User:Anynobody/Archive 1

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination)

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

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

Double-standards are irritating

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

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

Non-notability?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply from Johnpedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justanother RfC v2.0.a talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved from top

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

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

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

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

FYI, odd commentary...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you...

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

You probably should. For some reason the symbols, which I just got out of some online translator, so all I know is that they were modern Japanese, started showing up as question marks when I would sign :(. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That sucks, I liked the Japanese characters. Do you know much about Japanese writing? I know almost nothing except that when I put Japanese characters on texture maps of Japanese aircraft, tanks, or ships it probably does not mean anything close to what it should be (unless I can get a look at the actual writing, then I copy it and hope for the best). Anynobody 23:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about Japanese writing. However, I do know some people who do, and they said that the Katakana article is useful for learning, though it will take a while. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 04:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, that will help me a lot actually. Anynobody 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

your RfA

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

Hello, Dweller I was just about to respond on the talk page to general concerns about inexperience. Thank you for your comment, honestly it gave me pause because I had grave concerns about it myself. I can not deny a part of me agrees with you, but a greater part wants me to let the RfA run it's course and I'll explain why. We really are backlogged in several categories, I know it sounds like high drama to say "I just want to clear the backlog!" but I've had a couple of proposals and questions become backlogged. (I'm not trying to resolve those specific issues myself, but while making my case I couldn't help noticing some other issues that I could solve). I recently read Jimbo on Admins...No Big Deal, and thought well "That's great Jimbo, but how are you going to make sure we don't end up with a bunch of bad administrators?". Then it occurred to me he probably meant the community won't tolerate them, since everyone more or less as a say. I truly think allowing the community to hold me accountable mitigates much of the risk involved, vs how much work I could do.

I also want to explain that I'm not saying I'm the only exception either, there are probably other editors around my tenure that could be doing more to help if given the chance. Anynobody 12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but having participated in a fair amounts of RfAs, I'd be utterly utterly gobsmacked if even the ultimate editor in the world, with no skeletons in their cupboard was approved so soon after starting. Oh, and while I'm here, a word of advice. A look at your edit history shows that you rarely leave an edit summary. Change your personal settings so that Wikipedia prompts you if you omit a summary. Two reasons: a) edit summaries are useful (and courteous) b) I've seen people get oppose !votes at RfA just for having poor edit summary stats. Cheers, --Dweller 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dweller; I've watched enough RfAs to know that yours isn't going pass this time. It might demonstrate maturity to not drag it out. I do think you should try again later (three months seems to be what many people expect as a minimum of time between RfAs). — coelacan — 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you both are probably right in that I won't be approved, and I further agree with you that it would be far better for my prospects to withdraw and file again later. I'm interested in resolving a contradiction about how the community really perceives administrators. I realize this may be close to WP:POINT but I can't reconcile No Big Deal with the actual attitude of many editors while backlogs accumulate.

Wikipedia is free of cost in financial terms, but in order for it to work like it should there are tasks that must be done that are boring, thankless, and unpleasant. In certain areas, these tasks are not getting done. Since I enjoy editing here I feel it would be selfish to not at least offer my help.

Also, even if I get no more support I'll still have the opportunity to get constructive feedback. Such as Dweller's observation about my use of edit summaries which I agree with for the most part. There are plenty of minor edits where I could've used the edit summary, and I will work on making more use of it. However there are a few instances when I intentionally don't use it. I find an edit summary on talk pages can cause problems if the edit summary is either too direct or too ambiguous, and can cause people to ignore the edit itself. I also don't attempt one if I've made significant changes to an article that are better explained on the talk page. In cases like that I'll remember to leave a see talk comment.

I really appreciate the advice, and your time. Anynobody 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally...

You might find this (updated every half hour) useful. --Dweller 11:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very useful actually. I was seriously afraid the support would be much lower. Are there other tools for similar proposal type articles? (I also couldn't help noticing that one RfA appears to be overdue, granted that's not an admin task but still illustrates a lack of decsion makers) Anynobody 12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you see a (badly) overdue RfA, you're best off reporting it to WP:BN (where there's a similar Tangobot chart, this time updated hourly). That's not the only option, but I suggest it's the wisest. --Dweller 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Which other proposals do you mean? --Dweller 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pages like arbcom votes, suggested changes, or AfDs where editors vote on a proposal. That tool would be very helpful when monitoring a WP:AfD especially. Anynobody 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my notice to the WP:BN Anynobody 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts...

