doesn't want 2 of them there.

I requested the 3O for clarification on this issue, rather than opening an arbitration or other action against you. In good faith, I felt that it would be much less punitive. If you are willing to agree to stop removing my tags, unless you have a) my consent or b) 3O from an uninvolved and neutral editor or c) overwhelming consensus on discussion page, then i am willing to drop the issue.

Lsi john 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to pursue this issue further at this time. However, I feel that you misuse tags in order to make a point. In most cases, there is simply no need to have multiple tags on a page, and certainly not more than 2. Smee 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Are you willing to stop deleting my tags based on the above criteria? Lsi john 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular instance, yes. Smee 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, in general. In all future articles.. I am asking, are you willing to leave my tags unmolested, unless you have one of the following criteria?

my consent or
a 3O from an uninvolved and neutral editor or
overwhelming consensus on discussion page

Lsi john 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I feel that you are misusing tags purely in order to disrupt an article to make a point, I am going to call it out as such. Smee 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- However, in general I will try to seek out opinions on the talk page and from the 3O process and other processes. Smee 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - And that can be resolved by 3O or discussion consensus or AN/I and thus avoid edit war and conflict. There is no need to 'try'.. either you will leave the tags alone or you wont. I would like clairity.

So I request again:

Are you willing to leave my tags unmolested, unless you have one of the following criteria?

my consent or
a 3O from an uninvolved and neutral editor or
overwhelming consensus on discussion page
an AN/I or other wiki-ruling.

? Lsi john 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shall see how this goes in the future on a case-by-case basis. In general I will tend to seek out discusson and opinions from others of course. Smee 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- You are avoiding a direct answer. I would like clarity. If I am abusing tags, it will be a very simple process to get them removed via proper channels. If I repeatedly abuse tags, it will be a simple process to file a report against me.

So I request again for a specific answer Yes or NO:

Are you willing to leave my tags unmolested, unless you have one of the following criteria?

my consent or
a 3O from an uninvolved and neutral editor or
overwhelming consensus on discussion page
an AN/I or other wiki-ruling.

?

We will see how this goes on a case by case basis. I do not wish to be beholden to your specific points at this point in time. Suffice it to say that I will seek out the proper discussion channels as needed. Smee 18:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are still refusing to commit to an action. Your answers continue to leave a loophole which will allow you to revert my tags at any time for any reason you choose. Your words do not bind you to an action which shows good faith.

I will ask one more time for a good faith commitment from you regarding my article tags.

Are you willing to leave my tags unmolested, unless you have one of the following criteria?

my consent or
a 3O from an uninvolved and neutral editor or
overwhelming consensus on discussion page
an AN/I or other wiki-ruling.

? If you need to add additional options, please list what they are.

Lsi john 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pushing this issue. We will see how this progresses in the future. I will make a good faith effort to seek out discussion and other opinions, where appropriate and/or needed. Smee 18:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not pushing the issue. I'm trying to avoid tying up MedCab which is where we are headed. I'm trying in good faith to get an agreement and you are avoiding making any commitment.

I've listed what I believe is a very reasonable set of options for you, and you still refuse to commit to show Good faith and leave my article tags in place.

I've asked what other criteria you want to include, and you refuse to add any, and refuse to commit to a promise to show Good Faith with respect to my tags.

I won't ask again. Your refusal to enter into a binding commitment is evidence enough of your attitude on the subject.

Thank you. Lsi john 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your continual need to try and push me into some sort of binding agreement based on your own personal need for this, when I came to your talk page to apologize to you, is evidence enough of your inappropriate attitude and behaviour on the subject as well.

Thank you. Smee 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your apology was related to defacing my 3O request. It had nothing to do with inappropriately reverting my article tags. My request-for-agreement was related to reverting my article tags. Lsi john 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resp.[edit]

- This is a private (though publically viewable) discussion between Krator and myself. I would prefer that no other editors, from any viewpoint, insert comments into the discussion. I prefer that the thoughts expressed here remain contiguous. If someone feels that they absolutely must comment, please open a new section below. Thank you. Lsi john 14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though you deleted the comment, I want to respond still. Some points that may have created a misunderstanding:

The third opinion request read that the dispute was about lots of tags versus one tag, and if a policy existed for that.
After reading the article, I wrote a third opinion on the dispute. After writing the opinion, I read the talk page, and as usual, unless one of the arguments already present convinces me, I post the opinion I had written previously. Writing down arguments before reading what others have said is a good way for me to keep neutrality.
I did not, under any circumstance, want to specifically address or attack any of the involved editors. My arguments were valid for all involved, at least so I tried to make them. When I want to address someone in particular, it will be more clear.
I had not fully realised you were not part of the dispute, but rather an uninvolved editor who got into it later. Apologies for that.
I notified Smee of the thing I had written, because I thought it was relevant to other disputes as well, not because of any involvement. I had written an opinion on a related dispute in the same hour.
You might want to archive your talk page. Check the werdnabot link on top of mine.

--User:Krator (t c) 08:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This is a private (though publically viewable) discussion between Krator and myself. I would prefer that no other editors, from any viewpoint, insert comments into the discussion. I prefer that the thoughts expressed here remain contiguous. If someone feels that they absolutely must comment, please open a new section below. Thank you.Lsi john 14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krator, thank you for taking the time to respond, and explain.

I deleted my comment because I want to avoid confrontation, not create it, and I felt that part of it could be conceived as confrontational.

Yes, I was an uninvolved editor. I am NPOV on the entire Scientology issue. I noticed an edit war on the article and so I jumped in and made a few edits and recommendations. My recommendations were not well-received by one or two of the editors, who appeared to be trying to drag in unrelated inflamatory Scientology details, in an effort to bias the artlcle against YHRI and create a controversy around the group that doesn't seem to actually exist.

My edits were reverted and as you can see [here], I asked wikipediatrix for her opinion on how to handle the reverts to my NPOV edits.

I then posted comments in the discussion, and went back and made the individual edits again, carefully documenting each one with a reason, in order to remove what appeared to be anti-Scientology propaganda which was improperly included in the YRHI article.

My edits were immediately reverted, and the typical "cited sources" edit-comments were used.

After a round or two of reverting, I concluded it was better to tag the article, than to continue an edit war.

At that point, (to my knowledge), Smee hadn't been involved in the discussions or the recent editing. It wasn't until I added the 2nd article tag that he popped in and reverted my edit, with the abrupt '1 tag is sufficient' edit-comment. He didn't allow me time to finish editing the tags and fully document my thoughts/justification in the discussion.

Immediately reverting my article tags, seemed a bit rude. Reverting with a curt '1 is sufficient' seemed rude and arbitrary. Not giving me time to finish and fully document, and not asking me, in (any) discussion, what I was doing, seemed bad-faith. Based on his anti-CoS edits and his previous history with me, it seemd a bit of WP:COI might be involved. Then Smee started tossing around WP:POINT accusations, without even asking me for an explanation, which also seemed to be in bad-faith.

Note: I'm NOT suggesting that Smee was acting in bad-faith. I am simply describing how it felt and explaining how it seemed to me at the time. I try to always assume good faith and I have no doubt that Smee was acting in Good-Faith, from his perspective.

Side comment: Because of previously having my article tags deleted with edit-comment (1 is sufficient), I opened a 3O question, in order to obtain an opinion on the proper way to remove article tags. You were kind enough to clarify what I already felt was the case. If still active, the editor who placed the tag should be the one to remove it.

Please notice [here], that Smee repeatedly refused to give a promise to abide by that code of good-faith and civil conduct.

Getting back to YRHI:

In a previous conversation, with another editor, about another article, I had asked for the procedure on how to document, and remove, article errors. His response was:

"The excerpt of that source does not mention Lifespring, and as such the source does not match the text. Forget about NOR, that source does not speak of the subject of the article. I would place a dispute tag, and ask editors to provide a quote of the book (including page number) in which Lifespring is mentioned in that context. I would use {{Citecheck}} that says: This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text. If no quotation is provided in 7 days or so, you can delete it." ≈ jossi

I read that as (2) tags were required. (1) at the top to identify the article as disputed, and (1) to identify the specific section for citecheck.

Appling this advice to the YHRI article, I added the tags that I felt were appropriate. (1) at the top, for unbalanced. (2) to identify each section that had the specific problems.

I was not previously-involved in the article.
I have no particular interest in Scientology.
My edits were done in good-faith.
I applied procedural advice that had been given by another editor.
The tags were placed to avoid a continued edit-war.
I used the tags that I felt were appropriate to document the issues in the article.
I documented all my edits, and tags.
I opened sections in the discussion around each tag.

As far as I knew, I had done everything by the book and in Good Faith as a Neutral uninvolved editor.

So, when I saw your apology to Smee, I was very confused. I did not understand why an editor, giving an impartial 3O, would apologize to one of the involved editors for overruling them for improper conduct. I didn't understand why you would say "though I agreed (obviously) with your edit... Apologies - ". It just struck me as not impartial.

I also was a little offended by your summary of the tags:

<blockqoute>"All the tags on this article boil come to one thing: an editor doesn't agree with the way the article is written."

It seemed that you had not read the comments in [discussion], where I had been very clear on my involvement and position about the article. But I also felt you were entitled to your opinion and I recognized that there was quite a bit of discussion you had probably not read. I knew that you were trying to mediate between Smee and myself, because that's how the situation would have looked to someone jumping in, unaware.

However, based on good faith, I did not take your comments personally, and I did not voice an objection to the way you stated your opinion. I knew you were trying to be fair and impartial.

Smee hadn't even been involved, until he decided to block my attempts to edit and document.

I assumed, simply, that you hadn't read all the facts and discussion. And, it is, afterall, about the article, not about the editors.

It was not until you apologized to Smee, that I was confused. I didn't expect you to spank him, yet I felt that his conduct had been abrupt, rude, did not scream good-faith and certainly didn't warrant an apology from you.

Thank you for responding. Hopefully this helps explain more of the situation than you previously understood when you posted your 3O.

I have enjoyed working with you on previous articles and I look forward to working with you again. Your NPOV has helped keep me in check in the past, and I have no doubt I'll need it again in the future.

Btw, [here] and [here] is is another example of bad-faith on the part of a couple editors who seem to be on a witch-hunt fishing expeditions. It seems they can't believe that multiple people actually disagree with them, and that everyone who disagrees, must be a sock.

Best Regards,

Peace in God.

Lsi john 14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-

Some responses on specific points:

Apology I apologised to Smee because I placed a note on User talk:Smee asking for involvement, then immediately reverted the involvement I requested myself. Note that the edit I reverted precisely implemented what I wrote in my third opinion - that is why I obviously agreed with it. I had just spent ten minutes writing down arguments to support that precise edit.
3O' The "all tags boil down to one thing" was ment to address the heart of the matter, "why does someone place any tag at all on any article?", a necessary introduction for my arguments. This was not ment to address any editor in particular.
Tags User:Jossi's comment (if I have the username right) makes sense. My third opinions are not WikiPolicies - just my opinion. I try to give as many reasonable arguments for my opinion as possible, but they still are opinions. There are numerous ways to do it differently. The bit you quoted does not necessarily disagree with what I wrote, by the way. It advocates the use of specific tags, and I agree with that, with the condition that the specific tag does not require further explanation on the talk page. When a tag requires explanation anyway, my opinion (as supported by the arguments written earlier) is that using the smallest tag is best.
Tags 2 Besides the arguments on the talk page, my opinion is formed by strong stylistic arguments. I abhor clutter and disco-like colours on an article. That is why I added "small=yes" on most WikiProject templates on LGAT-related article talk pages. It is also part of the reason why I think blue, green and red templates all mashed together on top of an article are abominations. It makes reading the article harder.
NPOV, LGAT and Scientology I had the impression that you were involved in something Scientology like, so I assumed you did not have a neutral point of view in the article. Not that it mattered much (as the 3O wasn't directed at you in particular), but I think it is good to note that I had that impression. The public opinion on LGAT, NLP, Scientology and all related things here in the Netherlands is that it is all "New age cult-like stuff Americans wearing suits do". My personal knowledge is very limited beyond that public opinion. When explaining what LGAT is to any other Dutchman, I would not hesitate to compare it with Scientology, in fact.

--User:Krator (t c) 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You should archive this page. See my previous note on that. ;)

-

Thank you. I'm trying to get my head around the archiving process and simply haven't made it a priority.

A couple years ago, I completed a series of Personal Growth (seminar) courses. I am not sure that what I took can be classified as LGAT, and, to my knowledge, noone has classified the coursework that I took as LGAT. However, because the definition of LGAT seems to be a matter of personal opinion and is applied subjectively, I have no doubt that someone, somewhere, someday will add the LGAT label to that coursework.

Based on the courses that I took, and my overall positive experience (and results) in those courses, I acknolwedge having a positive view of the training and the principles of personal responsibility that they attempt to teach. However, even if someone does tag these courses as LGAT, I would not consider myself involved in LGAT, since, other than my coursework, I have no connection with any company in that industry. I am simply an informed person, with personal first hand experience with the subject matter.

I have no desire to promote LGAT but I do have a desire to prevent it from being unjustly attacked. However, that desire applies to every article and subject that I edit. I think that is called NPOV :-}!

LGAT is a methodology that describes an overview of a process, not any specific company, idiology or religious beliefs. In fact, before I got to wiki, I knew very little about any of the companies that are accused of being LGATs. I say accused because, in my experience, LGAT is being used as an accusatory label. When used carefully, that accusation is masked. But by writing numerous articles about bad companies, and bringing LGAT into lead paragraphs, the subtle negative undertone is attached to LGAT. My views on how the LGAT concept is treated are well-documented in my essay on my user page so I will not elaborate further here.

To my knowledge, Scientology purports itself to be a religion and is completely unrelated to anything connected to the LGAT group training seminar concept. I am not involved with Scientology. I have no first hand knowledge of Scientology. I have no opinion of CoS.

Some editors, from the anti-cult viewpoint, seem to view both Scientology and 'LGAT methods' as cults or cultish. Though, I'm unaware of anyone who has claimed a connection between Scientology and LGAT. They are unrelated subjects, with the only common thread being the cult label, added by some individuals.

As it tends to be roughly the same group of people who appear to be attacking both LGAT and Scientology, it is reasonable that our paths will cross if I pop into an artlcle related to Scientology. And, this could explain why you had the impression that I was somehow involved in Scientology.

Regarding your comments and your response to them.. As I said, I assumed Good-faith on your part and I did not take it personally. My intention was to clear with you and explain how I received your remarks. I hold no ill will. It is only through feedback that we can analyze our choices and improve the quality of future decisions. And, by clearing with you, I am able to release any emotional attachment that I might have to your remarks, and put the entire situation behind me as closed.

Again, thank you for responding. Taking the time to read my verbose commentary, and taking time to respond, demonstrates respect for me as an editor and a person. That is very much appreciated.

Peace in God.

