User talk:Orsini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you wish to leave a message, please do so below and I will reply below.

If you wish for me to reply elsewhere, please say where you'd like my reply to appear.

Please sign your messages with four tildes to add your name and timestamp to the message, like this ~~~~

I am busy in real life at present, so it may take a little while to respond. Orsini 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your comments[edit]

I dont know where you popped up from but as I wrote on the talk page Holy hell that was well written! Thank you for a marvellous effort :) - Glen 10:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Public Relations[edit]

This article is a joke. You can tell it's a joke by looking at the user who created it, someone who calls himself/herself "Lord Xenu." Xenu is the bad guy in Scientology mythology. Whoever created Scientology Public Relations did so out of malice, either towards Scientology or Wikipedia or both. I urge you to reconsider your vote. Respectfully, Republitarian 19:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devil worship is not "unsourced"[edit]

Devil woship is not unsourced, it's blatant vandalism. Please review relevant Wikipedia policies. Republitarian 03:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil / Personal attacks[edit]

Stating "ridiculous edit"[1] in an edit summary is uncivil and a personal attack. Your statement "It seems to me that cult sympathizers are trying to pull a version of this scam here"[2] is also a personal attack. My suggestion is that you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before entering discussion any further. --HResearcher 04:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. * The edit was ridiculous, for the reason I stated in my edit which you failed to quote fully: ridiculous edit; users are not banned from facilities for legitimate use.
  • It was a ridiculous edit to Dufour to make, and it borders on vandalism. Describing this edit as ridiculous is not a personal attack on the editor.
  • The manner in which Dufour edited it states she was terminated by reason only of using the facility, which is clearly misleading and false.
  • This edit made resulted in the article stating: Schwarz was permanently suspended from the use of the Salt Lake City Public Library's personal computers and internet due to complaints regarding allegations of her use of the Usenet from the library. It makes the statement utterly ridiculous. She was suspended from the use of library facilities due to her spamming; that is not legitimate use, it is abuse. Two supporting citations were provided.
  • I discussed the edit on the Talk page about this same matter some time before I added it to the article. Neither you or Dufour added any further debate to the proposed edit, after your personal attack assuming bad faith and intent in adding this data to the article and where I spelt out clearly why this was no so.
  • However, I will concede describing this ridiculous edit as such in the edit summary may be viewed as uncivil, and so I shall be mindful of my edit summary descriptions in the future.
2. You are wrong with your allegations of a personal attack regarding my comment It seems to me that cult sympathizers are trying to pull a version of this scam here.
  • With three failed AfDs and enourmous amounts of vandalism, there has clearly been a concerted effort by cult sympathizers to either have the article reduced to a stub or eliminated completely.
  • It is a fact that a smear camaign was attempted against Fred Bauder on the Usenet by cult sympathizers when he didn't remove the Schwarz article.
In the recent past, it is also worth noting with this article and its discussions, you have:
  • removed source material which met WP:V standards
  • made uncited allegations, and fail to cite your sources
  • made statements to provoke people
  • repeated questions which have been answered with citations before, to provoke people
  • demanded citations, then dismissed them even when they meet WP:V standards
  • made accusations of bad faith and malicious intent in the composition and purpose of the article about Vivaldi, Tilman, and myself.
You also have what appears to be a unique view of WP:BLP that appears to differ with the other editors interested in contributing and improving this article.
You keep referring to referenced and cited material as "original research" yet you fail to look at cited evidence yourself. You have also stated you are "arranging scans" to be made to support your sources in the Schwarz article, which appears to me to be WP:NOR violation.
HResearcher, my interest in the Schwarz article is to make it factual, neutral, accurate, verifiable, and encylopedic in nature. My interest in Wikipedia is to compose and edit articles based on those Wikipedia principles, not to engage in provocative petty bickering. It's my opinion you are making statements to provoke people. Please stop. Orsini 11:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz[edit]