... on the new Main Page for the project WP:SCN? Let me know what you think. FYI, the old version is archived on the talk page archives. Smee 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

I was surprised since I thought the previous page was good, I see now that it was not nearly as good as it could be. It's an improvement in every respect, I even like the colors. Great job Smee, you've fixed something I didn't think was broken. Anynobody 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! There was also some positive feedback on the WP:SCN talk page, so I guess/hope the new format is here to stay. Here's to the addition and collaboration on well-sourced improvements to the project... Smee 07:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

In that spirit I uploaded a bunch of L Ron Hubbard documents. Check out your page on the Commons for more info. Again, great job :) Anynobody 09:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

From Johnpedia

I'm not speaking for the church, I don't know exactly what the stance is, but my feelings and from what I've heard and seen and learnt, psychology isn't necessarily damaging, it CAN lead people in the wrong direction at times, it can make a lot of mistakes, it might not understand how people really work as it should, it could be a big waste of money for what you're getting, but it doesn't really damage the person. We don'[t like psychiatry because it damages people, it ruins them, it makes things so much worse, to mess a person up so much that they don't know what is what so they're not on the same playing field as they were and as they should be , where they had a problem to begin with. Psychiatrists do all kinds of things to a person's body to affect the mental aspect. For some reason, I don't know why, some of the sickest people go into psychiatry. For fun, go to ratemds.com and read the reviews of psychiatrsts in any state or province, so many of them say the same basic thing, and most of them are awful reviews, and some sound like they were written by the person they're supposed to be reviewing. I've seen and met some psychaitrsts and they are the scariest people, there's no humanity in them, it's awful being around them. So Scientology is really opposed to it, but psychology, no no, if somebody is going to a thearpist to talk about things and they're feeling better, awesome! good for them! like talking to a friend, getting relief from it, etc. Psychiatrists don't even do much of that, they're pill prescribers and all those awful surgeries. They're not going to last, either, most people are so weary of them, but they've tried to create this idea that they know what they're doing and they have answers, when they don't, they have such smug arrogant attitudes and that's all they have, so I can't wait for the day when it's completely gone and everyone realizes what it really is. Sorry for the rant, it's just a topic I'm, passionate about. Johnpedia 04:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To address the last part first, you didn't sound like you were ranting. I generally agree with your assessment that many doctors (but not just psychiatrists) are essentially licensed drug dealers. I've seen it in general MDs, a cardiologist, and a couple of dentists so it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that some of them just prescribe meds and nothing more.

I also agree that psychology won't work for everyone and could make things worse, but it's important to remember that can happen with any medical treatment (mental health or physical). For example a person allergic to Penicillin would have a whole new set of problems if he/she got a shot of it to cure an infection. I guess my point is that there is no one cure all, and that's why I think people ought to have their choice of treatment. (You sound like you feel that way too, which is why I don't see your post as a rant.) I'll take a look at ratemds.com and finish my thoughts a little later. Thanks for responding, I was starting to worry I had offended you. Anynobody 05:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The ratemds.com site gave me 26 listings for psychiatrists in Arizona (which is where I live). I have to say they really don't look that bad, 15 good ratings, 2 average ratings, 3 bad ratings, and 6 unrated. The three who have bad ratings appear to be conflicts of personality. For example one of them has 1 good and 2 bad ratings, the other two felt they were being ignored by the doctor.