Lsi john 15:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

"Though, I'm unaware of anyone who has claimed a connection between Scientology and LGAT." Actually, Smee had Sterling Management Systems in the List of Large Group Awareness Training organizations before I removed it and her bringing in WP:3O went against her (as usual) [6] Actually, it was Krator that provided the 30. --Justanother 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks! I'll stand behind my comment on three counts.

My intended meaning was related to any WP:RS, which Smee clearly isn't.
I was unaware that Smee had done this, and my comment said unaware. ;)
I was not aware that Sterling Management was connected to CoS. I don't believe I've done much in that article, and I'm generally reading for context, verifiability and accuracy rather than content. I don't particularly care about the details, as long as they are accurate and don't seem to lead me in any particular direction.

Peace!

Lsi john 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. I was just making "small talk". --Justanother 16:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. sorry if i came across as too formal. btw, i thought 'this' was small talk.Lsi john 16:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha --Justanother 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had confused one Sterling group with another, which is an LGAT. Honest mistake. Smee 05:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

drop by anytime you feel the need to confess mistakes. Confession is good for the soul. ;) Lsi john 05:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am human, and I exist in corporeal form. Smee 05:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That is not an established fact, but I'll accept your OR. And, in case you were wondering, the juvenile and petty editing of sentences that I'm currently editing, really doesn't bother me. It is amusing and speaks to character. I'm here to improve articles. Watching the games, is an interesting diversion. Lsi john 05:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions and edit patterns are amusing as well. I am here to seek out new topics and new reputable secondary sourced citations, and to boldly create new articles from those citations. Smee 05:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And indeed, you should boldly go where no man has gone before (c) Startrek ;) psst, you dropped out of character. What happened to the ouch that was hurtful facade? ;) oops. Lsi john 05:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be sorry[edit]

I mean to me it seems like you made a rather ridiculous single edit before the account was blocked because the username was against policy. For the time being I really wouldn't worry about the other editors. You say that are trying to find something that doesn't exist -- so don't worry abut it. Just make sure to be civil and keep a cool head. If other editors want to try and find something suspicious, you can't do anything about it. Until another editor makes an official case out of it, I really wouldn't worry. I would have told you to mark the userpage for deletion, but seeing as Alison suggested we not do that for the time being I'd take that advice. In summary: Don't worry about it yet. MrMacMan^Talk 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC) corrected statement. MrMacMan^Talk 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just hate to see admin time wasted chasing ghosts. The only good thing is that it will show smee for what he really is, when all is said and done. Lsi john 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MrMacMan, you may have missspelled "civil" as a typo. You probably meant: "Just make sure not to be uncivil and keep a cool head." That is very good advice. Smee 08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Something like that, thanks for the correction. MrMacMan^Talk 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries. Smee 08:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Checkuser and such[edit]

Well, the Lsi admin account isn't really an -abused- sock, per se, and "admin" of some sort is a pretty common username mistake. That's not a real big deal.

As to checkuser, a checkuser will not be run to "prove innocence", as it's useless for that anyway. Someone who was careful could very easily edit from different IPs on different accounts, so a negative checkuser just means it isn't proven that two accounts are related. It doesn't mean they're definitively not. As to the rest, however, anyone suspecting sockpuppetry can file a case at WP:SSP. It'll be looked at and examined, and a determination will be made. However, it is generally inappropriate to call another editor a "sockpuppet" until such a determination has been conclusively made, either at SSP or by a checkuser, that the accounts are indeed operated by the same person. (I monitor SSP, but since I've been involved in this issue it probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to make a determination. Someone else would, however.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "procedure", per se, but you can certainly remove the sock tag from Lsi admin. That's not really appropriate there anyway, it was blocked for a username violation, not for abusive sockpuppetry. It's perfectly appropriate for someone who creates an account that has a bad username to pick a different, acceptable username for a new account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a single (talk) page to discuss this with all involved parties and I will probably write up something there. An editor review subpage would be most appropriate, neutral, and accessible.

Keep in mind that only abusive sock puppetry is not allowed. Having multiple user names is allowed, as long as they are not used (for example) to create a false belief of consensus in discussions. Some editors use a separate account to revert vandalism to keep their main user page vandalism-free, for example.

Regarding your first edit, there is a userbox for users like you: {{User Reformed Vandal}}.

--User:Krator (t c) 14:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two accounts never co-existed. That would seem? to disqualify using the label SOCKS.

As to my first (and only) edit on that initial account..

I'll accept the consequences of my actions, because they were my actions. And we are all responsible for the consequences of our choices and actions.

I would, however, still strongly object to the term vandal, as vandalism requires an intent to deface.

While I see now (and actually as soon as I was blocked) that it was misguided; at the time of the edit I was posting what I felt to be true and accurate information about the RR website. Looking at the edit, hopefully you can see that there was not an attempt to vandalize the page, only a misguided attempt to insert POV; before that I knew that a wiki community existed and before I knew what NPOV editing meant and before I knew that edits required WP:RS sourcing.

I would hope that in order to qualify for vandalism a user's first wikipedia edit would need to be seriously off-topic, or much more destructive to the page and that one lone edit would not qualify as a permanent brand of vandal

Please notice that when I re-registered, and realized that rules applied and had to be followed, no further edits of that nature occured.

And, Reformed would seem to imply change from an established pattern. One edit, hardly constitutes a pattern.

Thanks. Peace in God. Lsi john 14:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that I may have misunderstood your attempt at humor. Am I correct that the reformed vandal userbox is intended to be humorous? If so, I apologize that the humor escaped me. I find the attacks and smears and edit-harassment by Smee to be rather disconcerting and my sense of humor needs a kick start. Lsi john 14:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is still continuing to follow me to articles and userpages, and continues to post 1-line trivia just to make his appearance known. This really needs to stop. Can nothing be done? Lsi john 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rather improper COI[edit]

Hi, ok, I tried to look a bit at some of the diffs you mentioned (and of course the context around). Reading Smeee's talk page, he seems like someone sensible you can talk with. For this kind of problems, honestly, the issue is most of the time communication. If you really seek a formal review, and that some other editors expressed the same concerns as you did, you can fill a Request for Comment. But be careful, RfC will attract attention on both of you, and shouldn't be taken lightly. Remember that WP:RfC needs more than 2 editors involved. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucasbrf, thanks for responding.[edit]

I have no issue at all with attention being focused on me. I have nothing to hide.

And as far as him appearing to be reasonable, of course he seems reasonable. I never suggested he was stupid. He's not. He's actually very good. He's very adept at flying low, pushing the issues right to the edge and then apologizing properly (with just the right touch of sincerity, but without actually saying im sorry), while doing exactly the same thing in another article with another editor.

The RfC-action will need to be very detailed and very well documented. He's a prolific writer who has made many special interest friends as well as many neutral friends along the way. A systemic pattern of abuse, pov, and harassment would need to be documented. The RfC would be just as polarized as a recent AfD on a cult-list, with the anti-cult weighing in heavily in his favor, the anti-anti-cult weighing in opposed and the neutral editors being evenly divided.

On a side note, I'm not sure if previously being thrown off of wiki is admissible in current proceedings or not.

The fact that the Landmark article is his centerpiece pretty much establishes that in my mind that he attended one of their courses. People who are unwilling to accept personal responsibility for their actions tend to leave Personal Growth seminars with a bitter attitude and blame the course instead of accepting responsibility and changing their behavior. Based on numerous examples of his failure to accept responsibility, until required to do so by 3RR or 3O or other administrative decision, I can only surmise how painful his Landmark course was for him.

My next guess would be that he found RR.com and was welcomed into their fold, where he found acceptance and love in a mutual group-hate for Landmark. And now, he's quite the prolific writer, with seemingly countless hours of idle time to devote to anti-landmark, anti-LGAT, anti-CoS and anti-cult articles.

Much of that is mere idle speculation, but a careful and thorough examination of his edit history will show a uniquely SPA, that has been devoted to adding 100% negative information on the above subjects to wiki articles. I would hazard that not a single original piece of data has been added from his account(s) which sheds a positive view on any of the above subjects. Some neutral data is unavoidable, like the date a company was founded, or who their owner was. Each individual article is skilfully written to avoid an obvious appearance of POV. Yet, when viewed more critically and accross multiple articles, I believe a pattern emerges and the absence of any constructive or positive information begins to show.

Note that I am not suggesting articles must have positive information. I'm suggesting that his writing, across multiple articles, never includes any positive comments or statements about the companies, or LGAT, or CoS.... And that, in my opinion, is very significant, given the number of articles he has written. It seems a statistical impossibility to have written that many articles, and never have uncovered a single usable glowing fact about the companies and subjects he writes about.

RfC? Bring it on. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I'm not sure he'd fair so well under intense scrutiny.

Note, also, that he has forbidden me to post on his user page, but I find it unlikely that he will show the same respect and leave mine unmolested, as he already has an established history of injecting unrelated comments into discussions in an effort to disrupt them.

Lsi john 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MFD assist[edit]

Read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#How to list pages for deletion
Follow the instructions.

That gives you the step by step for submitting a deletion request there. - TexasAndroid 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your postings everywhere...[edit]

Are unnecessary. Whether your requests are appropriate or not, I am willfully making my best effort to avoid posting further comments on pages where you have requested that I not do so. Smee 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have requested that you not pop into any conversation, not just specific conversations.

I have requested that you not drop your innocent fained help, simply to show you are a more powerful wiki user.

You know exactly what you are doing. You are doing it intentionally to keep me off balance in the hopes that I'll slip and say something totally usable in an NPA attack or whatever other charge you intend to bring.

But you have created every bit of this. I am not following you, you are following me.

I am not jumping into articles that you are writing, you are jumping into articles that I am writing.

I do not jump in and edit the same sentence you are in the middle of editing, you are doing that to me.

I am not making false socks claims against you, you are doing that to me.

I am not improperly labeling users as your sockpuppets, you are doing that to me without any evidence or proof. And you fought my efforts to stop you, but once an admin gave an opinion, you turned on the smile, the charm, and politely removed the sockpuppet tag. You knew it was improper, you've been here too long, you know the rules, but you did it anyway, until you got caught and were forced to change it.

I am not creating improper SUSPECTED SOCK PUPPET public pages on you, you are doing that to me.

There is zero evidence that I use or have ever used a sock account on wiki, yet you continue to create documentation surrounding your innuendo and speculation.

I am not refusing to make agreements with you about reverting your article tags, you are refusing to make them with me (and the agreement was virtually identical to the 3O that krator gave on the exact same subject)

I was told to create an RfC on you, but I didn't want to. I hoped you would just stop. I hoped you would leave me alone and let me edit.

But now you're pushing me around to make your POINT. You're proving that you are bigger and stronger and know more rules. You are proving that I can only stay if you allow me.

Please stop it.

Please delete the old account which was clearly a newbie mistake.

Please leave me alone, and stop following me to every conversation.

Lsi john 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you see things that way, but you are misinterpreting my actions, and your perceptions are incorrect. The reason that you may perceive that I changed intentions regarding a certain page after another editor has weighed in, is because of my respect for the process. Thus, you will often see that if a neutral, previously-uninvolved editor gives a Third Opinion in the past, contrary to what my position was, I quickly acquiesce (most often at least). I will honour your request to the best I can, and I will try to stop posting comments where you have previously posted comments on user's talk pages. Smee 18:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

but you are not neutral. you have serious COI. yet you continue to edit my 3o, you revert my 3o, you disqualify a sock petition with SERIOUS COI, and you were reprimanded. Even if the petition was invalid, you knew better than to edit it. You did it because you could, and you knew you could claim oops because the petition really didn't qualify based on the rules.

you are shoving the rules down my throat at every opportunity. and rather than let another editor or admin tell me, you make sure that you are the first on the scene. why? because you know it will annoy me.

It really has to be a game for you, or you'd act differently.

If it were respect for the process, you wouldn't make so many COI edits and reverts. If it really were respect, you would not continue to push me, when you know it is not well received.

your intention seems to be to push me just hard enough that I'll go out in flames for you.

Dude, just tell me to leave.. I'll go quietly.

Why do you want the controversy? Why do you need to feel powerful?

I can only imagine how painful your coursework must have been.

All that I have said is true, as is the fact that I accept responsibility as well. I have continued to edit here. I have chosen to stay rather than leave, and that choice carries the price of enduring your harassment. That choice is on me and I acknowledge it.

I am truly sorry for your pain and what must be extreme loneliness.

Peace in God for your soul and may you find happiness on earth. -john Lsi john 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you feel frustrated, and I too was once heavily quoted policies, and sometimes I also felt that I was being followed around on the project by other, more experienced users. I acknowledge that you may have perceived some of my prior actions in this manner, and if so, I'm sorry for that. Hopefully you will see that I actually do have a respect for process, but I also have a tremendous sense of respect for the policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and as such, I must state that I do feel it is inappropriate and take offense at your constant attempts to analyze me and how you feel I exist off-Wiki. Smee 19:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am truly sorry[edit]

Alison, there is no way to express how crappy I feel for that edit on your page.. my situation with smee is of no consequence.. but even an appearance of disrespect to you (like improperly and un-fully citing you), is NOT something that sits well with me. And that isn't justification for lashing out at Smee and subjecting you to it.

I'm sorry. Lsi john 21:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I saw, just now, your acceptance above). -peace Lsi john 22:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. Forget and move on time :) It's no big deal at all ... - Alison ☺ 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh, indeed. Thanks. I was getting ready to move a bunch of stuff over there, it seems that I must not have the archiver setup correctly. It can wait. Peace in God. -john Lsi john 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot edit your subpages during a block. --Justanother 16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions[edit]

John: I left some suggestions for you and Smee at WP:ANI. Enjoy the break, take a walk in the park, enjoy the fresh air, or do any one of those things that you can't do in the wild frontiers of WP. :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I shall. Best regards, as always.

peace in God

Lsi john 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipediatrix[edit]

I apologize for not properly citing my quote from Alison. Being blocked by 3RR is not an acceptable excuse. Had I cited it properly with the first edit, I would not have been caught by 3RR with it uncited. Citing out-of-context is NOT something that I believe is acceptable. I'm sorry for that.

I also thank you for the notes on AN/I. As with most NPOV comments, they appear POV when viewed from a POV position. I was involved and they looked rather prejudicial to me. I have re-read them, and I feel silly. They were most fair.

I still disagree with your assessment, however that does not affect the fairness of your presentation.

Its actually good to know and work with you. When you sound Biased or POV.. it probably means that its me, not you and that recognition is worth the price of admission.

Peace in God Lsi john 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment[edit]

John, would you please briefly outline the recent harassment? I already know about the checkuser fishing expedition (witch-hunt) by Anynobody appended to the COFS case. Would you please fill me in on the recent thing with another account of yours? Also any location unrelated to any of the parties where they interjected themselves in a manner that you found disturbing? Thanks. --Justanother 03:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go through what you posted below and comment. Please forgive any bluntness. I asked for locations unrelated to them so if it is related I must say that, while it may be annoying, it is not actionable. --Justanother 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-

15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[edit]

smee posts note on my checkuser saying its resolution is acceptable to him. [here] why? Was his opinion of a checkuser relevant? needed? necessary? important? It wasnt filed for him or by him. What possible reason was there for him needing to say it was okay with him that it got rejected? It served no wiki-useful purpose.

