Welcome to BabyDweezil's Talk Page.

--Cberlet 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(wacky rant from GrownUpAndWise deleted)

Baby, please do not restore material about a living person that might be a violation of BLP. You restored it claiming it was sourced when it very clearly was not sourced. Wikipedia takes BLP issues very, very seriously, so please edit in accordance with WP:BLP in future. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was sourced. Please cite what you feel needs sourcing, and as I always have done, it will be addressed. BabyDweezil 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you add that again without a reliable source (not a self-published newsletter), you will be blocked from editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have attempted to discuss endlessly--Berlet refuses to address issues. There is a WP:BLP issue which Berlet refuses to discuss.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject

I would also appreciate the invlovement of admins other than the two thus far, both of whom are heavily involved in the editing of the Berlet Wikipedia entry. BabyDweezil 17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on November 16 2006 to Fred Newman

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

The duration of the block is 8 hours.

Also, impolite edit summaries area bad idea [2]

William M. Connolley 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pure vindictiveness on the part of Harrison. Reversions were clearly explained as being due to BLP concerns which the author refused to discuss.BabyDweezil 21:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal attack and is utterly out of line. My own view is that you should be blocked for this. Since I have been somewhat involved in tussles with you in the past, I'll recuse myself from taking an administrative role in the matter. I do intend to report it, though, at WP:PAIN. - Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the insistence at WP:PAIN is that you receive certain formal warnings before I can bring the matter there. So be it.

"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. "

I will also bring the matter to WP:AN/I instead. - Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. This is the specific edit for which you were blocked this time, but you have also been on the wrong side of WP:CIVIL before in your edit summaries (e.g., [3] and [4]). Please moderate your tone in the future. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the coded discourse issue:

I note that you have a kind of psychedelic picture on your Wiki user page that has a little man on the bottom left with horns on his head. Could this be (gasp) a CODED REFERENCE TO WITCHCRAFT????!!!!

To paraphrase Homer from "The Simpsons":

"Oh, no!

Alien therapists!

Psychoduplication!

Satanic conspiracies!

Oh my God!

Reverend Fallwell was right!"

--Dking 18:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've posted a comment on the talk page for this subject, because I have some issues with your edits of today. I'm not going to just jump in and wholesale revert 'em, but I'd like to see some discussion of them. Out of courtesy, I thought I should notify you and invite you to participate. I'm not watching your page, BTW, but I am watching the Cult page.
Regards,
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entrenched group of about 5 editors that think List of groups referred to as cults somehow meets NPOV standards. I would love to see the page wiped from Wikipedia but there's no united effort to get rid of the page. If you wish to make another attempt to get rid of the page you have my full support but it's been tried many times before. --Calibas 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your useful contributions in removing spin and misquotations from articles. Some articles that you may be interested to do the same:

• Brainwashing
• Opposition to cults and new religious movements
• Apostasy
• Post-cult trauma
• Rick Ross
• DIMPAC

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been removing large swathes of material from articles aginst consensus on the talkpage. I can see this pattern in your editing very clearly at Cult apologist, and I plan to take a look at some other articles tomorrow. Making far-reaching changes without, or even against, consensus is considered edit warring, which is not an accepted way to edit at Wikipedia. Please don't do it. Bishonen | talk 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Cult Apologist. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Smee 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected Cult apologist, mainly because of your edit warring on it. I'm also unimpressed by the way you speak to other editors on Talk:Cult apologist. Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS. They're all official policies. Don't keep ignoring what I say, or you may find yourself blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 05:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If something is misphrased then please try to reword to make it more accurate. I admit that some of the article did not stay close to the sources, but please do not just remove, but please re-word or at least retain the external link, such as the article by Dvorkin. Andries 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Dvorkin does not criticize Barker at all, only mentions her. There is nothing to reword, and there is no valid reason for it being in a "Criticism" section. BabyDweezil 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit after reading it that the article does not belong in the criticism section, but I find your complete removal without trying to re-word in another section and without even retaining the external link not constructive. Andries 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, theres nothing to reword! Dvorkin does not discuss Barker. And, its not even a reliable source to start with, even if it did have any relevance. BabyDweezil 23:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is published on Update which is a reputable magazine about NRMs. Andries 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with it--do you have their website? But again, in any case, the Dvorkin article has nothing substantive about Barker, which is why I removed it. BabyDweezil 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed deranged malfunctioning spambot notice from Shadowbot