Psychiatrist 1

Psychiatrist 2

Psychiatrist 3

Bad overall 1

Bad overall 2

Bad overall 3

Can you show me some of the ones you were mentioning? (It's not that I don't believe you, I just don't want to search the whole U.S.) Anynobody 05:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, read the ones in British Columbia (switch to Canada to view provinces) they're pretty scary to read. I don't think California had good reviews either. I think when it's a self-help, mental/spiritual health profession and area, you have to be very very very careful. If you break your arm, you get it set in a cast, it's not a very tricky thing, but if someone is hearing voices or having delusions, that's a really complicated area and it's just.....so different from anything else, the whole mental health thing, you can make people crazy if you don't know what you're doing, you can really screw people up, so I'm a little more iffy about psychologists then medical doctors (except I dont think Id be too happy to have surgery or anything major). p.s. have u read Dianetics? (i just started re-reading it) read it if you havent! i want to know what you think of it. Johnpedia 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, extreme care must be taken when treating someone for mental health issues. Considering how much damage a doctor who wants to hurt people can do, like Dr. Harold Shipman, a mental health practitioner out to hurt people could cause their patient to go on a killing spree or something. I just don't think any one way is right for everyone, for example I think a lot of drugs like Adderall and Prozac get perscribed way too often for any problem that looks like ADHD or depression, especially in kids. For some there might very well be a better way and for their health's sake they should have other options. It's important to remember that there are people who are really helped by medication, so going the other way and eliminating all drugs would hurt them. Unfortunately I don't know where the middle ground is in these cases.

I haven't read Dianetics, self help books really aren't my cup of tea in general. When you're done though would you mind letting me know if my idea about the volcano on the cover representing the reader's untapped potential exploding (in a good way) is true? I never got an answer from Justanother if I was correct or not. (I don't intend to use that information against him or the CoS in any way, I just always thought I was good at understanding symbolism.) Anynobody 04:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on your RfA

I have to respectfully suggest that you withdraw. No user who hasn't had more than 50% support after the first day, and hasn't had more than 65% support on the second day has ever made admin. -- The Hybrid 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Evacuate? In our moment of triumph!?" -Moff Tarkin minutes before he was blown up in the movie Star Wars. I can't withdraw now because it could be perceived that I did because I'm being accused of doing something wrong. I've actually been trying to get people to notice the first WP:RfC and how it got deleted anyway, so even if I don't get accepted I can get some feedback about issues I've wanted for a while. It's kinda hard to explain, so if this isn't making sense I apologize. For now I'll wait to blow up on my Death Star to get some answers.

(I really appreciate your advice, if that was the only issue ((becoming an admin)) I would take your advice. I've gone out of my way to keep things as "by the book" regarding Justanother as I could and can now find out what others think.) Anynobody 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I did something similar with my second RfA, as I wanted to get some advice from the people commenting about me [which I never got BTW >:(]. Well, do what you have to do, and I love the Star Wars references ;). Peace, -- The Hybrid 00:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is the one thing I dislike about Wikipedia; you can ask people for advice and nobody gives it. If you give me a diff to where it is archived or just tell me what you were looking for advice on I'll give you my perspective, assuming you still want advice on the issue. (I was going to quote John Paul Jones at first, "I have not yet begun to fight!" but remembered he ended up going on to win after saying that, I'm glad you got the replacement quote). Anynobody 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Hybrid (2). It was mostly on my ability to handle disputes. I didn't like oppose for trying to quit thing, as I was under stress in real life as well as Wikipedia, but I forgot to mention that, so it was my own mistake. Peace, -- The Hybrid 01:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think anything you said was unforgivable, and I could see where stress was probably the factor responsible given how you usually conduct yourself (as proven by the positive comments). To sum up my feelings; bad news = you made a couple of minor mistakes good news = you already know this and are doing something about not repeating them. I notice a lot of comments about incivility, the best way to handle those IMHO is to make it clear that you learned from the times when stress got the better of you. By that I mean don't let it happen again and the in next RfA take time to devote a section to saying something like: "I have allowed myself to edit in the past when perhaps I shouldn't have. I was experiencing a lot of stress in real life and was trying to relieve it by editing. Instead all I did was cause myself and the community more stress by losing my temper and being uncivil. Long story short, I found something else to relieve stress and won't make that mistake again." As long as you've kept up your usual behavior, neutral people will understand it was not who you usually are.