It was useful, however. It allowed him to point out to me, a) that he saw it. b) that he knew it got rejected. c) that he had no problem with it being rejected. He was laughing behind a AGF wiki post.

Smee was involved. Not actionable. --Justanother 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[edit]

smee pops into conversation to provide unneeded and unrequested definition of MfD [here]

Very annoying and smarmy but Smee was involved, right? Not actionable. --Justanother 18:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[edit]

smee promises (on my user page) to leave me alone [here]

19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[edit]

[here]

smee promises Alison he will leave me alone

20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[edit]

smee promises Alison to leave me alone [here]

By this time, it should be well established that he knows I have an issue and he has clearly promised to avoid me, avoid places where I am.. he has promised to remove articles from his watch list, promised to remove users from his watch list.

All very grand jestures. All very kind and benelovent.....

Yet

20:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[edit]

I get a 3RR [here]

and guess who shows up...

20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[edit]

Smee [here] to 'clean up' my page by adding divider. Is he the wiki-housekeeper? Is it his job to clean up my page? What about him leaving me alone? What about my specific requests to him to NOT edit FOR me?

He was pointing out, behind a AGF wiki post- a) you got 3R b) I know it c) now you know I know it.

20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[edit]

and again [here] to offer yet more unrequested assistance.

Was he the only person who could offer help?

Was there noone else who could have helped? Had I asked for help?

Why doesnt he offer me assistance when we're editing and removing his POV from articles?

The above three are definitely "stalk-ish" esp after you told her to leave you alone. --Justanother 18:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then he goes back to more promises[edit]

20:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[edit]

smee promises Alison to leave me alone [here]

20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[edit]

smee again promises Alison to leave me alone [here]

-

This is an example. All those promises... Was he the only person on wiki who could have corrected that horrible section error on MY userpage? C'mon. AGF all you want, he had just promised over and over and over again, to leave me alone. He's gaming the system with sweetness. He's harassing me with kindness.

He refused to agree to a very simple request [here] regarding my article tags. Read that, its not strict. Its not opressive. Its reasonable, and a subsequent 3O ruling, shortly afterwards, confirmed that civilized behavior required almost exactly what that promise-request contained.

Article tags - 3O[edit]

When I added article tags, to stop an edit war, smee

15:56, 7 May 2007 UTC.

I added article tag for improperly cited material [here] with edit comment (Claims in the first paragraph do not match the cited sources.)

15:59, 7 May 2007 UTC.

I added a 2nd tag [here], for Original research in another section of the article with th edit comment (This article appears to contain original research and conclusions by editors.)

16:05, 7 May 2007 UTC.

Smee reverts one of my tags [here] with the comment (one tag is sufficient here)

They were UNRELATED tags, and I had not yet found the proper tag for the next edit..

Smee had not edited this article since may 4. Yet he suddenly popped in and issued a ruling on my tags without discussion?

16:14, 7 May 2007 UTC.

I revert my tag back in [here] and per previous discussion around tags use the comment (Please do not remove another editor's tags. We've been through this before. BOTH tags are justified.)

16:15, 7 May 2007 UTC.

I relocate the OR tag to the section [here] and

16:20, 7 May 2007 UTC.

Again Smee reverts my tag [here] with comment (2 tags are unnecessary here. 1 is sufficient.)

All of that can be written off as opinion and general Wiki warring... However.. In order to get a ruling, to stop this nonesense I opened a 3O on the issue:

Note, my 3O was NOT about the quality of the tags, but to get a ruling on who should be deleting tags.

16:46, 7 May 2007 UTC

I opened 3O request [here]

"Youth for Human Rights International - Is it appropriate for an involved editor to remove template tags placed on an article by a 3rd party previously-uninvolved editor and justify the removal with 'only 1 tag required per article'? Note: there are currently 3 tags on the article, but the initial tag removal began at 2 tags"

Please notice, this was a very specific question about WHO should be removing article tags.

16:47, 7 May 2007 UTC

Smee completely re-write MY 3O [here] to completely change the meaning and direct the focus away from his action, and onto whether or not the tags were appropriate = and tagged it "FIXED ENTRY". This was not a FIX, and it was not his place to FIX my entry.

"Talk:Youth for Human Rights International - Usage of tags in the article Youth for Human Rights International. Smee 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC). "

17:05, 7 May 2007 UTC

I re-edited MY 3O request [here] and [here] with the comment (The other editor is welcome to add their own request. This request is to specifically address the issue of removing tags, and citing '1 tag is sufficient')

17:15, 7 May 2007 UTC

Smee again reverts my request [here] with the comment (Highly inappropriate to use WP:3O in this manner.)

I put the request back.. and

-side note

17:27, 7 May 2007 UTC

smee opens 3O discussion: [here] asking if my usage of 3O is correct.

Krator (I believe) subsequently answered that my usage of 3O was completely acceptable, that it was for both article and user disputes, provided only 2 users were involved.

Thus, my usage not only wasnt highly inappropriate, but in fact was entirely appropriate.

-side note

17:30, 7 May 2007 UTC

I asked, in the 3O discussion if it was inappropriate for an involved editor to edit/rewrite another editor's 3O request [here]

18:14, 7 May 2007 UTC

Hmwith rules that it IS inappropriate for an involved editor to rewrite a 3O request [here]

agreement[edit]

Based on multiple occasions of Smee removing my article tags, I asked him to promise to respect my article tags:

"I requested the 3O for clarification on this issue, rather than opening an arbitration or other action against you. In good faith, I felt that it would be much less punitive. If you are willing to agree to stop removing my tags, unless you have a) my consent or b) 3O from an uninvolved and neutral editor or c) overwhelming consensus on discussion page, then i am willing to drop the issue. "Lsi john 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

and his reply:

"I am not going to pursue this issue further at this time. However, I feel that you misuse tags in order to make a point. In most cases, there is simply no need to have multiple tags on a page, and certainly not more than 2. Smee 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)."

Most cases. Not all cases. Even though he should be ASSUMING GOOD FAITH? and could always (ahem) USE THE SYSTEM that he is so fond of AND GOOD AT using, and go to 3O or any of the options in the promise.

Remember, the ONLY thing I'm asking him to give up, is REVERTING my article tags.

I then ask him again for a promise and again he refuses:

"No, if I feel that you are misusing tags purely in order to disrupt an article to make a point, I am going to call it out as such. Smee 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)."

He could call me on it with a 3O or any of the options I had in the request. The only option I was asking to remove from his toolkit was revert on article tags that I had placed.

and again he refuses to compromise or agree:

"We shall see how this goes in the future on a case-by-case basis. In general I will tend to seek out discusson and opinions from others of course. Smee 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC). "

Case-by-case? Tend to seek out? I was asking him to PROMISE to seek out. And he was waffling by saying he would tend, meaning if he felt like it and on average maybe.

and again he refuses to compromise or agree:

"We will see how this goes on a case by case basis. I do not wish to be beholden to your specific points at this point in time. Suffice it to say that I will seek out the proper discussion channels as needed. Smee 18:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC). "

MY specific points? Which were..

Are you willing to leave my tags unmolested, unless you have one of the following criteria?

my consent or
a 3O from an uninvolved and neutral editor or
overwhelming consensus on discussion page
an AN/I or other wiki-ruling.

Those points allow him to USE THE SYSTEM to remove my article comments. The very system that he uses to justify popping in on me. Yet he was not willing to be beholden to the system at that time.
He was not willing to commit to civilized behavior, and he repeated left loopholes of where appropriate and/or needed, meaning he wanted to reserve the right to revert to 2R and force me to get a ruling and his promise would prevent that form of edit AGF warring.

AND I offered him the opportunity to add any other restrictions that he wished.

? If you need to add additional options, please list what they are.

And then, rather than compromise, rather than find something we can agree on.. rather than be bound to an agreement:

"Please stop pushing this issue. We will see how this progresses in the future. I will make a good faith effort to seek out discussion and other opinions, where appropriate and/or needed. Smee 18:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)."

Again, we will see? What about Yes, I promise? Where appropriate and/or needed? Who gets to decide? If Smee is going to decide whether or not it is appropriate or needed, then this is no promise at all.

summary[edit]

It's not worth it. Wiki deleted PSI World and so he created PSI Seminars. Whats the point? He does what he wants and hides behind AGF.

I know what he is. A few other editors know what he is. But we have to swallow AGF and to document things like I just did above... and then someone will say .. but there's nothing wrong with what he did, and he did improve your userpage.... etc etc etc.. *gag*..

The problem with this type of behavior, is it is entirely subjective and the only way to see a pattern (if one exists) is by combing through tedious detail.. which takes hours to document, and hours to analyze.. and in the end, its still subjective..

Smee, you win.

He has now promised again to avoid me.. We'll see. I only provided the above, because it was requested. I had not intended to do further documentation.

Lsi john 13:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors[edit]

Anyone other than LSI john, please comment here. Comments above will be moved here. Thanks. --Justanother 03:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear enough to me at least that Lsi john does not want smee to be editing his pages even if smee thinks that they are doing something helpful. After seeing a bit of the edit wars between these users I feel that smee should respect Lsi john's not wanting him to edit his userpages. I don't feel that this is too drastic a step to take. If they bumb into eachother on articles? You can't really stop that, but I think that because of hostility between these editors staying off eachothers talk pages is a good enough idea. MrMacMan^Talk 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I must say that Lsi john isn't exactly helping the situation himself by making possibly inflammatory statements. MrMacMan^Talk 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krator[edit]

I have cooperated with most of the editors in this dispute in a mediating role, and I'm quite content because no one is flaming me on my talk page yet. Things seemed to go good for a while, but then got worse again. Some observations done not just now, but during a month of mediating:

Smee's editing style is not one of WikiLove. Some of the comments made by that user often seem unintentionally harsh and brisk, which may make it difficult for others to understand the user's points and motives.
I believe that Lsi John is trying to improve Wikipedia, and not trying to push a point, using it as a soapbox, or inserting POV on purpose.
The topics under question are some of the most difficult topics around to discuss, because of three things:

Persistence of (some) editors involved. I do not think any editor will rest until he/she thinks the article is right. Some WikiBreaks would be great here. Pseudo religious/New Age topics are worse than religious topics, because the latter has scholars with authority on both sides. New Age usually only has critics. This leads some editors on the New Age side to the belief that it is their task to make sure the articles are NPOV/according to the truth. And they may not be totally wrong in this. (Note: I use "New Age" as a term covering Scientology, LGAT, NLP, and the whole bunch of organisations like that. This is common practice in the Netherlands, but I do not know if the word New Age is used in this way elsewhere.)
Senselessness of (some) editors involved. Note: This does not actually apply to Lsi John and Smee, but has increased their level of WikiStress. Debates often get tiresome when someone (let's say, me) writes down a few simple, structured arguments, only to have those arguments ignored and the same heated debate with the same arguments is happening again in a few weeks time. Compare: April 07 and May 07.
Non-adherence to Wikiquette. If everyone wrote talk page notes in a simple style, containing only their arguments and counter-arguments, consensus would have been reached earlier. Some editors apparently feel like being attacked personally when someone attacks their ideology.

A proposal:

Download , the spoken version of WP:EQ by User:Laura S.
Encode it to MP3 using MediaCoder, and copy it to a portable music device like the iPod.
Walk (not drive!) to the nearest beautiful nature scene around. A park would do, a mountain is better.
Sit down.
Then, and only then, listen to Etiquette.ogg
Shut down the computer now and actually do this.

--User:Krator (t c) 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

I've emailed both you and Justanother offlist; I would prefer if our convo continues privately, if you wish to respond. Cheers! Anchoress 02:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thoughts-To-Edit-By[edit]

Sometimes its not what we say, its how we say it.

Sometimes its not what we hear, but who we hear saying it.

Sometimes a command, worded as a request, allows for choice and preserves dignity.

Its not always our words they hear, sometimes its our meaning.

Remember to leave a kind word, even a bear is gentle with its young.

Lsi john 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Liberty[edit]

Hi. I took the liberty of adding SOAP to your BOX over at the Stacy AfD. Give me liberty or give me SOAP. --Justanother 17:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHA. Without looking, I wont ask if you meant me or the article.. I suppose my reviews of POV and BOX material could be construed as SOAP.. lol Lsi john 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see wp:box isnt legit, i didnt even look. Thanks for noticing ;)And, I'd prefer to edit my own mistakes. feel free to post them here and i'll fix them. thanks. Lsi john 17:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sir. --Justanother 17:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion at WP:RS[edit]

I think that's always been pretty common knowledge, something being sourced doesn't mean it may never again be touched. Though, of course, if you do elect to remove reliably sourced material, you should certainly provide a very good reason why, and be prepared for the fact that there will almost certainly be objections raised. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen quite a few edit-comments which justify a revert solely on the concept of meeting wp:rs, without addressing the reason given for removing material. That suggests that many editors may not fully understand that WP:RS is not a basis for inclusion but only one part of a litmous test.

So it occured to me that a small mention of this on the WP:RS page might help. Lsi john 04:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion[edit]

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]

Userbox[edit]

"This user makes no apolgies for being himself." Is that mis-spelling deliberate? --Justanother 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should say Of Course!, but it wasn't. I have seen it about 3 times and always get distracted and forget to fix it. Thanks. Lsi john 18:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was apropos as is "This user makes no apolgies his speling." --Justanother 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

appolgies??? Now I know you are pulling my chain. --Justanother 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha ;) moi? Lsi john 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later. I am starting to enjoy this wikibreak thing. --Justanother 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Lsi john 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

No worries :) I'm always a fan of discussion over process where possible - process should be for when discussion fails. Orderinchaos 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Lsi john 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see it all got resolved in a sensible manner :) Orderinchaos 06:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity[edit]

Just some unsolicited advice from Aunt Wikipediatrix.... you might want to try to make your talk-page posts a little shorter, tighter, leaner and succinct..... keep in mind that you're talking to people whose minds are largely already made up in advance, and thus the longer your posts are, the less likely they are to even bother closely reading them. As in advertising and everything else, your message will be more easily digested by the masses if it's quick and to the point :) wikipediatrix 13:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Auntie W. Duly noted. ;) You are correct, verbosity probably doesn't serve me well. It has always been one of my downfalls. I want to write with clarity and I want to write without ambiguity. And that generally leads to a verbose response. Those who's minds are already made up, won't read either terse or verbose. But at least it was well written, and I don't think I rambled off topic. It just seems that there is so much insanity to address and when I'm terse, it's usually interpreted as curt (and confrontational). I'll work on curbing my desire to write expansive responses. Thanks again. Lsi john 14:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My WP:ANI summary[edit]

I'm sorry that I didn't specifically address the usertalk page issue. I was addressing what I believed to be the issues where I had specifically been involved. My request that you "pull me up short" was intended to be a catch-all for anything I might do on-wiki that you find objectionable. I was attempting to close the door, not leave it open, by giving you the full right to decide if I had broken the spirit of your proposal.