removed pointless notice from Big Brother 1984

Hi. Would you please do me a favor and pop over to Talk:Scientology and celebrities#Request for Comment - Jesse Prince statement and let us know what you think? Thanks --Justanother 15:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BabyDweezil. I see that you have continued to unilaterally remove material from articles after my two warnings above, and a whole raft of explanations from other editors of why this is wrong, un-wiki, uncollaborative, etc. It's possible that some individual removals are good, but none of them are done in a good way, and the overall pattern is obviously frustrating for other editors, and hampers work on the articles. Here are just a few of many, many examples. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Don't add this kind of frank POV, either, please: [14]] (a single example). That makes it a lot harder for you to claim that you need to remove text because it's unencyclopedic. Perhaps some of it is, but how about your own "Selective selection" ...? You've earned yourself a block, in my opinion. However, I'd rather avoid blocking you for as long as possible, as I take you to be editing in good faith and with the intention of improving articles. Therefore, I'm hereby instead giving you a text removal ban: do not remove text from articles unless and until you've gotten consensus for it on Talk, or I will impose the deferred block. If you're unsure of what constitutes text removal, or consensus, in any particular instance, please discuss with me on my page, or with any other uninvolved admin, referring to this note of mine.
Please note that I'm instituting this unusual ban because I don't want to block you. I'm about to post it for comment on WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond here since I cannot post on your talk page. I have reviewed your note to me and do take it seriously. However, should you take the time to review some of the history, you will find that I have largely been removing egregious violations of Wiki policy, gross distortions of fact, straight out fabrications and the like, but unfortunately, with the opposition of a pair or so of hard core, POV minded, intransigent editors who often inserted the distorted material in the first place. I have discussed all of my changes, and for what its worth, most changes have received a majority amount of support in the discussions (vs the hard core ideologues). Likewise Ive been faced with this bloc working together to restore flagrantly biased and incorrect material, with no more explanation than they arent happy with it being removed. I will try to be more genteel, but please be aware that making sensible arguments and appealing to reason and Wikipedia policies re WP:NPOV and the like generally doesnt suffice vs ideologues. BabyDweezil 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I haven't been warning you, let alone imposed this removal ban, without reviewing the histories. Not indeed in full—I'm only a volunteer, I do have a day job, and you edit a lot—but pretty largely. I don't agree with your characterization of your removals. As you can see above, I do state that some (meaning a fraction) of them may be well motivated, and that's as far as I'll go.

You can't post on my talkpage? That must be a misunderstanding. Please try again, and don't be put off by the statement that appears about the page being semiprotected. "Semi" only means anonymous IPs and accounts less than four days old can't post, and your account is a lot older than that. Bishonen | talk 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