I don't want to wheelwar with ChrisO, but do feel that her input is proper as the article is about herself. I am willing to forgive her trespasses, she could never edit on Wikipedia, but should be allowed to comment on her own article. Fred Bauder 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, users that are threatening legal action against Wikipedia or other editors are normally encouraged not to participate until their legal actions are finished. There is a policy about this at No Legal Threats. Also, Ms. Schwarz has been revealing what she believes to be the private r/l IDs of anonymous Wikipedia editors, even after having been warned not do so many times. ChrisO stated that conditions under which Ms. Schwarz can resume her editing. They seem entirely reasonable to me. Why shouldn't Ms. Schwarz agree to follow the rules and policies here? Vivaldi (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in agreement with both of you here. She ought to be permitted to have input on the article, however her unwillingness to respect the rules of Wikipedia - in particular the privacy and WP:H violations - make this a concern, for the reasons Vivaldi has stated. Is it possible to allow her limited access to a sandbox or similar area for comments? Orsini 10:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orsini, since there is already a section with the title I was going to use I've decided to post here. I'm 99.99% sure she's back Talk:Barbara Schwarz. Hope all is going well, Anynobody 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's got a point, many of the pages within Google are gone. I don't have newsgroup software, and I'd rather not get any unless no other options exist. Has anyone backed up her 92 part autobiography that you know of? We don't need all of it, but it seems like the article will lose something if all references to it are removed. Anynobody 10:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anynobody, thanks for checking this out. I thought I'd changed the link from the one which appeared originally (posted on the Usenet by Faxor) to the one you have restored, which was posted by Schwarz herself, as she complained that the other list of URLs pointing to her autobiography wasn't posted by her. I haven't followed the edit history and DIFFS to see if I screwed up in my last edit when I replaced the Faxor link, or if someone else came along later and removed it. Although it appears she posted the list herself many times, it was often accompanied with much vitriolic hatred and defamatory ranting by her, and I thought it was inappropriate to link to those posts for the article. Thank you for fixing it, as I saw on the Talk page of the article. Kind regards, Orsini 13:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, thank you for not pointing out what a tool I am for posting under this Barbara Schwarz section rather than this one. Barbara_Schwarz_2.(If you'll let me I'd like to transplant this discussion to the more current section of the same name)
I don't think this is your fault, the link worked. I know because I tested it, so I'm now pretty sure this is either BS or Google. I'm not one to bet, but if there was real money to be made I'd bet everything on more BS. I don't want to give up on it, but I figure the worst case is we lose a bit of personal information and her side of the story. She's not very bright if she thinks her USENET posts were all that the article had to back it up. (I don't mean crazy...crazy people can be really intelligent too. My sympathy goes out to those who are crazy and dumb though.)
Also on a most unrelated subject, did you get a chance to look at the sandbox recently. I intentionally made my entries slightly different than yours so I could remove them quickly if you don't approve, if you do then I planned on matching the styles exactly. Anynobody 06:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL[edit]

Please provide citations for your accusations of my alleged "personal attacks, dive into original research, violating WP:CIVIL, and this behavior is now descending into making outright false accusations, taunting, trolling"[3]. I don't think you can because I do not believe I have engaged in such behavior. Failure to provide citations will result in my posting of your documented uncivil behavior in the administrator's noticeboard. --HResearcher 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have documentation to support the claim that HResearcher has made false accusations. HResearcher made one such false accusation in my own RfC when he suggested that I was cherry-picking information from Barbara's Usenet posts to add to the article. The Usenet posts were added by ArbCom member, and admin, Fred Bauder, not me. After I pointed out that HResearcher was lying on his talk page about the incident, he removed the warning from his talk page, numerous times. Eventually he did apologize to me on my talk page for stating the lie, but he didn't remove the places where he stated his lie from Wikipedia. I find his efforts to reconcile with me to be paltry at best. We already have a number of admins reading the Barbara Schwarz talk page, so I don't see why HResearcher thinks that bringing up this issue at a admins noticeboard would change anything. His behaviour at Barbara Schwarz got him blocked by one admin, that block was supported by at least two other admins that reviewed it. He has since engaged in making false accusations against other editors in his poor attempt at straw-man argumentation. I wouldn't worry about his threats, Orsini. Vivaldi (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Vivaldi. I was concerned HResearcher may attempt to use allegations of bias in further backdoor attempts to have the article deleted by means other than by AfD discussions. However on review, it appears HResearcher has taken part in exactly the same type of so called "original research" this same editor is accusing me of. I am also concerned about HResearcher's approach in response to matters which do not support his own POV, either in discussions on Talk: Barbara Schwarz or in this editor's own behavior, and HResearcher appears to me to be unwilling to work towards consensus or acknowledge his /her own behavior. I've looked in on that RfC you're involved with and on the articles involved, and I've noted your own ruthlessness in insisting on reliable sources, and yours is a good ruthlessnes to have. After much thought, it appears filing an RfC on HResearcher seems the only way to stop these conflicts. Not having done this before, I have prepared a draft of an RfC on the background and history of HResearcher's involvement with the article and citations of what I think are policy violations. Can you please check it out and see if it's accurate? User:Orsini/Sandbox Orsini 10:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that individual[edit]