As to how you resolve disputes, I think you have the right ideas toward conflict resolution. Do you have any examples not on the RfA? The reason I ask is that one isn't so much resolving a dispute as defending one's position in an RfA for oneself. Preferably one where you got two other editors to agree? Anynobody 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, recently I was a major part of resolving a dispute at Talk:TNA Impact!, with TJ Spyke again ironically. There are no hard feelings, which is how it should be. I mentioned in the RfA that "Wikibreaks are invaluable." That was my way of trying to say that I know that I shouldn't have been editing then, and I won't edit at times like that in the future. I'm not very good at defending myself, and I have always known that. I don't choose correct wordings, spend enough time on things that warrant a large response, and I fall for the either/or trick far too often, as I did with Prodego at first. I'm not saying that he tricked me intentionally, as he wouldn't have anything to gain by tricking me out of my adminship, but I tried to give him an excuse because he asked for one rather than admit that there is no excuse for that type of behavior, and try to explain that I have changed until it was too late. To this day I don't believe that I could have proved it, as I don't know of any way to prove a negative. I am simply useless in that type of situation. Obviously I get that I have done things that were wrong in the past, and I am making an effort to fix what I haven't already, but I don't know how to say that correctly when the pressure is on. -- The Hybrid 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to explain this before, when I say you should make a detailed admission and explanation that's for the benefit of people who voted like this after you explained:

• Strong Oppose per civility issues etc. BuyAMountain 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Very grave civility concerns. Xoloz 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I understood exactly what you meant and saw it as a suggestion for what to do in the future. In general though, people want a person to really make it obvious they know they made a mistake and that they know how to change. I theorize that some people aren't smart enough to understand an apology unless it's very specific. Others just like seeing people swallow their pride and enjoy watching the person they expect and apology from have their nose rubbed in a simple mistake.

The diff you provided is a good example of conflict resolution on your part. I especially liked seeing you point out mistakes on both sides, it shows neutrality. I was correct when I said "I think you have the right ideas toward conflict resolution...", so when you think you can take another shot at it I'll nominate you if you want. Anynobody 02:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"I theorize that some people aren't smart enough to understand an apology unless it's very specific." Ha, I was just talking with a friend of mine, he has a habit of filling in the blanks when I, or anyone else, isn't absurdly specific, how unfortunate it is that being so specific has become necessary. Some people just can't seem to fill small blanks in on their own. Anyway, I agree with you about some of them wanting to see the person squirm. Many of the people who vote on the RfAs are sadists, to put it bluntly. I am planning to run again in October, as 6 months appears to be the magic number. I would be honored to have you nominate me. Peace, -- The Hybrid 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the only thing about an apology that I hate, the people that like watching me squirm. Whenever I see someone else make an apology I feel bad for them for just that reason. (That or when the same people who need an apology spelled out for them but expect you to just let their behavior go). October seems like a long time, we really need more admins so maybe you could half the time and try again this summer? Anynobody 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As time goes on I find myself needing the tools more and more. I may consider August, but I would really like to put some space between my last RfA and the next one. The phone's ringing, so I have to go. Later, -- The Hybrid 03:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, unless I hear otherwise I'll nominate you around then. Anynobody 03:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really decided yet. I know that Wikipedia needs admins, but I would really like to put some extreme distance between my next RfA and the last one. By looking at past RfAs, 6 months appears to be the magic number in terms of having one's past RfAs and actions disregarded by the majority of voters. Someone who was desysopped by the Arb Com for wheel warring was able to get his admin powers back simply by waiting and working for 6 months! That is really encouraging to me. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 03:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is still on your watchlist, so I'll post it on your talk after a reasonable amount of time.

I understand completely what you are saying about putting some time between RfA attempts and to a certain extent you are totally right. Why editors get so fixated on how long one editor has been here or a specific number of edits puzzles me because there are no accepted benchmarks cited anywhere, since they don't exist. Jimbo obviously intended adminship to be no big deal. I'm not saying you should seek re-nomination yourself right away, nor am I saying I'll nominate you before the approx August through October timeframe. I am saying that if another editor nominates you, don't just decline them out of a time concern. Experience is a better teacher than time, if some serious edit warring happens and you deal with it well editors might overlook a time requirement. Anynobody 07:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I rarely ever remove a talk page from my watchlist. Anyway, I want to put some distance between them so that I have enough time to build myself a guaranteed success. I would have no problem with filing one in July, but I want to make sure that my chances of failure are miniscule. The last RfA was pathetic, and it was entirely my fault for simply not mentioning things. One way to avoid that it to simply not have any reasonable oppose votes. While I’m sure that someone will be able to dig out some comment and take it out of context in a way that appears reasonable at first glance, I would like to make the condition for my RfA as ideal as possible. Peace, -- The Hybrid 19:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the quote