BabyDweezil, I admit that in the the case of Eileen Barker there were some distortions of sources, but that is no excuse to remove everything without even keeping the external link. Andries 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andries, I took the time to read all the references and find additional ones, and made corrections so that the text was accurate, NPOV and conformed to the sources, and removed what didnt (e.g., a quote in the "criticism" section that clearly was not criticism). Please stop joining in this chorus of false complaints accusing me of "removing everything" and other such nonsxense--I have ADDED more than Ive removed from all these articles!! BabyDweezil 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've added very little except OR. Tanaats 21:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanaats, please don't use my talk page for your malicious and false attacks. BabyDweezil 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL. Wow, an "Administrator" who is either totally ignorant about the topic or himself POV or both has decided to impose a ban on BabyDweezils perfectly encyclopedic edits. I wonder, if I can convince an administrator of my choice to do the same for editors, who in fact do unencyclopedic edits. But, then again, encyclopedia is sooo totally un-wiki, so maybe not. Fossa_?! 01:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. welcome to Bizarro World. Enjoy your visit! BabyDweezil 02:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to protect any more pages for the sake of one editor instigating edit wars. You have been blocked for 24 hours for WP:3RR+incivility on talk pages + inveterate edit warring (I make it 9 times that you've removed the Dvorkin passage from Eileen Barker in the past couple of days, many of them after my "no more non-consensus removals" warning). Please reconsider your approach or you'll be looking at a longer block next time. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A look at the discussions show the other editors are obstinately refusing to discuss the edits, stonewalling, responding to requests for comments with abuse, and are being serially uncivil. You, Bishonen, are being entirely biased and supporting the most blatant form of simple-minded POV pushing on Wikipedia by a handful of biased editors who resort to acting like crybabies and tattletales and offering exaggerated complaints, fabrications and outright lies rather than respond to requests to civilly and intelligently discuss articles. c'est la vie, see ya in a day or so. BabyDweezil 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BD, if you want another admin to review your block then there is a template you put here. Make sure to get your case together first and my experience is that another admin will not overturn a short block without strong cause. Re that bit on Barker, I read the subject piece. The piece is obviously self-serving and the diss of Barker plays an almost trivial part but there it is. Personally, I think it is silly to include that in the article due to it being a trivial appearance in one paper. --Justanother 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would have probably done similar edits, if I had looked into Eileen Barker. Well, I better don't, saves me some nerves and chances are, nobody will come across that POV-article anyways. Fossa_?! 00:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And hey, the good news is that since you got the promised block then I guess the "text removal ban" is over? I am not, of course, suggesting that you engage is objectionable activities upon your return; just suggesting that you are now serving your time and will have fully repaid your debt to society upon re-entry. --Justanother 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific "text removal ban" has expired, yes, but systematically removing text on a large scale and without consensus is as objectionable as ever, no matter what editor does it. As is edit warring altogether. BabyDweezil, for block review by another admin, add {{unblock}} to this page, giving the reason[s] why you think you ought to be unblocked. At least, it can't hurt, though in reality your block is already receiving extra admin attention through being posted on WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 00:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In other words: Put some baloney stuff into an article, then refuse to consent to anyone throwing it out: Voila, your POV wins. Fossa_?! 01:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, but like a a 24 hour virus, best to just let it pass. Besides, Mama always told me not to pay foolishness any mind. History tends to show that bias and falseness tend to squeal and kick up a fuss when confronted with even a hint of truth, so I would guess all the hootin' n' hollerin' is just the same old bit. See youze soon. BabyDweezil 02:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia IS like a box of chocolate. You never know what you're gonna get. --Justanother 03:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gump indeed. Bishonen actually announced to the admin cabal that my saying on a talk page that I planned to edit a section of an article (the ridiculous long overblown Steve Hassan hype/advertisement that has half his book cut and pasted into Mind Control) and would like comments was a "threat of further removal" :)!!! George Orwell does Wikipedia. War is peace. Editing is "removal". yee ha! Brave New Wikiworld. BabyDweezil 05:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal and casting problems encountered in that light will not solve anything and will, in fact, worsen things. All there is are people; the normal interactions of people. Add to that the "natural" bias of people against anything that they do not understand, the "natual" tendency of people to make themselves right and others wrong if at all threatened; the fact that a group will generally defer to their lowest common denominator, the anonymity and concomitant lack of responsibility possible (note I say possible) in editors, especially non-admins; the laissez-faire attitude of the community, editors and admins alike, toward violation of the WP:PILLARS in those areas of systemic bias such as religion in general and NRMs in particular. Add all that together and you have, well, you have what we have. And until admins start enforcing the WP:PILLARS as being the very foundation that wikipedia stands upon and not some "nicety"; until a few of them start taking visible stands, instead of standing back and watching; things will not improve. And why do I say admins need to enforce the WP:PILLARS, instead of saying "editors"? Because admins are looked to to set the tone here and if they do not set the tone then the tone will be set by human nature and general internet irresponsibility. Gulp. --Justanother 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtful commentary, thank you. It's amazing how far from WP:PILLARS it stiil is, and how easily it becomes an internet version of Lord of the Flies. Maybe it will continually be a mess, doomed, like, e.g., the political process, to entropy towards corruption, a natural tendency as long as individual and group "self interest" holds the upper hand vs the universal good (in this somewhat minor instance, the good of unbiased information and knowledge). Cheers. BabyDweezil 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the instructions at the top of the page. I've tried to undo the autoblocks, two of them, but I can't tell if it worked until you try to edit again. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Keith Henson. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Smee 02:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this supposed to be besides the uncivil naming of another editor's work as vandalism in clear violation of WP:VANDALISM? --Justanother 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee thats a complete lie--I deleted pointless refs that deleted peripheral original research and sourced NOTHING about the articles subject. I replaced the fake refs with fact tags. If you revert, and if you make another false accusatuion, I WILL bring it to the proper noticeboards. Your hostility and bias are getting silly. Please take a time out and stop stalking me.BabyDweezil 02:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're heading for another, longer, block if you don't stop edit warring right now. Please see my post on Talk:Cult apologist for specifics. (The reason I posted there was that I felt I needed to reply visibly to your misleading claim about 3RR and "reverting vandalism".) Bishonen | talk 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR --Justanother 21:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 48 hours for aggravated 3RR on Cult apologist: 7 reverts in 17 hours, just back from edit war block, multiply warned, simultaneouly edit warring and 3RR gaming on Keith Henson. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, horsepucky. I made edits, and the POV pushers went I a revert rampage over every edit I made, without discussion. Bishonen, given your blatant and flagrant one-sided bias in all this, and your refusal, just like the zealots, to rationally discuss the substance of these articles, I really can't take your interventions seriously anymore. Really, I can't. See ya. BabyDweezil 22:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice weekend. I am sure that you can make the necessary adjustments to your style when you return. Meantime . . . stay away from construction sites. Over there, they throw real bricks. --Justanother 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You too. Perfect timing for a 48 hr bloc'age a faux, TGIF! BabyDweezil 23:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are getting dragged in deeper and deeper to squabbles on Wikipedia. It's a bottomless pit, isn't it? I have taken a break to do other things, why don't you also cool out? Go skiing, read a book, whatever.--Dking 18:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With my ineptness at outdoor sports, maybe just read a book about skiing. I don't fret much about Wikipedia, since ultimately it's got some trivial but fatal variation of Russell's paradox, basically in that Wikipedia will never be WP:RS for Wikipedia, much less anything else. Being a "Wikipedian" is kinda like online gaming, except you won't lose the rent money! (although you may forget to pay it). BabyDweezil 18:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, tons of people believe in what they read in Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would just be an entertaining game. Fossa_?! 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but the fact that people believe what they read here (or lots of other places) is indicative of a far deeper problem that no amount of editing is going to resolve; that's a bit of mental mist that needs be tackled in the larger sphere. But for day to day life in this little bit of cyberspace, I think your gamebook is the way to go. BabyDweezil 00:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect for Fossa but the gamebook is most definitely not the way to go. The only hope of success is to appeal to everyone's higher nature while at the same time ruthlessly attacking our "lower nature" by insisting that we all follow the WP:PILLARS. Treating it as a game in which there are sides and winners/losers has created what we see here with the "winner" being the team with the most members and the most free time on their hands and that ain't unsually the most knowledgable team, in my experience. And if POV, misleading, and incomplete articles are the result then the encyclopedia is the loser. See my trolling friend Wikipediatrix's axioms for her insights after pretending to be a "player" for a year or so. --Justanother 00:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Games with sides and winners and losers aren't necessarily the only kinds of games. I agree on the primary importance of the WP:PILLARS, but the operative difficulty is how to make it real. And thats where the game can come in, not a win/lose game but a game of listening. I agree with the sentiment of the appeal to a higher nature, Justanother, but I think it ends up being a bit authoritarian (who decides on whats higher or lower, and what to do with those who don't make the grade?). Lyotard uses the phrase "Just Gaming" in a double meaning sore of way, just as simple trivial gaming and as a way of achieving justness. In other words, life is too serious not to lighten up? BabyDweezil 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. If I put it in Scientology terms, the kind of aberrated game that has winners and losers, entrenched partisan sides, etc. is a "games condition" and can, IMO, be exemplified by the American legal system or existing political condition. In that kind of game, the "truth" takes distant second to defending oneself and "winning". The other kind of game is one of agreement; where an individual or a group undertakes to accomplish a known goal by overcoming not-insurmountable barriers. In Scientology that is pretty much how we define "life" and also "happiness" (the overcoming of not-insurmountable barriers in pursuit of a known goal). When a group takes on a task and works together toward an agreed-upon goal and accomplishes that goal it is a wonderful thing and at the end you have a party. In construction you have a topping off party (stubby, this is better). When two or more sides work toward mutually exclusive or mutually destructive goals in opposition to one another you have a "games condition" or a war. The difference between the two is "agreement". In wikipedia the agreement in contained in the WP:PILLARS. This is what we are "supposed" to be building. It is our blueprint. When it is not enforced then sides develop as people strive to "win" at presenting their POV. The sides look to make wikipedia a mirror of their own partisan websites rather than a synopsis of the existing material that has appeared in "reliable sources". We cannot say which of these is the "truth", all we can do is have fundamental agreement on which one we will present. Failure to abide by the WP:PILLARS is violation of the fundamental agreement that allows wikipedia to progress. And yes, seriousness sucks but seriousness is often the result of a "games condition" (war, legal system, politics) while light-hearted and fun can characterize a true game of working together and the level of seriousness and enforced seriousness can be taken as indicative of which you are looking at. (It is also an indicator of the state of case of the individual but that veers very much into Scientology.) --Justanother 05:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on a related note