I agree he's problematic and I would say that his blatant double standard, where he's allowed to treat as fact information purportedly supported by material located in private boxes somewhere in Germany of unclear origin, but no one else is allowed to mention publicly known information such as the Antje Victore case (on the talk page) unless they're providing full citations, comes close to showing bad faith. Unfortunately, I'm very much bogged down with RL stuff and my capacity to pursue Wikipedia causes is limited -- I have to choose carefully if I'm not to burn out. Sorry. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Antaeus for your time, I appreciate your reply. Orsini 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless witness[edit]

Blocked - sorry I didnt catch her earlier - Glen 07:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Glen. Orsini 07:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA warning[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

In this edit you clearly imply that I am a troll. That is a personal attack. Please do not make any further personal attacks against me. Thanks. --Justanother 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother writes: In this edit you clearly imply that I am a troll. You are wrong and your statement is false. Do not blame me for your gulty conscience. If you wish to escalate this matter, do so. Orsini 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Barbara Schwarz nominated for AfD, again[edit]

If you have the time, would you vote on this? Talk:Barbara Schwarz Thanks, (feel free to delete this from your talk page) Anynobody 01:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me Anynobody. Best, Orsini 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orsini I'd like to thank you for your dedicated participation in the successful defense of a worthy article, since the AfD is now over. It couldn't have happened without you :) Anynobody 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Barnstar of Diligence[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For the diligent effort you have shown in improving, and defending the Barbara Schwarz article I feel you've earned this recognition. Anynobody 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also going to have the User:Anynobody/Sandbox deleted, it seems to have served it's purpose. Anynobody 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Anynobody for all your assistance and good balance. :) Kind regards, Orsini 12:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Justanother[edit]

I really appreciate your taking time to give your opinion by voting :) Anynobody 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anynobody, you are welcome. I can see you have made a genuine effort to resolve the dispute without the need for matters to reach this stage. However, I had comments to add to this RfC, but it appears to have been removed. What happened? Orsini 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I noticed you found the cause of the deletion too. I hope Bishonen reconsiders what he's done, it seems like a textbook WP:COI. It's a shame that in his battle to avoid accountability Justanother has risked the reputation of one of his friends. (If I had an admin friend, I would never ask him/her to violate the processes here by intervening on my behalf. I actually look at this behavior as even worse than it was when I first considered a RfC, because now the possibility of corruption has to be contemplated.)