Before I take it to AN/I, it is appropriate that I ask you to please remove the quote if you will not provide attribution and context, i.e. my sig and the diff. The diff is part of the deal now. I am offended that you are holding my words up to ridicule without providing opportunity for context. Thanks. --Justanother 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Need an answer very soon, as I am going to bed. Thanks --Justanother 04:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Goin' to bed now. It is on AN/I. You can remove the quote completely or put it back the way I had it, your choice, and then ask someone on AN/I to close the incident without prejudice; that is OK with me. G'nite. --Justanother 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I honestly think it's fine the way it is, nobody gets identified so I don't see why it should be removed. I assumed you would ask me this, which I why I suggested taking your concern to WP:ANI. I think the quote by itself is funny, and doesn't imply anything negative about the editor who said it or anyone else because we all make mistakes. The way you wanted it with a diff is turning it into a debate about something else.

Since it's just the statement by itself I think people will understand that it's nothing negative about anyone else, just a mildly amusing example of an interpersonal snafu that seems to happen every so often on here. Anynobody 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi there; I am coming to you here because I disapprove of candidates arguing on their RfA page. For the record, unlike User:Essjay I edit under my real name, and my qualification is open for inspection. My General Medical Council registration number is 1302002, which you are invited to confirm. I do not know what you mean by your comment re canvassing. If you are referring to the three-way conversation between me, User:Gwernol and User:Ryanpostlethwaite, mentioned on the RfA page, then be aware that this was an ongoing conversation conducted partly by e-mail. Please read the comments on the RfA page posted by other editors.--Anthony.bradbury 10:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anthony.bradbury I don't have the time right now to explain my feelings the way I'd like, I will asap I promise. Let me assure you that if it starts looking like you're not going to make it I had planned on changing my vote. When I voted I think there was no opposition to you, so I felt it was good idea to voice my hesitations but not express opposition. (We really need admins, so my concerns are really outweighed by that shear need in your case. I hope this helps make my feelings a tad clearer, I'll post more later. Thanks Anynobody 00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, life has been crazy lately. I hope I wasn't implying anything overly negative. Situations where everyone agrees on something and I have any reservation make me uncomfortable jumping on the bandwagon. I also know there was a good chance my reservations were incorrect so going the neutral seemed the best way to voice concern without hurting your chances.

As to my reservations themselves, I guess the concern was the combination of your credentials coupled with the minor canvassing made me think that just maybe something else was going on. I know it must sound weird, but I hope you haven't been offended. Congratulations by the way, Anynobody 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, and thank you for taking the time to consider my RfA, which passed at 108/1/1. I am not offended, and the recent problem with User:Essjay has made us all a bit nervous; this is why I sent you a proof of my qualification. The whole point of the RfA process, which is less than perfect, is to try and weed out the unfit while retaining the fit. Any reservation is worth mentioning for consideration by the community, so clearly I have no problem with yours. To be fair to myself, Ryan and Gwernol, I must repeat, while there is no pressure either way, that the perceived canvassing did not exist. Gwernol offered to nominate me, got busy and had no time, Ryan picked up on it, and to save Gwernol worrying I asked Ryan to tell Gwernol not to worry about it. That's it. But I have no problem with you're expressing your concern; that's what RfA is all about. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury 18:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misunderstanding

Thanks for your message. I'm afraid I see things rather differently. Your original intention doesn't sway me one way or the other. What does sway me is the fact that someone is clearly uncomfortable and embarrassed by your actions and you make it clear that you simply do not care.

As I said in my RfA comment, I could never support a candidate who seems to enjoy baiting other editors. And the fact that you refuse to remove the text and claim that you see nothing wrong with your actions confirms, for me, that you are not currently suitable for adminship. I also note that Justanother isn't the only person you are doing this to. If you were to change your attitude and remove the trolling on your user page, I would be willing to reconsider in a few months time, but otherwise I'll be a permanent "no thanks" !vote. People who have such little regard for their fellow editors just aren't worth risking the tools on. You can tell much more about a person by how they treat their adversaries than you can by how they treat their friends. Your treatment of Justanother makes me concerned about how you will behave towards other editors if you are given the tools. I note that you state you would be open to recall. Recall is non-binding and depends entirely on the integrity of the admin being recalled and so unfortunately that does not reassure me at all.