For clarification: I will not engage in gossip and baiting commentary on any userpages about any other users. Specifically, I will not participate in conversations with JA on either of our userpages where we are discussing the actions or any perceived adjenda of Smee or Anynobody.

I was going to post this on your consolidated report, but decided that it would be more appropriate for you to update your own report, if you feel it needs updated.

Lsi john 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, your "catch-all" and your all-round good intentions were clear to me, and I meant to make them clear on ANI as well. I'm sorry you think there was room for misunderstanding. Perhaps I overdid the conciseness—I had an uncomfortable feeling I was using up too much ANI space as it was. I'll copy this statement to your page. Is there anywhere else you'd like me to put it? (The ANI thread has been archived.) Bishonen | talk 18:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AT[edit]

Thanks Lsi. You're so right. Can I copy your 'this user is busy in real life' box? Fainites 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mine. You're welcome to it. ;) -peace Lsi john 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't make the damn thing work. Comes up in huge letters. Very artistic though. Fainites 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Congrats[edit]

Haha, I love what a crazy, happy affair into which this has turned. Thanks, Lsi john!

P.S. Yeah, it's not very encyclopedic. "So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun!" - hmwith talk 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution[edit]

The cult of Landmark Education is a fascinating subject I think. I find it quite interesting to see the kind of activities of proponents under pressure. Usually with a cult such as Landmark Education, the need to block out reason and critical views is very high. Such followers have a very hard time countenancing such criticism. I noticed that every piece of critical information seems to cause them a large amount of pain and discomfort. Wikipedia is one of those situations where they are either guilty of censorship or information suppression (which tends to identify them as a cult), or they have to put up with the pain of their cult being presented for what it is. Either way dispute resolution is really fine. Jeffrire 03:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Howdy[edit]

Hi John

I'm Dave and thanks for your hello. I see we've got several things in common I'm also a code monkey and a Software Engineer, and I like maths. These days I usually code in Borland Delphi, but in the past I've done a lot in C, C++ and Assembler. I have done scuba diving, but not recently. I used to enjoy both rifle and pistol shooting, but went off it abruptly after being shot in the hand (by the secretary of the Cambridge University Revolver and Pistol Club, who "didn't think his gun was loaded")!

Thanks for your great work in trying to hold off the relentless POV-pushers. It's a thankless task, but essential to the integrity of Wikipedia. DaveApter 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

3RR[edit]

I have to agree with Smee's reasoning behind the revert - there was support from additional editors for the removal of the tag. Personally I do not interperet this as edit warring. For the sake of prudence it may have been safer to wait for an uninvolved editor to make the reversion, but I do not believe the edit was in violation of the spirit of the rule and was made in good faith. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about reasoning behind a revert. This is about revert warring.

I'd also beg to disagree. You said 30 days.. it was under 20. I could have reverted myself. Smee did not have to revert. Smee is edit warring.

The 3RR rule clearly says you cannot use 'excuses' or 'reasons' to justify revert warring and Smee knows this.

If I had refused to remove it, Smee could have gotten any other editor to remove it. Lsi john 22:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkyan, I realize you must AGF. I, on the other hand, have edit history with Smee. Look at the edit logs for several of my recent article edits over the past 2 days. Every time I make an edit to an article, Smee edits it within minutes. Smee will one-for-one edit right behind me on these articles. When I stop, Smee stops. When Smee can revert or undo something I have done, he does. Look for yourself. AGF and look. This is edit warring, plain and simple. And its not about content. It's about reverting my edits, repeatedly. Lsi john 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply stating my opinion. I'm basically invoking ignore all rules here. If it is a foregone conclusion that yourself, or "any other editor" would have removed the tag in the face of opinions to do so, then waiting for someone else to do something that should be done merely for the sake of rules and propriety is being overly slavish toward process and in contravention to the whole notion of improving the encyclopedia. Again, this is just my opinion. It's in no way binding. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I respect your opinion and your right to have it. Though it wasn't a foregone conclusion.. (You stated 30days, that left another 10, per your opinion.) This is about finding things to revert. Check the time stamps. If Smee hasn't edited an article in a day or so, and I edit it, he will modify or revert my change within minutes, (or simply edit somewhere else in the same article). This is about contentious editing and revert warring instead of discussion. Lsi john 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest, if you have a broader dispute with Smee then you try to tackle the issue on a broader basis than just bringing up one potential 3RR violation on the administrators' noticeboard. Have you tried working this out one on one? If so, and you feel it has not helped, try some of the other measures in the dispute resolution process, like mediation or request for comment. Hopefully you can resolve your issues without having to resort to such measures, as you both seem to be good, dedicated editors. Good luck, Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we went to mediation. Smee would not address the issues that I raised and declared that was not what mediation was for. Smee turned the mediation into an agreement for him to follow wiki rules. Believe me, I truly appreciate that you must AGF here. Thats how this has been working. There is generally no one 'single' incident which violates a rule. There are numerous editors with whom Smee edit wars, and calls for 3O. You will notice that someone just suggested that Smee take a break from the 3O project and board for 2-3 months. If you only AGF, then you must come to the conclusion that you have come to. If you AGF and look into it, you will see a different face on the issue.

With all due respect, your AGF is being misused.

Take a second to look here where Smee has done nothing but talk about other editors and has not contributed one thing to the mediation related to the article.

And 'here where a fellow editor explains it quite well:

Smee, you do not WP:OWN the templates. You have been edit-warring and reverting any edit that removes links that are precious to you, especially ones that you have created or had a hand in. Your last edit had a misleading summary which didn't mention that you reverted my removal of your unnecessary links yet again. You are monopolizing the templates, and in fact, monopolizing the Wikipedia Scientology articles in general, and it's really starting to affect the quality of the Scientology project. I cannot edit-war with you and the Scientologists at the same time, and I submit your edits are actually helping their cause by making these articles and templates a biased, undue-weighted, blatantly unfair mess. This is not a personal attack, it has nothing to do with you personally, it has to do with these tendentious edits and the mass-dispersement of links to articles that you favor. And edits are what we are supposed to be discussing here. wikipediatrix 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And here where and admin lays it out very nicely. Lsi john 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGAT goes GA![edit]

This user helped promote Large Group Awareness Training to good article status.

From a POV quotefarm to a good article. Thanks for all your contributions, you were instrumental in attaining this status. Now on to WP:FA! --User:Krator (t c) 11:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It was actually quite enjoyable working with you on the article. Lsi john 12:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Left Half of the Half Barnstar[edit]

		The Half Barnstar
		I, Krator, award Lsi john the half barnstar, for productive and cooperative editing with Smee. You two hold opposed points of view, but with a lot cooperation managed to make Large Group Awareness Training a good article. 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On to FA. --User:Krator (t c) 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid POV disputes I have awarded the halves in alphabetic order - Lsi starts with an L, and Smee is close to R.

Thanks! For clarity, my views are that articles should be NPOV. I'm glad we were all able to get the POV out and create a good article. Lsi john 12:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I have responded to your request for input on a third opinion. My answer can be found here. --User:Krator (t c)

AN3[edit]

John, I reported Smee over at WP:AN3 based on her reverting you at least two times earlier today (and then two with me). Her response is that she did not revert you. It looked like you two were edit-warring over that passage and that she undid your edits at least two times. If her remarks are deserving of a (brief) rebuttal from you then please feel free. Or perhaps I was mistaken and no reverts of your edits occurred. --Justanother 14:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother, I saw the report when it appeared on my watchlist. I did not feel a comment at AN3RR was necessary.

I had seen Smee reverting you and was waiting for him to go 3RR. I had actually forgotten about the revert warring last night which forced me to leave the article and go to bed.

However, as Smee is now claiming that he was not edit warring with me, I will go on record as disputing that claim. As I am not allowed (by agreement) to post on Smee's page, I have posted my response on Nearly Headless Nick's page.

==Comment== As I have an agreement not to post on Smee's talk page, I will reply here instead. I did feel Smee was edit warring with me last night, as you will see in my comments in discussion diff. Smee was insisting on including 'cult related' material which I objected to on several grounds. Smee inserted the material several times, without first discussing his version. I refused to edit war, and instead was attempting to document what I felt was POV and some OR. Smee continued to revert-out my attempts to document the article. Ultimately I was forced to simply stop editing the article and walk away due to the warring. Lsi john 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john 15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note[edit]

Thanks for introducing yourself, John. It's good to get to know you too, and I'll bear in mind what you said in future. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tags - my request[edit]

Without addressing whether or not the Veganism is POV or Misleading, it is considered bad form to remove another editor's template on an article, provided that editor is still a registered wiki editor and is available to remove the tag themselves.

In general, template tags are based on personal opinion, whether that opinion accurately reflects the facts or not is unimportant. If you disagree with a template, and cannot reach a compromise or solution with the other editor, there are a number of other methods which you can pursue for dispute resolution.

Revert warring will generally only make matters worse and ultimately end up with the article protected or with one or more editors being blocked.

I request that you self-revert, in good faith, and let's see if we can get an agreement from her for removing it.

If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.

Peace in God. Lsi john 20:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question has not shown that the section is misleading. Please show me the policy that states that "it is considered bad form to remove another editor's template on an article". I've never heard of such a thing. In general, template tags are not based on personal opinion, but on the consensus of working editors. Most editors do not agree with this tag placement, so there is no consensus for it in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was an opinion given by a 3O request in another article I was editing. There is 'policy' and there is 'good form' and an appearance of 'cooperation'. And, yes, if a consensus is reached, the editor should be requested to remove the template tag, and then given an opportunity to do it themselves. If you want the diff on the 3O, I will look it up.

The most important point I was trying to make is that of 'polite editing', even in the face of a persistent editor. Lsi john 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very polite. However, I do not suffer POV-warriors or trolls lightly. The consensus on talk is clear. The use of the tag is not supported. There is a big difference between politeness (adding tags supported by the community) and rudeness (disruptive, tendentious editing behavior). To highlight the difference, I've relocated this discussion to your talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice to say that I have had more than my share of dealing with trolling and pov warriors on wikipedia. However, I will also say that edit warring is not a good way to resolve the issue. There are several methods provided by wikipedia to resolve disputes; 3O, MedCab, ArbCom, User RFC are a few. By engaging in the edit warring, with the warrior, you become a warrior yourself. It takes an incredible amount of willpower to avoid this, but in the long run it is the better solution. Note that as recently as last night, I decided to go to bed, rather than play the revert game, in a very similar situation to yours.

I completely understand your position, and I must WP:AGF that a peaceful compromise can be reached. It will not be reached by reverting. How much of the formal mediation processes has this debate been through?

And, if you really wanted to make your WP:POINT, you would have split this discussion back up into pieces. I have no preference for where it is, only that it remain contiguous.

Lsi john 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to note, that due to your counterpart's actions, there are quite a few pairs of eyes on this article. Lsi john 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. The more, the merrier. —Viriditas | Talk 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DR or WP:AGF?[edit]

Talk:Circle of Power: Lsi john, because I disagree with you in other areas here doesn't mean I'm not interested in helping out whenever I see a question that I can answer. You don't like me, that much is obvious because you must not have given my answer much thought. I'm not trying to do anything but answer your question, and even though I don't concur with all of your views (nor you mine) my arguments are not meant to be personally insulting. If you look at my past observations about you they are all about flaws I perceive in your reasoning as it relates to the situation at hand. I disagree with anyone who I feel is perhaps making a mistake, I've even had disagreements with Smee. The point I'm trying to make is you need to either get over any ego bruising disagreeing with me has caused, or investigate dispute resolution because the type of response you gave at the linked talk page is very immature. Anynobody 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anynobody, thank you for taking the time and effort to provide such a lengthy justification for an unnecessary post, in an article you had never edited, which did not address the question I asked of another editor. Though your justification is unnecessary and would seem only to serve for more trolling. I repeat again, here, for anyone assuming good faith, that Anynobody has been accused of trolling both by at least 3 admins and another editor besides myself. Diffs can be found in the article talk page to which he refers. We have a long and rather contentious edit history and he knows that I will not respond to him. As I did not rise to his baiting there, it appears he has moved the trolling to my page.

The rest of us are abiding by our agreements with Bishonen, not to post on each other's pages (with one exception on my part where I apologized to Smee, and he accepted and also apologized to me in return). It would be nice if you were to abide by it as well. I would prefer you not post on my talkpage again.

Best Regards. Lsi john 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I hope editors who assume good faith are watching. Anynobody 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing sources[edit]

While I disagree with SlimVirgin's placement of a specific, geographical factoid in the lead section (I would prefer to see a global figure), her attribution was correct. It is good form to attribute sources whenever possible. —Viriditas | Talk 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that either the fact is reliable or it isn't. Stating 'who' said it, inside the article, gives a flavor of 'overemphasizing' the source for POV. I hadn't even looked to see who added the cite. Its the facts that are important, not where they came from. Lsi john 23:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument (as you present it on talk) would be valid if you could find competing sources or more reliable ones. If you could bothered to do this research, the article would greatly benefit. Otherwise, in lieu of other sources, this is what have and there is no reason at this time to dispute it. That could change, however. Do the research and see what you can find. —Viriditas | Talk 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in talk, I don't think naming the 'Times' is notable or adds significant value. As for more-reliable, thats scary, sorry. If the 'Times' isn't reliable, it shouldn't be used. If, by more reliable, you mean 'more scientific' or 'more accurate', then that suggests that including 'Times' is used for POV to 'discredit' the estimate. Which is an interesting spin, as I found it 'enhanced' the estimate's validity, which may not be what you want at all! heh. The bottom line, it adds nothing. And if you are actually trying to bias the estimate one way or the other, then that really is POV. (back to article discussion) Lsi john 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The value of formal attribution (recommended by style guides and Wikipedia's primary policy WP:NPOV and other descendent policies) is that it directly addresses relevant questions about authority (who said it), accuracy and currency. According to you, the Times is a reliable newspaper source, so we should be able to rely on the source for accurate and current information. So, all three questions have been answered, whereas before, the source had been removed from the lead section (but cited in references) and replaced with weasel words, leaving the reader bereft of sourcing. The POV policy recommends"attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it" to avoid POV problems. What I want, is to improve the article. If that means replacing the Times with a more reliable (implies accuracy, see evaluative criteria) source, then that is what I will support. Do you have other sources? If not, I don't see what this dispute is about. —Viriditas | Talk 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly more important to you than it is to me. To me, it was a very minor edit. Peace in God. Lsi john 06:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible typo?[edit]

On Rfc/Bishonen 2, you state (3rd paragraph) "interested in ... arbitration and rfcu" I believe you meant "rfc" not "rfcu" - there has never been a question of Bishonen abusing sockpuppets. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks. Lsi john 17:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lsi[edit]

Dear Johnny, I'm sorry about the lack of originality I displayed by transcribing your research at Bish's RfC, it's just that I felt it was an awesome compilation of the most relevant facts that proved her actions' and the Puppy's to be right... I know you've authorized me ;) and they have fulfilled their purpose (and hey, I credited you, sweetie! ;) but I really didn't want this left unsaid. You truly did an excellent work researching the background of the dispute, and for that, I wish to thank you warmly. Awww, why aren't you an admin yet... Love you John! :) Phaedriel - 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just being silly.;) Lsi john 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Efnet?[edit]

I've been on EfNet in the past (variety of different channels), what's up? SirFozzie 18:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only SirFozzie I know on IRC.. some different channels, including wrestling based ones and.. um.. other ones I won't talk about in public *grins* SirFozzie 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I miss the days on IRC. There are some stories I wish I could tell.. *laughs* SirFozzie 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anch[edit]

Anchoress, thank you for your response. As you specifically asked for a response from me on-wiki, here it is.