On a semi-related note, I think we have been rejoined by Barbara Schwarz. A new editor has a familiar tone, and is trying to say that her ideas are ridiculous... without admitting they are. Anynobody 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's been a COI issue arising between Justanother and Bishonen, although I see other COI issues. Also, I don't believe there is evidence of corruption, although I can appreciate why you may be very annoyed at how the process works and how it has turned out this time. I'll reply to these points more fully on Bishonen's Talk page. And yes, I believe you are correct - Flamenco2007 does appear to be a Barbara Schwarz sockpuppet. I have reverted all of her edits, as she is banned from editing Wikipedia; please see here. I removed her edits on the Talk page, but I don't believe I can revert the article's Talk page again without running afoul of 3RR, but I may be wrong. Kind regards, Orsini 07:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh!! I may have just made a jackass of myself then on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page. I'm not sure you noticed, but Bishonen's talk page has several requests by Justanother for intervention on a variety of issues (besides me). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my impression having an admin do what he did to the RfC is frowned upon (Hypothetically all we'd have to do is get friendly with an admin to not have to worry about RfCs). I'm actually not annoyed by the deletion, he's practically proving my points for me. Would you mind having a look at my recent comment over there when you get a chance (to see how far I put my foot in my mouth). Anynobody 07:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you've made a jackass of yourself at all. What I do see from you is an attitude towards advancing the goals of Wikipedia - that is, to provide a quality reference source - and so I find it quite easy to assume good faith with you. Although AGF is a critical pillar of Wikipedia, it can be quite a difficult frame of mind to hold, especially when there would appear to be evidence of editors cleverly acting in bad faith, and who can work at the very edge of the policies to do harm to the project without stepping over the line. Most of the admins do not become admins without being thorougly scrutinized for their adherence to WP policy, and they do not remain admins if they abuse policy. With regards to your comments, I suggest you have a look at the BabyDweezil community decision discussion, and note the interaction between Bishonen and Justanother on there. After reading it, I think you may agree that if there was a friendship, it was certainly being tested. Personally, with regards to deleting the RfC, I will AGF and think Bishonen chose to be bold per WP:BB after first requesting a non-involved admin to delete it, which Bishonen then did only after no one else did. From what I have seen, the User RfC appears to have rather strict time requirements and a strict process. Please note however I do nor know very much about RfCs and Wikipedia processes myself, however I do appreciate the need for due process, and it would appear there are some issues which Bishonen had with the RfC which relate to due process. But I agree with your RfC in principle, specifically that Justanother's conduct needs to be addressed. But how? I look forward to reading Bishonen's Talk page reply to the question I posed there. Please also remember this is a Wiki, and nothing is set in stone; if you feel you wish to amend what you wrote on the Barbara Schwarz article's Talk page, there is nothing stopping you from re-editing it, striking through, and making an apology - if you believe this is the right course of action. We are all human, and we all do make mistakes; I personally think that those who claim total infallability are far more dangerous than those who admit their own mistakes, learn by them, and try to make amends. I see your willingness to learn and your attitude of letting the facts change your viewpoints, rather than letting your viewpoints change the facts, is an asset to contributing to the Wikipedia project. I will reply further to some points of yours on Bishonen's Talk page (I should have done so before now). Kind regards, Orsini 08:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your kind words, Orsini and effort to address what has happened to the RfC. However I am pretty sure that Bishonen either is experiencing a bruised ego or is supporting Justanother. based on your points above, I'm thinking it's more probably the former. I don't blame him, if I told somebody I didn't think their RfC would pass it would humiliate me if it did. I went to the admin who I think approved the request in the first place to ask his opinion. Later Bishonen posted this to his talk page: WP:ANI#Admin_help_needed_on_User_RfC_please. It just seems odd that Bishonen would ask another admin to delete the RfC and when none would he did. Why bother to ask in the first place? I went ahead and posted a request on the same board to have another admin look at the situation. Anynobody 01:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must compliment you on your discussion with Bishonen, if I had to point to an example of a civil discussion of differing POVs that would be it. In a way i wish this had happened to someone else, just so that I could make it clear that I have no personal stake in punishing Justanothers behavior with original RfC. I figured it was a good way to see if 1) I was wrong by trying to explain how his views of Scientology might be getting in the way of his judgment and 2) if I was right, perhaps hearing it from others would make it easier for him to accept. I am troubled by the way it was deleted because it seems like a case of WP:WW. User:Daniel.Bryant approved the RfC, and Bishonen deleted it for one of three reasons (in the order of likelihood as I see it):
  1. User_talk:Bishonen#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FInShaneee.2FEvidence Pobody's nerfect, evidence of simple mistake as reason for deleting the RfC.
  2. User_talk:Bishonen#The deleted RfC Example of possible ego bias by Bishonen, as motivation to delete the RfC. (I honestly didn't think Bishonen was correct in his/her view of Smee's attempts re Justanother and advice not to submit it.)
  3. Bishonen's friendship/association with Justanother: User_talk:Bishonen#Clue-o-gram_needed and User_talk:Bishonen#Thanks . . . a lot after the RfC was deleted.

I don't mean to sound melodramatic, but if this is the way conflict resolution works on Wikipedia I've misread a lot. I'll either have to start making friends with admins for "protection", or just quit editing because I loathe "making friends" with people I want something from (the idea makes me feel "dirty"). I'm contemplating setting up an RfC on Bishonen's deletion of the first RfC. Assuming it meets your approval, would you mind signing as another editor who tried to resolve the conflict on Bishonen's talk page? I also ask because you mentioned having prepared comments for the first RfC, before it's deletion. The primary concerns of the possible new RfC would be WP:WW and WP:CONSENSUS related. I'm sorry to unload this big reply all at once. I don't mean to give the impression I am definitely going to do it, only that I've given this some careful thought. Anynobody 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think he would not have initiated this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) had the rfC not been removed. Anynobody 07:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anynobody, I will discuss the above points further on your User Talk page. Kind regards, Orsini 21:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How'd you spot her so fast?[edit]

Is it that she uses spell check and is careful with short posts, and then just "lets it fly" when she gets angry/impatient? Anynobody 08:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar errors are easy to pick. I think someone called it "Gringlish". Kind regards, Orsini 08:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Barnheart[edit]

The Purple Heart
I, Smee, award this barnstar to Orsini for enduring personal attacks for being a good editor. Thank you. Smee 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Feel free to post to your user page or leave on your talk page as you see fit. Yours, Smee 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
You took a few "for the team" so to speak, congratulations! Anynobody 09:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy is for the strong[edit]

