Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 14 May 2007 (A suggestion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Editor assistance

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)

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)

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

• (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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:TE solution

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Apologies...

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).

Your apology for your wrongful and inappropriate behavior is accepted.

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

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

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

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

Agreement

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)

• 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).

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

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

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?

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

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

• 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).
  • 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).
    • 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?

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

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

• 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).
  • 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?

1. my consent or
2. a 3O from an uninvolved and neutral editor or
3. overwhelming consensus on discussion page
4. 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).

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?

1. my consent or
2. a 3O from an uninvolved and neutral editor or
3. overwhelming consensus on discussion page
4. 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)

• 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).

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)

• 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).

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)

Resp.

- 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)

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)

- 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)

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 , 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 , 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 , 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, and 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)

-

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)

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)

Comment

"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) Actually, it was Krator that provided the 30. --Justanother 16:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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).

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)

No reason to be sorry

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 08:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC) corrected statement. MrMacMan 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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).
  • Something like that, thanks for the correction. MrMacMan 08:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No worries. Smee 08:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Checkuser and such

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 13:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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 14:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Re: Rather improper COI

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 15:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Lucasbrf, thanks for responding.

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)

MFD assist

1. Read Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#How to list pages for deletion
2. Follow the instructions.

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

Your postings everywhere...

• 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).

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)

• 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).

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)

• 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).

I am truly sorry

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)

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

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

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)

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

suggestions

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)

Indeed I shall. Best regards, as always.

peace in God

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

wikipediatrix

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)

Harassment

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)

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)

-

15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

smee posts note on my checkuser saying its resolution is acceptable to him. 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)

17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

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

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

18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

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

19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

smee promises Alison he will leave me alone

20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

smee promises Alison to leave me alone

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).

I get a 3RR

and guess who shows up...

20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee 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).

and again 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)

then he goes back to more promises

20:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

smee promises Alison to leave me alone

20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

smee again promises Alison to leave me alone

-

• 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 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

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 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 , 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 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 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 and

16:20, 7 May 2007 UTC.

Again Smee reverts my tag 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

"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 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 and 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 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: 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

18:14, 7 May 2007 UTC

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

agreement

• 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?

1. my consent or
2. a 3O from an uninvolved and neutral editor or
3. overwhelming consensus on discussion page
4. 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

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)

Comments by other editors

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

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 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Krator

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 Misplaced Pages, 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:

1. 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.)
2. 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.
3. 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:

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

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

Email

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)

Thoughts-To-Edit-By

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)

Liberty

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)

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)

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)

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

Suggestion at WP:RS

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 04:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks

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)

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

A suggestion

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

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

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

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

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