My feedback to you is this: To me, this is a subject that you have quite a bit of energy on. To wit, I asked a relatively simple question (or so I thought), and you expounded with an opinion on deletionism .vs. a statement made by Jimbo, and the current trend of wikipedia. I was a bit overwhelmed, as I had not anticipated such an opined (and positional) response. Then, when I attempted to follow your lead, and continued the discussion on the path you had chosen, you MEH'd me and said you were not interested in discussing the subject, citing my DNS stranding example as being uninteresting. Thus, closing the conversation as abruptly as it had begun.

If article deletion isn't a topic you are interested in discussing, then (rhetorically) why did you open that door with such elaboration? And, as it was a conversation between you and me, if your response wasn't directed at me, then (rhetorically) to whom was it directed? We were the only two in the conversation.

Anchoress, I saw you make an edit in the article, I assumed you were somewhat familiar with the article, I recalled your previous offer to help with wiki questions, and I asked for your opinion. Though I was aware of your position on deleting articles, it did not occur to me when I asked your opinion. In hindsight, it was not one of my better choices, and I apologize.

You asked me where I perceived judgment in your response. To me, there is both judgment and conclusion in your comment about the current trend of wikipedia. And, based on results, I would submit that article deletion is a subject about which you are very interested.

Respectfully, I would prefer not to address this further on-wiki. Without sufficient background (our conversations) to understand it, I feel the conversation could easily appear confrontational to the casual reader, and I have neither the desire to be, nor to appear to be, confrontational with you.

Best regards,

Peace in God. Lsi john 13:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no probs. I copied it to our discussion on my page to keep it neat. Cheers, and thanks for the quick reply! Anchoress 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey-ho, hey-ho[edit]

Retired? Counting grey hair? COFS 21:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2[edit]

Your patience in trying to calm down FerryLodge is admirable, but ultimately, I think he's very angry and not willing to admit that maybe he carried this too action too far. I don't get it, personally. Anyways, you are good person to try. Unfortunately, the lesson went unlearned. Orangemarlin 19:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Your conclusion (and mine) may well be correct. Yet, even still, a seed might be planted that bears unexpected fruit, even if elsewhere.

And, actually, I think I understand his motivation, misguided though it is. I think he is upset at having the initial post that claimed that he was 'harassing'. I believe he found the original warning to be so distasteful, that he then ignored all logic and reason, in an effort to get the 'warning' expunged or 'explained'.

I suspect he felt unfairly persecuted by the warning, and went on to commit the actual 'sin/crime' (for which he was blocked) in his efforts to vindicate himself. And, now he is so caught up in the 'warning' and having it 'expunged', that he lost sight of the subsequent violations. In his mind, if the initial posts weren't harassment, then the harassment warning was unjustified, and if the warning was unjustified, then the warning not to post shouldn't have existed, and thus his posts which ignored the warning, would not have constituted a block.

He can't see that he was blocked for what he did 'after' Bishonen's warning, not before it. Hopefully one day he will.

Thanks for the kind words. Peace in God. Lsi john 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather sad that we can on speculate as to his motivation for this RfC. I've read his commentary several times over, because he's so adamant, so passionate, that there must be something that I missed. But I can't find it, so like you, I've had to speculate why he's been angry. It's too bad he can't take some sage advice from some very nice people like yourself. Well, we should move on, and hope that you're right, the seed does bear some fruit. I'm skeptical however. Orangemarlin 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Migospia and her 3RR block[edit]

Hi, I've seen your name about ~ usually when I am helping Migospia with her editing style. Are you around for a quick chat regarding her current block? LessHeard vanU 18:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I've actually been discussing it with her on her talk page. Though it seems she has stepped away for a bit. Lsi john 18:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Thanks. Do you believe that Migospia truly understands how 3RR works (or much of how WP works)? I get the feeling is that she is sincere, edits to improve WP, but allows her enthusiasm and passion to dictate her interactions. I really don't think that blocks are proving effective. I have virtually pleaded with her to acknowledge her "mistakes", so I could then reduce the block to time served (not technically overturning the block, but allowing her to resume editing). I admire her commitment, but wish she could temper her manner in conducting herself.

What I am asking is; do you think that Migospia is worth the effort to try and make her a great editor? I am willing to give it a try, but I would like an opinion from someone who has also interacted with her. I don't want to expend effort where there may be little likelihood of success.

I am considering reducing the block so she may edit African-American Musicians. However, considering the comments already on her talkpage, I am reluctant to provide Migospia with another arena to display her rather shakey grasp of what editors are (and are not) allowed to do. Anything you can add would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a grand and Agape scale, I believe everyone is worth the time and effort. However, that does not mean that I have the patience to be the one to expend that time and effort.

Have you read her userpage? She claims to be a bi-sexual Christian, who loves God more than anything, while simultaneously believing that the world would be better without religion, and knows that everyone hates her. It is far beyond my limited Psychology training to even fathom that collection, let alone to help her work through some of that conflictedness to become a great editor.

I have seen anger and hatred. I have seen misunderstanding and hurt. I have seen bull headed editing and I have seen exasperation and frustration.

I got involved due to a 3RR dispute posted at AN3RR some time ago. When I tried to help her, she saw me as an enemy and ran me off. I have loosely followed her situation through several more would-be helpers, whom she also ran off.

I think she has passion. Whether or not she will become a cooperative editor, is a choice she will have to make. As long as she continues to see what others are getting away with and what she is being punished for, versus seeing how she can improve, I'm afraid she is stuck where she is.

I see this block as an opportunity to help her, by getting the block time reduced, AND that will require some show of good faith and 'learning' on her part. The blocking admin clearly reduced the block time, and all but begged her to show remorse. The block is in her court now, as far as I'm concerned.

As for how much time you spend working with her... I'm afraid I can't offer a suggestion. It is a decision you must come to on your own.

Hopefully this has helped, but I suspect its nothing you didn't already know.

Peace in God. Lsi john 18:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw her userpage... I decided to WP:IGNORE it. I came across her on WP:AN, where everyone was citing CIVIL at her as she got more heated because nobody had yet addressed her concerns, and was the (newly minted, wet behind the ears) admin who actually talked about the problem she had. Since then I have kept an eye on her editing, and her unerring ability to find editors as obstinate (and with a little more savvy regards policy) than her. Frustratingly, she has shown flashes of excellence in her editing and is obviously an intelligent and educated person.

Thank you for your comments. You are right in that only she can make the decisions which will allow her to enjoy and contribute well to WP. I will, for the time being at least, attempt to help her toward seeing the choices she has. To that end I will not "tamper" with the current block, and give my reasons why to her. LessHeard vanU 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, what we find (or at least what we end up with), is often what we set out to create for ourselves. I, too, have seen some good editing from her. And it gets hidden behind the fighting and uncivil remarks. Certainly culture, age, gender and a myriad of other contributing factors could be at work here, but in the end, as we've both said, it is entirely up to her.

Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to see her accept that she was warring so that I can support an early unblock. This would be a win for her in many ways. But I also cannot support an unblock if she is unwilling to give even an inch of righteous ground. WP is more about cooperative editing, than getting the correct word in or out of an article. If she can learn that, woo hoo! Lsi john 19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for editing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive‎ and finally ending this thing.Ferrylodge 21:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.

In the future, you would do yourself SO MUCH MORE of a service, if you would come at things with less emotion and clearly (and concisely) state what result you want. It took me quite a while to realize what you were really asking for, based on your initial 'no consensus' closing, which really was completely wrong.

In reality, the consensus has nothing to do with the 'involved' parties, and everything to do with the other editors who comment.

For most of us, it was understood that neither one of you (who opened the RfC) were going to change your minds.

Once i finally realized that you wanted it on record in the summary that the two of you still disagreed, I had no issue making that change.

Peace in God. Lsi john 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lsi john, the closing that I wrote said, "No conclusion. Closed per agreement. No agreement reached about harassment charge." The word "consensus" was not used.

There could be nothing more concise and clear than my initial objection to KillerChihuahua's erasure and replacement of the closing that I wrote: "KC's summary is blatantly false, and misleading as well. Neither of the parties who brought this RfC have rejected the assertions initially made" (original emphasis).

Peace to you too.Ferrylodge 21:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And yet somehow, your initial, equally faulty closing, declaring 'no conclusion', overshadowed the technicality of your desire. And there was agreement, among everyone who commented, that the block was correct. An RfC is not intended to get your agreement (unless you decide to understand and agree with feedback). An RfC is a request for comment. The uninvolved editors who comment are the consensus and are the agreement. Perhaps you misunderstood the outcome, in that one party or the other would 'change their mind'.

In either case, it is closed and done. Hopefully some day you will realize that nobody ganged up on you, and nobody rushed to defend Bishonen. The RfC should never have happened, yet it did, so obviously it was supposed to.. and there we are.

Peace. Lsi john 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

You seem to be close to breaking 3RR--Migospia †♥ 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of, no. I believe I'm 1RR. Lsi john 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep you are on Veganism [7] you have already reverted 3 times and have made over 21 edits--Migospia †♥ 00:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm really not.

First, as far as I know, except for the sentence about 'vegan supplements' in the lead, I have not 'reverted' back to previous versions. I have been re-arranging and re-writing to -new- versions.

Second, the 21 edits are mostly consecutive, which is generally counted as 1 single edit.

But if you wish to show me diff's that you believe are reverts, I'm more than happy to discuss it with you. Lsi john 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did revert Abe. So that would be 2RR. I'd forgotten about that. But then I went on to edit it all, which more-or-less effectively un-does the revert for abe. Lsi john 01:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So all of a sudden the rules change, that gets me confused:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."

You have done that 3 times, is all I am saying and one more means you broke the policy.

But I do have concerns with some of your edits hopefully we can talk about that on the talk page and hopefully you got my e-mail--Migospia †♥ 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing - means reverting back to a previous version. It does not mean changing something that someone else wrote.

If you type a sentence, and I edit it. I have not 'reverted'. If you 'undo my edit' back to what you had, then you have reverted. But if you 'edit my edit' and change it to something new, then you have not reverted.

Also, as I said, consecutive edits, typically count as 1 edit. So if I edit 21 times in a row, no matter how many individual things I revert, it would typically count as 1RR. However, if someone edits in the middle of my 21 edits.. then I would probably need to be careful, and make sure that I'm not reverting things.

Technically I reverted twice, but a) both reverts were in the same sequence of edits. and b) I made significant changes to the text after the first revert. (I only reverted so that I would have the original material to work with.)

To count 3RR, you have to show specific (non sequential) edits, which revert some part of the article back to a previous version.

Sometimes that is very easy to show, in the case of a back-and-forth edit war where two people simply revert each other. And, sometimes its very complicated if multiple things are getting changed in an article.

However, I'm fairly confident that I'm 1RR in that article. And, 2RR if someone really wanted to be picky and not look at the overall context of the edits.

Lsi john 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Undoing - means reverting back to a previous version. It does not mean changing something that someone else wrote."
WHAT?! Since when did this happean? If that is the case why did I get blocked last time, I REALLY am now confused--Migospia †♥ 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were clicking UNDO and going directly back to previous versions of the article. Lsi john 01:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh NO that is not true at all! So you are saying I should not have ever been blocked on animal testing and vegansim since all my edits were editing some form of information and they were not UNDO edits (except thrice on veganism which still does not break the 3rr), if this is true (but I was told differently which now I am confused) can I get my record scrtched? Or you making this up to fit you?--Migospia †♥ 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know anything about your block on animal testing. But on veganism, as you said, you clearly reverted 3 times, and on the 4th, you removed a specific and important word in a sentence, which qualified as a revert. Because it was a word that was specifically referenced in an edit summary. Lsi john 01:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And its VERY important that you understand, we are not 'guaranteed' to get 3RR free, and blocked only on 4RR. It is the 'warring' that is the point, not the technical revert count. If you are 'fighting' with someone, you can be blocked for 3 Reverts. Because once you know the rules the admins expect you not to edit-war (fight). They expect you to discuss first. Lsi john 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, also, remember, you were blocked for 18 hours. that is LOWER than it should have been, because the blocking admin saw 3 definite reverts.. and 1 pretty much revert.. but you had already been blocked for 3RR so it was assumed you knew the rules.... so you got blocked, but for a shorter time. Lsi john 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXAMPLE: 0RR I edit: The horse is brown.

0RR You change: The horse is tan.

1RR I 'revert': The horse is brown.

0RR Pete edits: The horse is beige.

2RR I 'revert': The horse is brown.

1RR You 'revert': The horse is tan.

2RR I edit: The horse is chocolate-brown.

2RR You 'revert': The horse is tan.

3RR I revert: The horse is beige.

2RR You edit: The horse is carmel and white.

Does this help explain it? Lsi john 01:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um see that is the thing NO I did not, the fourth revert I edited it to where it would not be harmful to the artilce since the other reverter was adding harmful things to the article so no I did not remove something important in the article and all of this was still done AFTER talk.

No this does not help, if what you say is true I should not have been blocked. Unless....

a)you are lying, I am trying to undnerstand you are either completey lying to confuse me or get me in trouble or
b)you are bending the rules to fit you or
c)you have no idea what the policy really even means

Which is it?--Migospia †♥ 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's:

d) I'm explaining it correctly and you don't understand me.

I'm sad to see that you would even consider that I'd lie to you, or try to get you into trouble.
This is on wikipedia, where 1000's of people can read it. Why would I type something here that was not 100% true? My reputation as an editor, as a person, and more importantly as a Christian, is on the line. Lots of people will read what I type here. If I am lying, then they would know it, and they would not trust me anymore. That would be unacceptable to me.
You are not allowed to violate 3RR, even if you are taking harmful things out of an article (unless it is vandalism.. and vandalism has a specific definition).

Please have someone you trust come read what I've typed and see if they can help explain it better.

If you do not trust me, then it is pointless for me to continue trying to explain. Lsi john 02:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are explaining correctly I did not violated 3RR I am now confused--Migospia †♥ 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you at least agree that you reverted 3 times? Lsi john 04:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line with the 3RR (revert rule) is, were you edit warring? And the answer is, yes, you were. If you really think about the question: "were you edit warring?", I think you will say yes. And that is why you were blocked.