Rather than piling on with User:Justanother on the AfD talk page, I've kinda got some Rules of Engagement. I don't want to have to point out all of the logical errors I've noticed at once. I really despise making people look bad, but if they care to do it themselves I'm here to help. To my way of thinking, every unanswered concern shows me that I might be right...and I think others sense it too. I'm interested to know what you think? Anynobody 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am wondering what level of the ROE should be embarked upon?  ;-) I do think it is vital to point out the many flaws in the premises of the AfD; I have found 8 so far, and that is before his COI red herring tries to enter the fray (I am working on that now). I think you have done an admirable job of keeping cool and hope you keep finding, raising, and pointing out those unanswered concerns. He chose to start this AfD on flawed premises, so as you say: if they care to do it to themselves, be happy to help. Best, Orsini 10:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... He is contradicting himself in accusing you of canvasing but forgiving someone else (and himself). It wouldn't violate my ROE to help a person defend themselves from a double standard:

  • You:Reply to Orsini - Or maybe it is because a small group of (what I term) anti-Scientologists wants to keep this article here for their own purposes and I oppose that mis-use of this encyclopedia. You know who some of those "anti-Scientologists" are Orsini, you canvassed at least six of them earlier. Here is your history; check the postings starting at 05:53, 11 March 2007. I do not know User:Johntex as an "anti-Scn", just someone that supported your position on Schwarz. I do not know the User:Bruns, I assume that you do. The other six I know well. And there are at least seven "Keep" votes already placed here from "anti-Scientologists" that I have had dealings with before (here are a few of them getting their props from Touretzky) but I, the sole Scientologist here, have the "conflict of interest". Not. --Justanother 07:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Somebody else: Comment - I think canvassing is WP:CANVASSING and you cannot worry about who watches whose talk pages. That would make any communication at all subject to a charge of canvassing and that is ridiculous. So I see no problem with you communicating with a limited number of people about this AfD, based on my read of the policy. --Justanother 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody 11:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will point this out when I reply. Best wishes, Orsini 11:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, actually I think I'll point this out on the COI board. The AfD is one thing the COI noticeboard and double standards are another. (But I really do wanna know, does my logic about attempting to addressing one point and allowing him to "move on" without a resolution make sense?) Anynobody 11:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a think about it, and I think your ROE are best for the project page, so as not to flood it with superfluous material. On Talk pages, perhaps different ROE can apply? I think it is vital to identify all the issues without being disruptive to Wikipedia. What are your thoughts? Best, Orsini 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say, for now, we're doing just fine. I did a quick tally, and this is starting to look like a repeat of the previous AfDs. (Seriously I counted like 10 Strong Keeps, 3 or 4 speedy keeps, 27 keeps and 1 week keep. The deletes were like 1 Strong 0 Speedy,(somewhere in the mid to high teens)plain deletes, and 0 weak. Also Justanother's attempts to get more intervention seem to be failing Special:Contributions/Justanother.

I've decided to postpone RfC discussions until after the AfD. I'm starting to think he made a mistake doing this; his questionable comments to people who vote to keep, the lack of an answer on the talk page, and conduct regarding my counter points has more or less shown everyone what he is doing. Since the votes seem to be in our favor, and I don't want there to be a perception that I'm out to get him...I feel the next move is his. I understand exactly what you are saying though, and I want to assure you that I am not one to sacrifice a war for the sake of ROE. If the situation were different I'd keep going. Unless I've missed something of course, you've been on here longer than I so if there is an aspect I'm missing I want to make sure you know my attitude can change. Anynobody 05:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. If you want to address our friends allegations toward you on this persons talk page, I'll be your wingman. Special:Contributions/Justanother) Anynobody 05:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, jeez that would have saved me time and effort had I seen it. Oh well, it went straight over to the COI board. Now to figure it into the AfD talk page....Anynobody 06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In re "his questionable [behavior] has more or less shown everyone what he is doing" referred to in one of the posts above—s/he explains what s/he is doing (and why) here. — Athænara ✉ 05:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out this edit. Shooting fish in barrels. Oh my; it sounds not unlike trolling. Whatever it is, a fish diet is not an FDA-approved treatment for Munchausen syndrome. :-) Best, Orsini 05:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hardly think that a "private" (as in between two people, not as in secret) conversation on my talk page with an editor that, while he probably does not agree with nor support my sentiment, at least well understands where I am coming from; I hardly think that such a conversation in such a place would constitute trolling. But if it gives you some insight into my mindset at that moment in time (not now, not tomorrow) then fine. Understanding is a good thing and I strive to be transparent. --Justanother 13:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when the little fish in the barrels try to take a bite out of me then I bite back. What is wrong with that? Getting tired of it a bit but not sure what else to do when the fishies nip at me. Turn the other cheek? How many cheeks do you think I have? --Justanother 05:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justanother if you understand the concept of "private" conversations on user pages, why did you tattle on Johnpedia for discussing you with me? Anynobody 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cause it named me by name in response to your somewhat inproper solicitation. But the main point is that it named me by name. Get it? --Justanother 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orsini I'm sorry for my recent absence, I have been ill the past couple of days. I don't want to give you the impression that I've abandoned the AfD, but I may not be 100% for the next few days. Anynobody 03:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Anynobody, I hope you are feeling better soon and wish you a speedy recovery. On the plus side, I know you are not ill with Munchausen syndrome. :-)