As far as the text on your userpage goes, you seem to think that it is okay because you don't identify the editor by name. However, one edit back in the page history identifies them. And I note that in that edit you confess that you put it on your userpage for entertainment value. As you tell Justanother above, everyone makes mistakes. You made a mistake when you decided to put trollish material on your userpage for your own entertainment.I can see no valid reason for you to maintain these comments. They are wholly disruptive and of no benefit to the encyclopedia. Please remove it. Sarah 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You honestly seem like a fair editor and I truly understand why it might appear that way to you, but there are a few facts you may have overlooked which I'd like to present. Please understand that I don't mean to sound like I'm interrogating you, but I have several questions to ask you. I'm asking because you could very well be correct, and if you are I want to learn from any mistakes I've made.

I really thought identifying him would be holding him up to ridicule, but I also thought that the comment itself was an example of a personal attack. Many editors would have their feelings hurt if they were on the receiving end of those remarks, would you agree? I personally feel that editors should learn to look at PAs as merely a sign that their arguments must be working, because the other person obviously can't disprove them. Would you agree with that? It's easy to give advice, but I think it means more if the adviser can show they practice what they preach. At the same time it's important that the example not cause undue grief to the person who said it. If you take a look at the page as it was before he edited: at this point there was no reference in the history for further proof please see the page as it appeared when I added it, his name was left out from the beginning. Would you agree that I was trying to balance a lesson to others with the privacy of the editor in question?

Everybody says things they regret, and usually want to forget them but sometimes there are lessons that can be learned. As a rule people don't deserve to have their mistakes brought up to them again and again. In such cases it seems that the perfect balance is to teach the lesson without hurting anyone involved. When he added his username he may have been intentionally sabotaging the privacy I tried to afford him because he seems smart enough to realize by editing, he's announcing his identity.

In the US last year something very similar happened to a DEA agent who was videotaped shooting himself while demonstrating gun safety at a school. The video got out, and people both laughed and learned that handling a gun can be dangerous. That is probably not what he wanted to be known for of course, but it seems like a valid point to make about gun safety. It also happened to be hilarious because 1) He wasn't severely injured (if I remember it's the first thing he said after the gun discharged) and just moments before he spent a good 15 - 20 seconds talking about how dangerous the weapon is. He actually said "I'm the only one certified to handle this weapon..." then proceeded to shoot himself in the foot holstering it.

The problem as you can see by the link, was made somewhat worse when he put his name out in public by suing the government for not suppressing the video. Granted a few people knew him personally, so he probably would never have heard the end of it from them. In trying to right a perceived wrong, he's now ensured that someone might recognize his name when they see/hear it. Would you agree that the video is more important than his embarrassment? Would you also agree that the video shouldn't include his name, and maybe pixelize his face to protect his privacy? Finally, would you agree that because he made people aware of his name the video should still be available?

The point is that he has nobody to blame for shooting himself in the foot but himself. As it just so happened he illustrated his lesson more than he intended, and as long as an active attempt to identify him isn't made it's still a valid lesson. I'm not sure if any of these arguments have swayed your opinion of whether or not I was trolling, so if they haven't I don't want to take up much more of your time. My last point is simply a functional one, if I really wanted to bait him into something why leave it on my user page rather than making a post on his talk page or bringing it up in our frequent debates? I thought baiting was going out and looking for ways to embarrass him. Anynobody 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA support post

Your support post was placed under the oppose heading in JuJube's RfA. It has left some people scratching their heads. -- Jreferee 16:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, fixed. Anynobody 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hi! I have closed your RFA as it does not enjoy the support of the community at this time for me to promote you. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about that, I'm not saying that it should be reopened or anything but there were still a few days left (I think until 3 April 2007). I agree the prospects at the time you removed it didn't look good, but I thought the idea was to see how many votes there are in the end? If not, why is there a time limit and what is the point where it's determined a failure? WP:RFA says

Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open.

But 72 hours to go seems premature.

Ummm... RFA is not a vote. If the outcome is clear (in this case clearly failing), we can remove it. There's no point in keeping a failing RFA for the sake of accumulating votes. It's a waste of everybody's time and bandwidth. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I must not have been clear, I understand it was failing and don't dispute that at all. My questions were why is there a time limit and what is the point where it's (a RFA like mine was) determined a failure?

