User talk:Misou/Archive/Archive-Oct2007

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

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

Hi

Could you help answer a question on your references on the L Ron Hubbard talk page? Shutterbug 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I go check it out. Misou 23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4RR on CoS

You violated the 3RR rule editing the CoS article today with 4 reverts. Please keep in mind that this articles are under probation. Personal attacks in the edit summary and marking your reverts as minors are also unhelfull. You were often warned for such behaviour and should know better. However, I won't report you now.(Its too late and I am too lazy and tired; your luck)but keep in mind that another editor got even blocked indefinetly for exactly what you are doing repeatedly. -- Stan_talk 01:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, tks for the reminder. Misou 04:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

I happen to agree that the text Anyeverybody is adding should be more balanced, and I'm actively looking for good, reliable, non-Church sources for positive insight into Hubbard's personality. But this misidentifying good-faith edits as vandalism has seriously got to stop. --GoodDamon 05:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Good for looking for balance, tks. Re-inserting POV pushing statements is vandalism. Inserting knowingly false presentations is called a Wikicrime. Taking Anobody's background and history I can't see any "good faith" here. Misou 03:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Let's take a look at the Wikicrime essay's descriptions of what constitutes a crime:

* deliberately, knowingly removing relevant, documented facts from an article.

Frankly, that's something you did, not Anynobody. Of course, in this instance it certainly wasn't wikicrime, and I happen to agree with removing that content until it can be balanced, like I said earlier. But obviously this one isn't relevant to his actions.

* deliberately inserting information that the contributor knows or believes to be untrue, especially if stated as if it were factual.

Again, not applicable. It's well sourced and well referenced, it's just got a very negative, built-in POV.

* deliberately, knowingly inserting contents that have a very strong point of view, or are advertisements, or propaganda while the context suggests the inserted contents are neutral point of view.

This comes closest, but still not applicable. The context never suggested "the inserted contents are neutral point of view." It's quite straightforward that these sources convey a negative opinion of Hubbard's personality, and no one disputes that.

* Committing vandalism.

If his additions didn't qualify as any of the other wikicrimes, they certainly don't match the standard definitions from WP:VANDAL.

I want to reiterate that I don't object to your reverting his edits. I only object to the confrontational, aggressive manner you did it in. It's very off-putting. I really do think you'll get more flies with honey than with vinegar in this matter. For instance, if you'd done a good-faith revert at the beginning and said something like, "let's hold off on putting this in until we have good counterpoints to it," you'd have everyone -- definitely including me -- on your editorial side. --GoodDamon 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 12 hours for edit warring on L Ron Hubbard. `JoshuaZ 15:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seen that. Misou 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

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

There you go! Congrats! A lot of work is waiting... Misou 03:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, not again

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): See below. Request handled by: Thatcher131 13:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the AN/I discussion more closely, I see that there is a possibility that you are not actually the same user as User:COFS, just another employee of the Church of Scientology using the same computer to make edits relating to the Church of Scientology, which is a pretty serious conflict of interest, so serious that I can't quite bring myself to unblock you, unless you give your promise that you will not edit articles related to your employer anymore. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Please feel free to contribute positive assessments of Hubbard's personality by public Scientologists, Freezoners, and non-Scientologists to the draft section at Talk:L. Ron Hubbard/Sandbox. As I read Thatcher131's statement, "You may make suggestions on the talk pages, and are encouraged to pursue the dispute resolution process (such as request for comment and request for third opinion) rather than getting into arguments.", you are welcome to do so though if you have any doubts you might want to clarify first. --Justanother 13:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I thought these are geeks here, capable of logic, I don't need more arbitraries and "you will be shot now because somebody else was bad" logic. Misou 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]