FYI, there's a bot which does the AfD summary - User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/All - and it is a good way for noting trends, although many comments can confuse the bot. I agree it is wise to hold off the RfC until the after the AfD; should the AfD fail, it is more evidence of WP:POINT and WP:DE. I would also feel uncomfortable about participating in that process while that AfD is still live. Another point that is important to remember is that we are not making war, but using the processes correctly to ensure the integrity of the Wikipedia project for the actions of editors who may (mostly) follow the rulebook, but do not operate in the spirit of the project - that is, contrbuting to it to enhance it in accordance with its principles of creating and editing articles which are factual, unbiased, verifiable, and reliably sourced. The AfD is going well, with community consensus at less than 30 percent favoring deletion. However I think it is important to note the reasons for the Delete comments and addressing them by improving the article, not by disrupting the Project page; the disruption can be done by "the Munchys" to their own discredit. All in all, a good time for you to relax a while and allow yourself to heal. Best wishes, Orsini 04:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC) PS: This may cheer you up. I reverted this edit and made a silly typo in the edit summary. Oops. I think I'm tired of being rubbed up the wrong way. Kind regards, Orsini 05:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, I actually found the comment sort of amusing for a few reasons. (i do appreciate the sentiment on your part though, Orsini) 1) Because he's essentially doing what he's been accusing me of doing to him, "analyzing". 2) If that was supposed to be an insult, it was a rather poor attempt. 3) This may be projection on the part of Justanother. I'm sure you've noticed how he tends to be guilty of the behavior he decries in others (For example the agenda, CANVASSING, COI, and NPA to name a few). P.S. wasn't that a joke in one of the classic Pink Panther movies, massage for message. As I read it I heard Peter Sellers as Clouseau saying "You have a massage, for me?" Anynobody 05:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schwarz[edit]

That lady cracks me up. I always enjoy her babble on ARS. She is currently threatening to sue me over my religiousfreedomwatch.info website and believes I am recieving money from a Mr Griffin in Australia for webhosting fees. Thanks for the link! Paulhorner 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She might want to rethink that one, doesn't look like you're doing anything wrong. Judges can get pissed off when somebody wastes their time and asses penalties on such plaintiffs. If she does bring suit, just point the court to her past (if they don't already know about it). Anynobody 03:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User JustAnother attacks[edit]

Thanks for the words and info you provided on my talk page. I will check it out  :) Paulhorner 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition info[edit]

  • For more information on "Dev-T" and other jargon :

Pignotti, Monica., My Nine Lives in Scientology (book), Chapter: "Mind Control Techniques -- The Early Months":, "Dev-T", 1989. (convenience link)
"Dev-T" (short for "developed traffic")

"means unnecessary clutter that stands in the way or delays achieving a particular goal, especially a Scientology-oriented goal. I wanted to be an auditor and do all I could to help clear the planet. Going to the university was dev-t, so I quit."

"CSI cites two words used by Mr. Berry in a letter as examples of his abuse of the Scientology religion. Yet the two words he used are strictly administrative terms having nothing to do with religious beliefs whatsoever. "Dev-T" is a word that means "Developed Traffic," an administrative term for unnecessary or duplicative work. "CSWP" stands for "Completed Staff Work, please" This term is simply a request for a full proposal. There is nothing religious in either of these phrases."