I'm more than willing to go over the exact reverts with you, if it will help. 04:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for the animal testing 3RR violation, they are counted as reversions because Migospia kept adding {{abuse}} and/or "animal experimentation", a total of 5 times within a 24hr period. This is very different from the constructive edits Lsi john made to Veganism:

Previous version reverted to: 09:26, 28 May 2007
1st revert: 11:08, 29 May 2007
2nd revert: 11:27, 29 May 2007
3rd revert: 16:09, 29 May 2007
4th revert: 18:39, 29 May 2007
5th revert: 20:33, 29 May 2007

Rockpocket 18:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Do you still need it? Tyrenius 03:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I assume you are referring to the help section on LessHeard's page. I was going there because Migospia trusts him.

She needs someone she trusts to review what Ive written to confirm that I'm not misleading her about how 3RR works. (refer to the conversation directly above this.)

Lsi john 03:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lsi John. I live in the UK, and as we are now on British Summer Time I am between 6 to 10 hours in front of you depending what time zone you are in for the USA. Thus I will not always be around when you (and Migospia) are. I have written on Migospias talkpage generally, but will now comment on what was said above. LessHeard vanU 09:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline Williamson edit war![edit]

Are you on, can you help stop an edit war with two users someone unprotected the page and now there is an edit war and removal of a lot of things, artilce- Evangeline Williamson

We edit conflicted. I was setting it back. (and you forgot to sign the post here) Lsi john 01:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put the TV-in-universe back? Yeah what happens of that happens, an edit conflict and it's your fourth edit although not removing or editing anything previous just happen to edit at the same time?--Migospia †♥ 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The war started again...--Migospia †♥ 01:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hang on. Lsi john 01:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism[edit]

I think if you edit again on Veganism it violates 3rr--Migospia †♥ 07:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Editing is different than reverting, but thanks for letting me know what you think. Lsi john 07:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually NO I have been told by many other admins that it is the same thing and lessvanheard todl me you weren't lying so you must be confused, reverting and editing for the 3rr are the same thing believe me i know i have been blocked for this twice don't you remember?

~~[8]~~ - DIFF revert (Revision as of 02:00, 19 June 2007)
~~[9]~~ - DIFF revert (Revision as of 02:35, 19 June 2007)
~~[10]~~ - DIFF edit - added cite check (Revision as of 07:18, 19 June 2007)
~~[11]~~ DIFF ~~revert~~ edit - removed Original Research - Current revision (07:30, 19 June 2007)

This policy better apply to everyone. and dude take your advice TALK before you revert or make any large edits please with 4 reverts/edits you have already violated the 3rr policy--Migospia †♥ 07:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove things from the artice like you did here, [12]? <- this is a combination of 7 edits, and not all were mine.

?--Migospia †♥ 07:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too tired to argue with you. If you think I violated 3RR then please report me. You are providing article VERSIONS instead of DIFFS, so I have no way to know what you are thinking you are seeing. And that last DIFF has 5 missing versions between the two, so it does not show what I did.

Peace. Lsi john 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not going to because see I am not a mean or rude person and I don't like going around blocking people because I know how it feels. And REVERT and EDIT are the same thing I don't know where you get that! Because I was blocked for it so they are the same! But you still have not explained your removal of infomation in your last edit--Migospia †♥ 08:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time. EDITS are not the same as REVERTS.

A Revert takes some part of the article back to a version that already existed before.

I have reverted TWO times. Everything else I have done has been NEW edits, changing the article to a new version, new words.

Revert goes backwards, edits go forwards.

You were blocked for taking the article back to a previous version. That is called REVERTING.

Good night. Lsi john 08:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you think that last edit was a revert, please show me a DIFF that existed before now that looks the same. Lsi john 08:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are because I have been told by rockpocket, lessvanheard! So you are mistken greatly they are the same I was blocked for editing not reverting! And you don't have to be rude. And please tell me how you call removing all of this an eidit [13]--Migospia †♥ 08:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cant explain it any more to you hon. I'm sorry. I don't know how to explain it any better than I have, and you won't answer my question. If you would answer it, it would help you understand. And it is very much past my bedtime.

A revert means that you made something look exactly the same way it looked once before.

An edit means you changed it and it never looked that way before.

I have given you a long example above, and you must be ignoring it.

I am going to bed. I have answered all your questions at least two times.

Good night. Lsi john 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um dude what was the question because I did not see any. What was your question--Migospia †♥ 08:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoeless Joe Jackson[edit]

One item, and then I'll let you be. The reason I stated the edit summary the way I did was to pre-empt someone griping about a possible three-revert violation (although I think I was past that). Normal reverts beyond 3 in 24 hours are against the rules. Cases like this (vandalism or reverting blocked users' edit-war edits) are exceptions to the rule. That's the reason I posted it that way, and it probably did sound like overkill. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Baseball Bugs 20:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was my edit you reverted. No harm, no FOUL ball ;) -peace. Lsi john 20:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right. You basically incorporated his link into the text. Technically, I reverted your change. But as a net overall effect, I reverted his change. You were merely acting as the roster of steers (cattle-list). N'yuk, n'yuk. Feel free to use that one. Or not. >:) Baseball Bugs 20:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Post[edit]

To (you know who you are),

I would like to commend you on avoiding the trolling. I am actually very impressed that you are not being drawn in. Good job! Lsi john 15:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos[edit]

You've been doing some very restrained and insightful intervention with contentious editors, good work! Anchoress 02:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lsi john 04:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TL Template[edit]

I see you using the nowiki markup to show templates on your userpage. You might consider the {{tl}} markup. The tl template allows you to link to the template in question without using the cumbersome nowiki markup. Just a reccomendation though. N example of usage would be {{tl|test1}} and would give you the output of {{test1}}. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now to figure out where that stray strayed off to. ;) Peace in God. Lsi john 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Stray}} never existed unless it was oversighted. There is no deleted versions of it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've seen 'this article strays from the subject' somewhere. Hrm... Lsi john 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it. {{off-topic}}. Perhaps {{stray}} or {{strays}} should redirect to it? Lsi john 15:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi Giano,

We haven't really talked before so first of all I'd like to say that I'm pleased to meet you (although it probably would've been better to do this in other circumstances). Now on to the issue...

to my understanding, the en-admins page is basically meant for people to know what the channel is used for and to grant\remove access, it isn't supposed to be an official page showing both POV's (pro and against IRC) and it's not an article, maybe it's better placed in meta or off-wiki. I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong, just that the issue with IRC needs to be resolved in a different way, and editing this article won't do much to affect the current situation. By the way, people avoid discussing blocks in the channel as much as possible anyway, and are not supposed to use it as the reason for a block and if they do, they get fucked anyway (and no, there was no discussion prior to your block nor did anyone suggest to block you). The channel has some disadvantages but it certainly has benefits as well, it's not the pure evil dragon's lair you make it out to be and TBH, it's better to have a big discussion with a lot of admins rather than having an admin going to his like-minded admin friend on messenger for advice, when he knows he'll get the answer he's interested in (and yes, this is what goes on in a different language wikipedia). Yonatan ^talk 21:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yonatan, while I don't support nasty comments, I am not sure that I agree with your conclusion that editing the article won't do much to affect the current situation. Maybe it will take a squall to bring the proper attention on the situation. Point in fact, I was not aware of the problem until now. Lsi john 21:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe above sounds an awful lot like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Civil discussion is infinitely more appropriate, no "squall" is needed, especially not a manufactured one. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHAIRBOY, I'm sorry, but what you just wrote sounds a lot like bad faith reading to me.

At no time did I suggest 'starting' or 'manufacturing' a squall, nor would I ever support such efforts. I said "maybe it will take a squall...". The fact is, if Giano is correct, and there is an 'elite boys club' on IRC, any reasonable edits to that page, will result in a squall of retaliation. In which case, we are left with two choices, ignore an inaccurate article and a possibly bad IRC situation, or make reasonable edits to the article and let other's be responsible for their own conduct. With the resulting 'squall' bringing the situation to light for the community to see. It takes TWO to squall. I have not read the specific edits to that page, and therefore my remarks do not reflect support or condemnation of them.

In case I have not been clear elsewhere, I do not support nasty remarks. I'm sorry that you have chosen to read with the interpretation you did. Lsi john 22:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before accusing me of stalking[edit]

Before accusing me of stalking ideogram, check your facts, it was linked from this thread in which I was involved. [14]. Believe me, by choice, I give Ideogram as much space as possible. Giano 19:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I didn't accuse you. I said that your sudden appearance and accusation of stalking was ironic. Which it was. You weren't involved in that conversation. Your response wasn't necessary. You could have read it and left.

It would be a lot easier to jump on-board with you, if you'd stop tossing insults and accusations around like confetti. I think your core issues may be well founded, but you are going to have to let the petty little shit go, or the core issues will never be addressed. Lsi john 19:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I am not your mate. I do not toss about insults, and referring to Ideogram as a "petty little shit" as you just have is not something i would ever do. In fact I think it is very wrong whatever one may think privatly. 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't want to be a mate, thats fine. And, lets not start mis-quoting each other. Never did I refer to anyone as petty little shit. Coming here to pick a fight with me about something I never accused you of, is petty little shit. In case you missed the irony: you popped into a conversation where you had not been editing, and posted a remark, accusing Ideogram of popping into a conversation where he had not been editing, and you defined it as stalking. I happened to see irony in the post. Given that I neither agreed nor disagreed with your assertion that it was stalking, I fail to see how you can jump to the conclusion that my comment about 'irony' equates to me saying you were stalking.

And, stalking can be more than simply 'watching someone's contribution list'. Going somewhere, where you weren't previously involved, because you know the person is there, and then posting, is a type of stalking. Whether or not it qualifies under some wiki-definition for stalking or harassment is moot and silly. If I really felt you were involved in wiki-criminial-stalking, I'd have done more than simply note the irony. And, if you read anything that I typed to Ideogram, you'd know thats how I feel. I do not classify your conduct as 'stalking' and, in reality, I probably wouldn't classify the diff you provided for Ideogram as stalking either. Ideogram may very well have a similar explanation for his 'appearance' in that conversation.

If you want a word from me, to define your actions, well childish comes to mind. Which is unfortunate, given that I agree with some of your complaints. Lsi john 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, I am qualified to recognize childish, because I'm often childish myself. Just ask Bishonen or Anchoress or a number of other people here. Lsi john 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that you have a problem expressing yourself without ambiguity. English is not my first language. So I sometimes have a problem following the "double entendre" that you native speaker are so beloved of. I strongly suggest you study French a language almost guaranteed to avoid ambiguity and "double entendre" (I even wonder why they invented the word). Good lick with the mainspace edits, my advice is to avoid anything "risque". Giano 19:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'est la vie. C'est la guerre. C'est la pomme de terra. Lsi john 20:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I don't understand your closing comment. I don't feel the need to help myself, at the moment. Are you asking me to consider what I did wrong? How to avoid similar situations in the future? --Ideogram 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You went to WP:VP and asked how to respond. Either you were looking for advice on how to fix the situation, or you were looking for someone to help you fight with Giano. I assumed good faith and proceeded to help you figure out how to fix the situation.

My questions remain: What do you want to accomplish? Where do you want all this to end up? What do you want to happen?

Only after you answer that, can anyone suggest what you need to do to get there. Lsi john 21:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the current situation. --Ideogram 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. ok. Then good luck to you. Peace. Lsi john 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived[edit]

You archived the talk without explaining your actions. I just want to know how [15] that is not a revert when you removed a lot from the article?--Migospia †♥ 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I told you. If it is a revert, then you can show me an old version that looks exactly the same.

Revert -> Making the article look like it did on an older version.Lsi john 11:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEBSTER:

One entry found for revert.

Main Entry: re·vert
Pronunciation: ri-'v&rt
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French revertir, from Latin revertere, verbt., to turn back & reverti, verbi., to return, come back, from re- + vertere, verti to turn -- more at WORTH
1 : to come or go back (as to a former condition, period, or subject)
~~2 : to return to the proprietor or his or her heirs at the end of a reversion~~
3 : to return to an ancestral type

this is deleting text, which is not the same as reverting. Deleteing text can be reverting, but it is not always reverting. If it is reverting then you can show another version of the article, from history, that looks exactly the same. Peace. I cant explain it any better, and I'm not going to try. Lsi john 12:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yea like wikipedia uses webster for their term, all i know is how i was blocked and what lessvanheard and rockpocket said so explain that. you should also look up 3rr and vandaism on webster see if its the same type for on wiki-Migospia †♥ 12:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Migospia, both of those people have told you that I am telling the truth. They have agreed with everything I have said. And, now someone else has also posted on your talkpage that I am telling the truth.

I have tried for several days to explain this and you are refusing to listen.

I understand that you are upset, but your comments are now rude and not nice. Last night you were screaming profanity. Please stop posting on my page if you are going to be uncivil.

Thank you. Lsi john 18:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you obviously pass one of the litmus tests[edit]

Have you considered applying for adminship? To me you seem to have the grasp of policy required, and you are more than capable in the matter of civility in adverse conditions. You are also helpful, generally. I am not overfamiliar with your article space editing, but I would be willing to co-nom if there was someone else prepared to put you up first. Of course, this all depends on whether it appeals to you...? LessHeard vanU 12:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misgopia/Veganism[edit]

Yikes, that's too bad, yeah when editors push the conspiracy theory stuff it can be hard to convince them otherwise - because if you disagree with them, in their mind, you're part of the conspiracy. Hopefully it'll just fade out in a few days - although the problem with it fading out is then the next time something like this happens, she'll say the same thing, so I'm not really sure how to approach the whole thing. Crossing my fingers, --daniel folsom 18:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I made a big (more so controversial) change to the veganism article that you might want to fix up if you get a chance - I'm not sure how well it's going to go over, but I found the source by accident (I was looking to globalize the demographics section), and I figured it was too good to not include. So yeah, I kind of noted this on the talk page, but I would appreciate if you could look at this diff and fix it up a bit/give me your reaction. I know it's not amazingly well written, but again, I just thought we should include it.--daniel folsom 18:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm - I see you've already done so in the talk. sorry bout that--daniel folsom 18:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And the paragraph is already targeted for 'culling'.. haha.. I knew it wouldn't last. Lsi john 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any group that sees 'concerns' about B12 deficiencies as 'pov-concern-trolling', is bound to delete real criticizm quickly. I take multi-vitamins, I'm not a vegan, so vitamins certainly wouldn't prevent me from becoming vegan. It's amazing what some people get upset about. Lsi john 18:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Then again, I have my less-proud moments in the sun too! :)[reply]

Uhh wow, it seems like with us both having to deal with the controversy on the Veganism article and Migospia ... well ... I hope you don't have any plans for the summer! --daniel folsom 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also randomley found the veganism article - I was searching through the backlog, and I saw it once but left it, and then Migospia's talk brought it to my attention again. The history pages are pretty crazy - I mean, we might as well throw in an American/British spelling argument because it's not like the page could get any more controversial. It seems to me, and again, I'm not anti or pro vegan, that the pro-vegan editors, possibly including migosipa, are preventing any potential criticisms from being on the page. Some of their edits are just crazy - like they'll just remove content and then when pushed for grounds they'll just rebuke the content on the talk page. I think they all should learn that Wikipedia is not some giant debate, and most times unless you can prove the source is not reliabe (I'm not going to do WP links because you definitley know more policy than I do), then the content should stay. --daniel folsom 19:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Kellen has decided to remove the content - if you get back on could you come take a look at this, I'm gonna browse through the edit history a bit because some of her (multiple) edits were sketch.--daniel folsom 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've replied on my talk page. You can check the Talk:Veganism archives for the reasoning behind the last thing I removed. In short: the comments of the author were misreported, which led to a media frenzy; the author then clarified her comments, which were essentially in line with the recommendations of the vegan society, etc. The media frenzy is hardly relevant to the subject of Veganism. Cheers, Kellen^T 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done no need to respond just take it in[edit]

You really need to chill and calm down it was clelary a revert, but it does not matter revert-edit SAME thing. Just talk on the talk page before making such edits and chll! Maybe back off Veganism for a while, your edits aren't helping the article/wiki. That's it I'm done!--Migospia †♥ 01:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know - I think, and Wikipedia policy would seem to agree with me, that if anything you should edit the veganism article more. So often you are the source of reason in hectic debates - i.e. with the above user - and a source of reason appears to be exactly what the veganism article needs. You know and I know that reverts and edits are not the same thing, and when you have a conspiracy pusher (once again on her talk page she has called all admins "buds") then it is impossible to win an argument - they are oblivious to the reason that you or any editor could provide. Again, you probably already know this - but I figure it's my duty as an editor to make sure.--daniel folsom 03:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you two talking to? Lsi john 12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh you- Migospia is still upset that you "got away" with 3rr - uh this discussion: [16]--daniel folsom 12:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just wanted to make sure. Clearly Migospia †♥ is violating her own policies. I have responded on her talkpage.