• If a an amount of time is designated for the community to weigh in on something, until the time expires anything can happen. (Please understand I'm not saying that was definitely going to happen in my case, but nobody knows that 20 editors won't offer support tomorrow either.

Also, and I must say I've wondered this about WP:AFD also, why are the comments tallied and grouped by support/oppose/neutral yet not called a vote? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, Anynobody 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Shipwrecks

Please do not add articles to this major cat if they are already included via specific subcats by location like M/S Estonia (in Category:Shipwrecks in the Baltic Sea). Please also consider using these subcats instead of the major cat. --Denniss 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused, help, advice?

• User:Justanother/Smee (formerly Smeelgova) - I have no idea what to do about this page full of personal attacks, mischaracterizations, false accusations and blatant misinterpretations of my good faith past actions. It also seems to be a blatant hypocritic disregard for the user's prior request that you remove such inflammatory information about this user from your own user space.... Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Smee 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Unbelievable, just amazing. Well, I wouldn't try to stop him because this looks like a good potential for a serious backfire on him. Plus you could come off as trying to evade his "WP:AGF" as seen by editors who are unfamiliar with him. Starting with the abuse of barnstars section, get some diffs from around those times to prove you had decent relations around that time. I'll write more a bit later, right now I'm busy offline too. Sorry, I'll try to get back ASAP. Anynobody 00:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to some recent comments I made on his ANI notice which may help too. Justanother, did you read the arbcom case you cited? Anynobody 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh, though I think you may be right, I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into some sort of prolonged battle and collect diffs to prove my case. Any help you could provide would be most appreciated, but it would indeed be interesting to see what happens to this user as we go forward... Smee 02:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
  • My response. [12] After some serious thought to this, I am less concerned. The ArbComm he referred to had no punitive actions for any of the editors involved, and the article in question has not been a subject of edit warring since then. However the last ArbComm User:Justanother was involved in, resulted in the banning from Wikipedia of his friend User:BabyDweezil, as you well know. I think other editors/Admins in any future potential action will see that my main focus and joy is creating new well-sourced articles, whereas this editor's main goal seems to be the use of abrasive offensive behaviour and the disruption of the project. Smee 02:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Observations of history

I've noticed that most, if not all of his "proof", actually reflects poorly on him if people would take the time to read them. I now realize that many editors don't actually read links, they just assume whoever said it is right because they included a link. I've adjusted accordingly for example my WP:ANI post about his arbcom proof, which by the way makes me wonder: A) Is he stupid?, B) Is he just assuming people will believe him, or C) Is his ego causing most of this? It's not just the arbcom proof, the whole action he is proposing against you. (In trying to explain to him that perhaps his attitude is what causes most of his problems with other editors, I noticed that barnstar and had pointed out that (like me) there was a time there were friendly relations between you both. It's not just Scientology, as proven by Johnpedia. I think he just has a big ego, and can't stand to be wrong. His insistence on having the WP:AfD about the notability of Barbara Schwarz after the three previous AfDs cited exactly that as the reason to keep her shows me he thought very little about what the previous editors were saying (if he even read their comments). Then his insistence on arguing that it was "unfair" on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page. (How was it unfair? Because we gave counterpoints? Because we didn't let him throw the rules away on the process? Or was it just because the article was kept? Anynobody 04:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I almost forgot, Orsini pointed this out about his once stated feelings about her notability. and Justanother never explained what changed his mind. Anynobody 04:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[13] [14]

• All very interesting points... Thanks for pointing this out. Smee 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

One more thing that occured to me, don't let this WP:TE concern you. As you may or may not know, it's not even a guideline it's somebody's word of advice. I don't know if you noticed, but he also seemed to think the arbcom hearing was about you, never mind that the title was The Hunger Project. Anynobody 07:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, you're right, too true. However, in spite of it all I've managed to grow and learn and adapt myself, and better myself as a Wikipedian/Editor... Hence the new Userboxes :) Later... Smee 07:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

(You know I'm kidding with the last edit summary right? The arbcom he mentioned wasn't about your behavior at all, otherwise it would have had your name in the title, BabyDweezil's did. Anynobody 07:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yup. Smee 07:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

My RfA

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, I appreciate you letting me know (it demonstrates courtesy which is part of WP:CIVIL so you're already doing a good job). I'm sure you'll make it next time :) Anynobody 04:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)