  • More information at [4], [5], and also compare this usage to Dr. Robert Lifton's Loaded Language. Yours, Smee 05:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • Thank you very much for these references. :-) Kind regards, Orsini 06:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. Let me know if you find anything educational in there... Smee 06:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

... someone fell for that premise[edit]

Hi. Since I found myself mentioned and discussed, and since much more is going on here than I know or care to know, I thought I'd clear up the one point. I have not followed or been privy to the prior interactions between you all and User:Justanother, so I can not judge each frame of mind. I do not know the background. I saw the AfD and, as you are supposed to, looked at the article and at its talk page. What I saw on that talk page is obviously only a glimpse of everything. However, among other things, what I saw were Tilman's words "and suggest a block for Justanother" and then also "and suggest a block for Justanother" again at the AfD itself. And it was his bald statements in those two places that appalled me, and resulted in my comments. There was no mistaken premise, but rather my reading one editor calling for a block of another editor. It may be that an RfC would be result in judgements against Justanother and a block and/or ban, but outside of the WP:DR process it seems to me simply wrong to make those statements. It must have been the heated discussion and prior interactions that made you read more than that into my simple comment. Shenme 03:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shenme, I see your point, and my apologies for making presumptions on your behalf. Justanother's interaction with Tilman, resulting in the call for Tilman's blocking, is the result of ill-considered accusations of impropiety which were first floated by User:BabyDweezil, who falsely accused Tilman of a conflict of interest, and were fully backed by Justanother. This alleged COI was based upon the premise that Tilman was biased and negatively prejudiced against the article's subject due to the subject's off-Wiki attacks against him. The article's subject will attack anyone who cannot accept her delusions as facts, and so the same COI as they cite against Tilman would affect any person editing on Wikipedia, and most of the posters on the Usenet. This "hostile interaction" which BabyDweezil attempted to raise as a COI against Tilman was only raised when BabyDweezil began disrupting the article Talk page, and Tilman answered his questions and those of Justanother with RS citations. Once Tilman provided citations which conflicted with the personal pro-scientology POV of Justanother and BabyDweezil, a false COI issue was invented in order to recuse Tilman from editing the article. However, by looking at the article's current Talk page (without also looking at Archive 10), it is very easy and possible to draw the conclusions which Justanother tries to present as facts about Tilman suggesting why Justanother should be blocked. I think an RfC on Justanother's behavior is justified, as it appears to me, and a number of other editors who have been working on the Schwarz article, that Justanother reacts highy inappropriately and disruptively when unflattering material about scientology is discussed, and his attitude makes "reaching out", the primary first step of dispute resolution in WP:DR, very difficult. Assuming good faith is a primary element of Wikipedia, however one can only assume good faith for so long when there appears to be a lot of evidence to the contrary, by creating AfDs based on faulty premises, WP:DE and especially WP:POINT. We are all human and we all make mistakes, and a problem arises when someone refuses to acknowledge that possibility and plows ahead despite being tapped on the shoulder, and I think this is what is happening here. Sorry to make this reply so long; there is just more to the case than may first meets the eye. I would agree completely with you that calling for a block inappropriately, e.g. to silence an oppenent, is appalling and in very bad faith, but this isn't the case here. Nor is it the case (as Justanother tried to state) that I failed to assume AGF with you, because I didn't believe you'd bothered looking at Archive 10 before voting - and the behavior there was the basis for Tilman's comment. I appreciate you taking the time here to address this issue and clarifying your position. Kind regards, Orsini 04:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(replying to your inquiry about my WP:AN/I comment) Eep! Nothing quite so negative was meant - let me re-read... "... did completely misinterpret my comment, which was a face-value opinion." Hmm, is that sufficiently different from, say, "did completely mistake my comment, which was a face-value opinion." to matter? How can I say this so it does not sound like "intentional misrepresentation", which is most definitely not my intention? Maybe 'misread'? Indeed, what I meant was "drawing a mistaken interpretation of what I meant by the comment, and what the source of the comment was." To me, a "mistaken presumption" is more negative than "mistaken interpretation", though both can be a "mistaken reading". Please advise, and I will edit to reflect a clearer wording.
(And if I ever finish my answer to Anynobody, which begins "I can well understand the fear of misrepresentation to "gain advantage" in an argument.", you'll see I worry a lot about how things are said.) Shenme 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. It's interesting to see how different words appear to different people! I will need to bear this in mind when editing articles. Although a "mistaken presumption" may sound worse to you, that is exactly what I did: I did make mistaken presumptions, since I wrongly presumed you hadn't looked at the Talk page at all, but only at the Nomination Statement. Your edits on the AfD was clear at face value, and I operated from the mistaken presumption that had you examined the bigger picture on the Talk page and in Archive 10, you may well have agreed there is more to this matter than first meets the eye, and your comments re the call for blocking may have been different. Yet I can well understand why non-involved editors wouldn't normally bother going through Talk page archives in AfDs, as we are meant to presume good faith on the part of anyone calling for an AfD, and the correctness of the Nomination Statement. I think I was clear on the interpretation of your statement, but my incorrect presumptions are as I describe. For those, I unconditionally apologize. Justanother however sees matters differently, please see here [6] where he interprets my actions (and supported by how he reads your reply) as wilful misrepresentation on my part. What is very clear to me now is the issue of Tilman's comment (and my support of it) for a block of Justanother (and the reasons behind it) need to be discussed on the AfD Talk page, with all the DIFFs shown. Kind regards, Orsini 07:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do worry about words, they betray me often enough. Please see my user page at Simple English Wikipedia for a story where, because I get words wrong, I try hard to figure out what people "tried to mean" by what they said. Sometimes they just couldn't think of any other way to say it. Does this make it sound any more clear/better?
As far as 'more' on the AfD, I think better would be less, or at least nothing more. The AfD looks 'done' to me, that is, the conclusion is as you all predicted. At this point further explanations would not improve things (look at me for how hazardous further explanations are! :-) I'm trying to put my (confused) thoughts down in a response to User:Anynobody, but the first thing I counsel is "nothing anytime soon". Mainly because it is apparent to many people now how much frustration there is, and, I feel, anything "acted out" now will look like simply more bad blood. See my comment to him (I'm trying to finish - way too many words! uh-oh...) Shenme 09:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your revised edit. I will also take your good advice on board re avoiding hazardous explanations, and follow Ted's advice of WP:CALM; I still have quite some work to do on that front since egg-on-face never makes a satisfying breakfast. :-) You're quite right about the level of frustration though. I will look forward to reading your reply to Anynobody. Best wishes, Orsini 09:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HCOPL[edit]