As for the vegan article, the editors there have no idea what true anti-vegan-pov looks like. I have no desire to specifically search for anti-vegan sources, as I believe that I would then be making a point. However, I will continue to support any sourced material (pro, anti or neutral) which is introduced into the article, as long as it is relevant and adds value to the article. Lsi john 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Right now I'm a bit busy to be working on that article, but I'm hoping that if it is simply brought up two or three times on the talk page editors will react and say "we need to add stuff". I'm not really sure how to proceed with migospia - part of me is wanting to continue the debate no matter what, with the hope of eventually proving to her that what she's doing is wrong, and then talking her down - because that part of me is thinking that I can easily win any debate with her because policy obviously backs me up - she would run out of arguments pretty quickly. BUT the other part of me is thinking I should just walk away, but the problem is I've done that before, and then she got into another conflict and brought up that situation because she thought me walking away was a sign that she was right. Sorry for making you read all that - but I figured you are involved enough that you might have some input - but if not that's fine, I also will post something simmilar to this on Rockpocket's page. Well, here's to hopping for a happy ending, cheers --daniel folsom 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielfolsom, I have posted on her page that I am done helping her. Per his recent post on her page, Rockpocket is also done trying to help her. Roughly a dozen people have tried working with her, and tried to help her. She refuses to understand 3RR and continues to complain that people are "ignoring rules to help their buds". As for you, everything in life is a choice, and you get to make your own.

IMHO, she can either figure out what 3RR is, or she can keep ending up blocked for breaking 3RR. Eventually she will either figure it out, or stay blocked. For me, it's gone beyond simply 'not understanding' and is now a matter of 'not wanting to understand'. And continuing to spend time trying to help her is disrupting my work schedule, my wiki editing, and my sleep schedule.

A friend of mine defines 'insanity' as "..doing the same thing over and over, and each time expecting a different result." So, as I don't consider myself to be terribly insane, I'm have made a decision to close that chapter and move on. Peace in God. Lsi john 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Her userpage declares that she knows "everyone hates her". And, her actions drive people away, and thus she proves her belief by creating it. Lsi john 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot world[edit]

You may get a laff out of this. Bots talking to bots on a script's talk page. --Justanother 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of context[edit]

I did not deliberately quote you out of context, as I assumed that your comment was following on from mine. My apologies. I did link to the entire conversation slightly earlier (my 2nd ref in the first paragraph, current ref No [94])], but thought that Admin would find the text more easily by providing a diff, which we're often encouraged to do, also because full text is often removed because of archiving. My apologies again. --Iantresman 21:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iantresman, it's one thing to cite a quote in a conversation with another editor. It's quite another when it comes to using someone's quote on AN/I or some other 'escalated' situation. I'm not saying that I have never done it myself, and I may do it again some day. Each situation provides its own unique set of circumstances and there is no general purpose answer that fits every situation. In this case, you used my comment out of context to address a completely different situation.

In the future it might be better if you let the person know you have opened an AN/I, and invite them to comment there for themselves. Had I felt that it was apropriate to open an AN/I ticket, I would have done so myself. (And I'm talking about the article discussion page, not your talkpage issue). While I think it was improper for him to remove the article discussion page comments, I think it is equally improper to report it on AN/I. This was a case of an admin, who was acting as an editor. He had not envoked any admin tools. Take it to dispute resolution, where it rightfully belongs. The admins at AN/I are not babysitters. Let them deal with real problems and questions. Lsi john 22:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, it's nice to have a sensible reply that directly addresses the issue. --Iantresman 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitweak et al[edit]

I saw this and remembered the name, and Migospia having some trouble with same over an article where I had first encountered her. LessHeard vanU 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCom Case[edit]

I have made the decision to take the MedCab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Shoeless Joe Jackson. I hope I will be of some help in this case. I will try to all of you guys communicating in a civil manner and will assist you in finding a compromise. Have a nice week and God bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) (08:45, 22 June 2007)

Greetings and salutations[edit]

Hi Lsi john - though we've never spoken before, I wanted to let you know that I was impressed by the way you handled this conversation. Very reasonable, rational, and kind. Well done - cheers to you, sir! Kind regards and God bless, Folic Acid 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored. Thank you. Lsi john 14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

I'm in the process of processing an unblock anyways, and no the barnstars were simply icing on the cake. Furthermore, note that 3RR is not an entitlement. And I'd be very curious as to how a checkuser turned up Misou and COFS as sockpuppets and you claim they are in different countries. JoshuaZ 16:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attachment therapy[edit]

Thanks for spotting the 3 ANI's on FatherTree and letting involved editors know Lsi. And thanks as ever for your wise and calming influence. Fainites 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I happened to see the posts on AN/I and recognized the usernames in the post. When I saw that he hadn't told anyone he was reporting then.. well.. that simply isnt nice. Too many people here seem to be out to get someone, rather than out to create accurate and good articles. Best of luck. Peace in God. Lsi john 21:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on talk pages[edit]

Your comments on William M. Connolley's user page were quite appropriate I think. --Britcom 03:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UPDATE:) William deletes again. See here: [17] --Britcom 01:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concern[edit]

John, I am concerned about the tone of some of your posts. Could you please redouble your efforts to remain civil and assume good faith, even when other editors don't do so. You will be more effective if you follow this simple strategy. I see you intervening in all sorts of disputes, as a sort of conscience. We conduct business publicly, so there's nothing wrong with that, but you may want to slow down a little bit until you become more experienced with Wikipedia policies. I see that you are a relatively new editor and feel empathy toward your situation. Jehochman ^Talk 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself to be very civil. However, I am always willing to improve. Rather than be vague, would you be so kind as to point out where I have overstepped my boundaries and mis-stated wikipedia policy? Lsi john 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last post on Durova's talk page is over the top. It looks like a legal threat. You should immediately remove that comment and think of a better way to express yourself. I suggest composing something and sleeping on it. There is no rush. Please, please remove that. Jehochman ^Talk 01:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not intended as a legal threat. I was trying to be accurate. I will reword it per your suggestion. Lsi john 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I have reworded it in wiki-terms. I take such personal attacks seriously and wanted to convey that to Durova. As you pointed out, I'm not familiar with how to make the statement properly on wikipedia. It seemed that I had been unsuccessful in my previous attempt to communicate my feelings to Durova and I wanted to make sure she understood what I was objecting to.

Thank you for your insight and assisstance. Lsi john 01:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You've still got the word "defamatory" in there. That's a lightning rod. Please refactor that comment one more time. Additionally, Durova's comments about your editing are not personal attacks. Durova is a very experienced, and trusted, administrator. You can use adjectives like unwise, mistaken, deceived, or over-zealous, but accusing an administrator of bad faith without proper evidence is very bad for your own reputation. Don't do it. If you feel an administrator has done something wrong, explain the problem using neutral terms (e.g. admin did this, which I disagree with because...) at WP:AN. Jehochman ^Talk 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh.. I make the change for you, and now you say I'm not accruate. Jehochman, accusing me of offline collusion is an unfounded and outright lie. The accurate term is libel, so I used that term. You said that looked like a legal threat, and I have no desire to make any legal threats, so I reworded it for you to wiki-language NPA. Now you say it wasn't a personal attack. Please tell me what it was, in words that won't be misconstrued as a legal threat. Lsi john 02:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed one.. gime a sec. And for the record here, I'd certainly hope that nobody would misunderstand it as a legal threat and escalate the situation unnecessarily. Lsi john 02:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. thanks. Lsi john 02:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I got an issue in the main Scientology page. In the talk area. Bravehartbear 03:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

John, this was a tough decision on my part. Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak[edit]

Things are getting far too personal and I need to take some time away.

I will be back when things have calmed down. If you need me, I am available by email.

To my friends, thank you for your support.

Peace in God. Lsi john 05:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny[edit]

) Tendancer 18:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notification[edit]

Per recommendation from the WP:CSN closure I have initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#COFS. You are a named party in the request so you may wish to submit a statement to the Committee. Durova^Charge! 02:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today...[edit]

...started with the usual contention with Tecmobowl, and accelerated into his being blocked for 1 week, after some 3RR violations and uncivil behavior (to say the least) after they came up with solid evidence that proved the strong suspicion of sockpuppet behavior. I want to apologize to you for being cross with you. You have no idea what I and others have had to put up with from that character. I had hoped he would see reason without taking him behind the administrative woodshed, but some folks are just too egoistic to see the bigger picture. Hopefully, I myself am not that far gone yet. Be good. :) Baseball Bugs 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings here, sir. None at all. I'm just trying to be a calm voice in the storm. On first impression, people tend to either hate me or love me. For some reason there aren't many in between. Although those that don't like me, but take the time to get to know me, generally come around to liking me. The point I was trying to make, is that you can accomplish every bit of what happened, without being overtly nasty. Trust me, I'm all too familiar with pov-pushing Spa's. They'll generally shoot themselves in the foot, without any help from us, if we give them enough rope. (ok, I'm mixing metaphores). Peace.Lsi john 23:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Give a man enough rope, and he'll shoot himself in the foot." I like it. :) It sounds like something out of the Dilbert newsletter. I don't know if I said this before, but my one real beef with Tecmo was that he refused to answer fair questions I posed to him. That was it, the whole thing that started it. I don't mind arguments and passionate discussions. Where there's communication, there's hope. When he cut me off like I was some insect, I was enfuriated. Although that sounds like ego-at-work, it turns out he treats everyone that way. And upon being blocked today, he said "I'll be back in a week and unless a good discussion has taken place, my behavior will remain the same." So there ya are. If anyone ever begged for a permanent block, he's the one. Baseball Bugs 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And, 'tween you and me (and all of wikipedia), in fighting with him, you became him (at least in your conversations with me). Just something to think about. For me, I see myself doing that too. Perhaps we all do. But it certainly bears watching, at least for me it does. I don't particularly like it when I 'become' like those with whom I'm in conflict. oh, and I still like the website as an EL :P ;) Peace.Lsi john 00:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called lowering oneself to someone else's level. I think this problem is inherent to this site, as a function of its policy that I like to paraphrase "the encyclopedia any moron can edit". That's not to call him a moron. He's not a moron, just a disruptive user. Most of the morons are IP addresses and red-links. But this popular-committee approach has inherent flaws. I sometimes think that its real purpose is an elaborate social experiment Mr. Wales is conducting, in pursuit of his doctoral degree or something. :) Baseball Bugs 00:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wi-Fi[edit]

I cordially invite you to help improve Wi-Fi. Jehochman ^Hablar 15:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. um ok. thanks. As a network admin and software engineer, I'm a wi-fi user, without much knowledge of the specific details (frequencies and such), but I'll have a look. Peace.Lsi john 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Enforcer[edit]

John, if you're still interested, take a look at the Wikibreak Enforcer script that the nice lady posted a link to on my page in response to your request for an enforced wikibreak. Not sure it's what you're looking for or that you're indeed still looking. My feeling, last time I looked into the issue, was that the self-block scripts were too easily overridden. But perhaps this is an improved version. Anyway, it's for you, so you might want to check it out and send her a thank-you note. Bishonen | talk 09:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! Snagged a copy. Peace.Lsi john 16:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration[edit]

If you look at the comment by the first arbitrator, you can see where this is going. We are at arbitration to settle the questions he poses. I do not think this is going to lead to sanctions against any editor. Rather, it will clarify what is sockpuppetry and what isn't and serve as a precedent. Jehochman ^Hablar 15:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Peace.Lsi john 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tecmobowl[edit]

Are you beginning to see precisely what my issue is with him? Baseball Bugs 01:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really prefer to keep conversations together....

I'm saying that I sympathize. By the time I got involved nobody was talking to anyone, and that is frustrating. I'd prefer to remain unspecific, as then I'd feel obliged to be equally specific elsewhere. (hint hint) Peace.Lsi john 01:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind thoughts. :) Baseball Bugs 01:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is still one thing that's slightly irksome about this character. In addition to generally twisting the facts, and continually lying about his sockpuppetry, he makes it look like everything was peachy until June when everyone started ganging up on him. Take a look at this entry from last fall, long before I ever heard of him, and when he was already doing this same "my way or the highway" stuff and was being told by admins to stop it. [18] And there is this other cautionary note from the day before he said "la dee da" to me: [19] Tecmobowl has been a contentious user from the get-go. It just happened to reach a critical mass in June, when enough editors were ready to stand up to him. Baseball Bugs 14:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to appear to be "poking" him, but I will not stand idly by and watch him lie about stuff. And if I get suspended for it, so be it. Baseball Bugs 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully, why does it matter what he says about what happened? You ALL behaved very poorly at one time or another. The only 'really' important thing, is what he does going forward. You continue to poke him, and make sure your view of the record is 'accurately reflected'. Bottom line.. who gives a flying shit? It all happened, he's blocked. Bugs, your continued badgering does not reflect well on you. You guided the ship to a successful block. Let fate take over now. Peace.Lsi john 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your language, Mr. Christian. I felt the need to let him know specifically why he drew my attention, and to remind him that he was doing this long before any of us ever heard of him. Get this: He does not care what any of us thinks... not you, not me, not the admins, not anyone. So what I say or don't say to him is unlikely to have any negative impact on what he decides to do. But if he actually reflects on it, there is the meager possibility of having a positive effect. Baseball Bugs 21:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha.. I'm unaware of any but a specific few proscriptions on language with regards to Christianity. I'm trying to offer you some of the same sage advice that you're offering him. And you're accepting it in similar fashion. You might reflect on that. :) Anyway, I said my peace. You're intent on keeping him blocked and I have no desire to make it my 'battle'. I think he deserves a chance to come back. I think you should avoid him. I think he should avoid you. And I already said on his page that I'm unlikely to reply further about the issue. Lets stay 'friendly' cuz I certainly liked it better, kk? :) (I'd prefer to end this discussion too). Peace.Lsi john 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Christians I know don't lower themselves to vulgarity. Be that as it may, what I'm offering you is that I will stop watching his page. In short, I'm taking your advice. I would actually like to see him change his ways and come back and be a constructive editor. It's not totally hopeless; there's always a chance. Baseball Bugs 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For most of my teen and adult life I've challenged both my mother and my aunt (both are self proclaimed experts) to provide a Biblical source which clearly proscribes swearing. As they have been unable to furnish such a verse, I apply 'respect' to the subject of swearing, and act accordingly. I try to limit my vulgarities to expletives not directed 'at' anyone and try to avoid them around people who might otherwise be offended.

Regarding TB, thanks. Let him dig his own hole, if a hole he chooses to dig. It'll be better for your wiki-sanity too. See you at the ball park. Peace.Lsi john 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of User:Nleobold[edit]

Thanks for the tip on procedure. I have entered the completed details upon the template that you sent me the lead for. His modus operandi has been to do 3 Reverts before, on 28 June 2007. Thanks again for your help. Dogru144 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've placed below, link for the fourth edit today, by User:Nleobold, upon Deborah Glick article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Glick&oldid=142084257

Here is his fourth edit today on the Jerrold Nadler article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerrold_Nadler&oldid=142084927

Hope this helps, and follows protocol..

Regards, Dogru144 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated AN3RR for you. You should familiarize yourself with the process. Peace.Lsi john 23:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I saw your statement that you were withdrawing from the arbitration. However, I am required to open the case on the basis of all the parties named. Any requests to be excused from further proceedings should be addressed to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't suppose it makes much difference one way or the other. I have nothing to contribute related to COFS. Is there any value to formally asking to be excused? Peace.Lsi john 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter unless you anticipate that you might be the subject of a remedy. You might want to just check the Workshop on occasion to see if there are any proposals about you. I also noticed that someone mentioned that COFS hasn't edited in two weeks. If COFS does not resume editing, the arbitration may not get very far in any event. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the arbitration could be a good thing, though I think it could go horribly awry. My input would be purely academic and procedural, suggesting caution on how any 'decisions' are worded. And, based on the track history of this case, I have little faith that I'd be heard in any event. I'll follow it. I don't anticipate that there will even be a reason to mention me, as I am not involved in any aspect of the situation that the committee wishes to review. Peace.Lsi john 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Tecmobowl...[edit]

...is now being wooed by a user who appears to be obsessed with imagery of murder victims. If that's the best Tecmo can do for support, he might want to think about getting another hobby. Baseball Bugs 00:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you would not know this if you had stopped watching his page like you promised me you would. Peace.Lsi john 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone alerted me to it. It's now became more a source of amusement than anything. You should read that page now. It's a riot. Baseball Bugs 12:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. I'm disappointed in both you and Irish for keeping things stirred up. Whether he's right or wrong, you're kicking him when he's blocked and thats not very good sport. On a side note, I'm curious if anyone has asked for a socks check. Peace.Lsi john 12:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A socks check to see if those two are the same user? Nah, the one called "Sarah Goldberg" has been around for awhile and has a different M.O. It used to be called "Catherine Woods". I recall running into it for some unknown reason, maybe a year ago. Both of those accounts were seemingly obsessed with a woman by that name who had been murdered, and with other violent crimes, and kept pushing crime scene photos and the like. The user has a bad reputation among the admins, and its hollow promise to "do something" for Tecmobowl will go nowhere for that reason. Its only purpose in weighing in is to stir things up, and Tecmo is too enraged to understand that reality. Baseball Bugs 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking that this megillah is taking on a shape that seems biblical. Or maybe more like "Star Wars". Tecmo is in a kind of "purgatory" right now, and he's had several angelic admins and editors offering him a path to "salvation", which he rejects because it would compel him to change. Then along comes an "evil tempt(ress)" who offers him another path via the "dark side", and he jumps on it, not understanding it can only lead to a longer stay in "purgatory". OK, it must be time to go to work now. :) Baseball Bugs 13:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red[edit]

John, would you be willing to look at this situation, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red, and give your opinion or advice? I am concerned that the editor in question has NPOV issues, but I am also concerned that this RFC should not turn into a witch hunt. Jehochman ^Hablar 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh. what a mess. yo quiero taco bell. Peace.Lsi john 02:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, I really appreciate that you provided your assessment on the RfC. It really bolsters my respect for WP. I replied to your COI question on the RfC page.

As you might imagine, just responding to the comments on the Juice Plus talk page and the RfC has eaten up a lot of valuable time that could have been spent contributing elsewhere. I have forayed out a few times in search of areas where I could contribute meaningfully, and have edited a few of those articles. Do you have any suggestions for how to find other articles that are in need of work? I will be happy to contribute outside of the Juice Plus area more regularly and I greatly apreciate your suggestions. Thanks. Rhode Island Red 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ways to find articles. It really depends on what your interests are. You can edit a random article. You can pick a category and select an article from that.. etc etc. Peace.Lsi john 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for taking the time to study this situation closely. It is not an easy task to get up to speed on the long and winding history and I just wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate your involvement and constructive comments. Rhode Island Red 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. And I was serious with my recommendation that you take a break from that article. It appears to be getting personal for you, which is understandable, given that you are only 'invested' in one article.

While, I think that the other editors are fortunate that nobody decided to turn the RfC around on them, that does not release you from your responsibility to keep your head on your shoulders.

If I can be of any help in finding another article (or two or three) for you to 'migrate to', let me know. Peace.Lsi john 21:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy my response to those who have commented on this user's blocking[edit]

(Posted also on individual talk pages) Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [20] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.
I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.

Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.

It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).

A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.

DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.

I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.
In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
I note the comments above that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS ^talk 02:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our secret is out[edit]

Sorry, no more plotting the destruction of Wikipedia in our Secret Pirate's Clubhouse. Darn, I was sure that no-one would ever notice all those edits in our contrib histories or in the edit history of my user page (after all, who would be interested in mousey, low-profile, editors like us). And I was sure that this edit summary would have thrown them off. I can be so naive! --Justanother 15:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I should have looked. haha.. redacted. Peace.Lsi john 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence#Appearance of impropriety: Quite proud of themself, I daresay. --Justanother 17:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That is funny then, after all. I'll find a sneaky place to post my real opinion. Peace.Lsi john 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny. I think this is, by far, at the top of the list for absurd. Though it does demonstrate her consistent Bad Faith. Anything which I don't immediately understand, must be evidence of something wrong. I lost count of the bad faith assumptions in that post that I could explain, even through her misinterpretations. Someone should take away her toys. Perhaps mentorship would be a good idea for her? Peace.Lsi john 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something you might find interesting[edit]

Hello again, Lsi John. You may remember our paths crossed for a while last month, when we both were involved in trying to rein in a problem editor? Well, by complete co-incidence, I happened across a very unorthodox edit today. Why would our friend claim the comment of another editor for herself, I wondered? Or more pertinently, why would another editor get involved in that conversation in the first place (having never edited the article before), only for her contribution to be claimed by another editor just two minutes later?

So I then went back and compared the contributions of both editors and some very interesting things show up. Specifically, note around when the new account was created, how the times of two editors edits will often run into one another, but never, ever cross, and how there are certain themes that both editors are interested in. Now, I can't find any explicit evidence of abuse using sockpuppets (there are a few examples of taking turns reverting, but none that would have tipped an editor over 3RR). However, the most amazing thing is the extremely different tone, use of english and grammar between the editors. So much so, that - assuming good faith - one must assume there are two different people taking turns editing from the same computer. Either that or there was some seriously sophisticated trolling going on last month.... Rockpocket 08:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and agreed. On the surface it does appear they are connected. It's not against the rules to use sock (alternate) accounts, unless its done abusively. I'll dig a bit and get back to you. Peace.Lsi john 12:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red[edit]

John, would you be willing to look at this situation, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red, and give your opinion or advice? I am concerned that the editor in question has NPOV issues, but I am also concerned that this RFC should not turn into a witch hunt. Jehochman ^Hablar 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh. what a mess. yo quiero taco bell. Peace.Lsi john 02:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, I really appreciate that you provided your assessment on the RfC. It really bolsters my respect for WP. I replied to your COI question on the RfC page.

As you might imagine, just responding to the comments on the Juice Plus talk page and the RfC has eaten up a lot of valuable time that could have been spent contributing elsewhere. I have forayed out a few times in search of areas where I could contribute meaningfully, and have edited a few of those articles. Do you have any suggestions for how to find other articles that are in need of work? I will be happy to contribute outside of the Juice Plus area more regularly and I greatly apreciate your suggestions. Thanks. Rhode Island Red 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ways to find articles. It really depends on what your interests are. You can edit a random article. You can pick a category and select an article from that.. etc etc. Peace.Lsi john 21:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for taking the time to study this situation closely. It is not an easy task to get up to speed on the long and winding history and I just wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate your involvement and constructive comments. Rhode Island Red 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. And I was serious with my recommendation that you take a break from that article. It appears to be getting personal for you, which is understandable, given that you are only 'invested' in one article.

While, I think that the other editors are fortunate that nobody decided to turn the RfC around on them, that does not release you from your responsibility to keep your head on your shoulders.

If I can be of any help in finding another article (or two or three) for you to 'migrate to', let me know. Peace.Lsi john 21:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does 'evidence' provided on the request page need to be moved to the evidence page? Peace.Lsi john 18:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea. I'm not sure whether the arbitrators consider the statements with the same level of detail that they go over the evidence on the evidence page with. Hope that helps. Picaroon (Talk) 18:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the endless cacophany of shoeless joe[edit]

I saw your comments and wanted to thank you for your attempts and patience. The EL issue is over--I've gotten it as far away from wikibullying as possible (I think), but over never seems to really be over, over there. I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts on the last issue (linking to a file)--this has been going on so long that anything that isn't an insult sounds good to me which I know is a bad sign. You don't have to watch the page or get involved--but your opinions have been thoughtful and not provocative and I'd be interested in more of that if you'd be so kind. Either way--thank you for everything you have done. I must say-I'm rather glad I edit school articles. Eventually people grow up and move on to a different school or other mid-life crisis. But abandon baseball to the whims of other editors? Never! Miss Mondegreen talk 22:24, July 11 2007 (UTC)

Veganism GA review[edit]

Hi there, I've reviewed the article and put it on hold until some corrections and clarifications are made. If you could help out with this that would be great. All the best Tim Vickers 22:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim. I'll have a look at the review. Peace.Lsi john 02:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Long levi[edit]

Or should I say "The Atlanta Phoenix"? It seems we're starting off right, doing things by the book. Hopefully "the process" will work well and take care of this situation soon. Baseball Bugs 00:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did. They saw through him like a picture window. He's blocked. Baseball Bugs 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further to DreamGuy and attempted harassment[edit]

Interesting comment but "attempting harassment" is surely engaging in harassment, albeit unsuccesfully. What may not cause any distress to you and/or me may be found to be hurtful or frightening to another party. Therefore I may warn or block an individual who makes disparaging remarks regarding my race, sexuality, political allegiances or taste in footwear, even if I am not upset, shocked, or frightened, as it is indicative of an inappropriate behaviour regardless of its effect. Therefore I am acting on attempted harassment.

No problems regarding "shortness", either. In my book you are vastly in credit with regards to civility. LessHeard vanU 12:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the response and the compliment. If attempting harassment = harassment, then its harassment. But I'm often pedantic. Peace.Lsi john 12:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I assume this issue is finished with in a general sense - I thought I would wait a couple of days before I responded to your comment at ANI that stated in such strong terms Attempting to harass other users. What sort of weasel block comment is that? regarding this part of the issue (given that you indicated directly that you were in a "pissy" mood at the time and may have needed a couple of days to cool off). I note that LHvU has made a valid comment about this in some sense above but what you may not be aware of is that the BLOCK button administrators have allows for a drop down box containing only 9 common Block Reasons - of which (in relation to DreamGuy) the only close reason to his behaviour is automatically given in that drop down box as Attempting to [[Wikipedia:Civility|Harass]] other users. I assume this information will clear up any other thoughts you might have about why the block message gave that description? Best wishes--VS ^talk 08:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, as I'm not an admin, I'm unaware of any 'pre-defined' block comments. To the extent that you were unable to change, or manually add, a blocking comment, I apologize.

If you had the ability to manually change the blocking comment, then I stand by my statement. Picking something 'close', in my opinion, simply isn't good enough when it comes to a permenant block record.

And I still feel that blocking for Attempted just about anything is pretty silly. (Whether thats directed at you or the script writer doesn't change my opinion of the block comment.) The exception being the example given in the ANI thread -attempted murder- with the obvious reason being that murder is pretty hard to undo, so attempting it is serious. As the famous statement says "There is not try. There is DO and DO NOT". I believe either someone is harassing or they aren't. Saying they are 'attempting to harass' is a back door for us to avoid standing behind our belief that they were, indeed, harassing someone.

And, while I appreciate the time and effort you took explaining your block, I still believe that a) your 'newbie' warning to him was insulting and only served to provoke the situation, b) that he was completely justified in deleting such an insulting message, c) while he was not necessarily polite about it, it appears that he was in fact correct about deleting the image and his block log should be ammended to reflect that, and d) given your level of involvement, setting the block yourself was inappropriate and excessive and e) you should have voluntarily unblocked when multiple admins objected. Peace.Lsi john 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LJ - (a) commented on at ANI page, (b) I have no further comment but understand your opinion (c) not sure how you can come to this conclusion the image is still available, it has been adjusted and DG is still edit-warring with others over it, (d) commented on at ANI page, (e) I did consider an adjustment to the time frame when I returned to the first message on this issue however as I have noted now many times another admin agreed with blocking DG for his actions and then reduced the time frame. For me (or any other admin) to change that would have been engaging in a wheel war - which is particularly frowned upon at Wikipedia. The fact is DG did deserve a block and this has been posted on his block log by another admin.--VS ^talk 23:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Hello, Lsi John!Peace be to you. I noticed that you are a Christian like me! on your page you stated that. However, you created the template since you could not find the write template to state that you are Christian but I found the template you were looking for.

This user believes in the existence of God.

I placed by puting "user God" in these - {{}} - As you say, Peace! Angel David, ?!?, 17:14, 21 July,2007 (UTC)

Angel David, thank you. As there are many religions/denominations that believe in God, I prefer the more specific version that identifies Christianity. Peace.Lsi john 03:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]