all right. If that's what you're looking for, I'm afraid I don't have anything helpful. I thought you might need a citation for the part that everyone quotes from that HCOPL, in which case I'd have something. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RFC may be on soon check this out Justanothers abuse of Wikipedia Backfires[edit]

I self nominated on WP:RFA and he turned up and did me the favor of being himself. When he tried to make an issue out of something on my user page, they suggested a WP:RFC. Are you still interested? Anynobody 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD vote[edit]

Hi. You previously voted in an AfD for Tim Bowles. Would you please pop over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination) and give us your input again? Thanks. --Justanother 20:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current drama[edit]

In case you hadn't seen this, I thought you'd find it interesting: WP:RFCU#COFS Anynobody 08:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anynobody, thank you for pointing me to this episode. It appears the rules about COI are meant to apply to everyone else except them; sad, isn't it? Kind regards, Orsini 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence mother lode[edit]

COFS contributions to (Main) space Anynobody 10:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This says a lot too: COFS edit count Interiot's Anynobody 10:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these guides. I cannot see how any conflict of interest can be truthfully denied based on these patterns. (Although I must admit: I did one lookup for myself and got a very rude shock). Kind regards, Orsini 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, which user? Anynobody 02:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me. I looked up my own history and got a shock. :( Android Cat once pointed out to me that one article we both worked on was a huge time-sink and he'd prefer to stay away from it; I can see why now! But I think we can be pleased with our efforts on that article - to keep it infomative and NPOV with quality citations, and to keep it at all after extensive efforts at book burning were made. Kind regards, Orsini 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't Babs was it? It occupies a rather large chunk of my history, though I think Ron the über-man has surpassed it. Anynobody 03:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Although I must say the experience and education I gained with the Babs article was useful in terms of learning WP processes and policies by experience. These articles, like those about Big Daddy can be huge time-sinks, however. Best wishes, Orsini 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points, I must say it's easier editing articles like the 1973 Yom Kippur war, the vanished avengers taken by "The Bermuda Triangle" in 1945, and Ann Coulter. However the experience is good, and I can now understand how much a person can believe in something to the point of absurdity. Anynobody 03:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My tribute page[edit]

Hi. Please delete my tribute page at Sandbox3. It is three months now and nothing is going to become of that. It is WP:PA and I am tired of looking at it. Please delete by putting {{db-owner}} on both the page and the talk page. I will give you 24 hours or so to do this then I will request deletion elsewhere. Thanks. --Justanother 17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I assume that you are not active at this time. I will wait a bit to see if an admin deletes the pages since they were recently discussed on ANI. If not, I will list them at WP:MfD. I am fairly certain that, were you here, you would have deleted the pages upon request as I give credit where credit is due and deleting the pages is the better move. --Justanother 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is gone (see this). Good day, sir. --Justanother 12:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration[edit]

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Orsini&oldid=1140319076"