Justanother, if you look in New Religious Movement, you'll find it "topped off" with this bit of bigotry:
For example, the prominent Dutch Christian counter cult activist Anton Hein considers Scientology a hate group because that religious movement has, in his opinion, a long, documented history of hate and harassment activities [4], which - along with lying and deception - are condoned and encouraged in Scientology's own 'scriptures.' (See, for example, Scientology's Fair Game [5] policy.)
I had removed this because it wasnt at all a WP:RS, but just a rant from a not prominent religious extremist (the convicted sex offender Hein) on his gussied up yet personal website. User WillBeback, in his wisdom, insists that this is somehow a WP:RS and reverted it, but I was cyberjailed before I could ask him why. In any case it clearly isn't and oughtta be taken out (which would also recommend taking out the needless Scientology response that follows in the article) to make the article have at least a semblance of encyclopedism rather than blogism.--BabyDweezil 16:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. Enjoy your "day off". --Justanother 16:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it and asked for suggestions. Let's see what the interested parties come up with. There are some interesting dynamics at play, see L. Ron Hubbard talk. --Justanother 17:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, BabyDweezil, please remove the "fair use" image from your user page. Per Wikipedia:user page, we aren't allowed to place such non-free images for decoration. -Will Beback · † · 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misuse the proposed deletion process, as you just did with Operation Freakout. As Wikipedia:Proposed deletion states, the process is supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletion candidates. The article is anything but uncontroversial - as I'm sure you've found, just about anything to do with Scientology is controversial!

On a related point, could I suggest that you take a less confrontational approach? You've already been cited and blocked for this, and your approach is clearly not making you any friends. I agree 100% that there are major problems with the Scn articles. However, it's not going to help anyone if you alienate the people who are best placed to fix the problems. -- ChrisO 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in order to get the "major problems with the Scn articles" dealt with properly is to make friends in the right places? Good to know that problems getting fixed is contingent on not "alienating" the right people rather than a lack of awareness that there are serious problems with these articles. Controversial or not, the problem with Operation Freakout is that its trivial and lacking reliable sources, of which they don't seem to be enough to warrant its inclusion. BabyDweezil 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BD, without getting into any of the other issues in this thread, one important point is that is considered good form (i.e. sensitive to the realities of others) to use the WP:AFD process, not WP:PROD. --Justanother 21:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, that's the way Wikipedia works. It's a community as much as it's an encyclopedia. That's the point of Wikipedia:Etiquette - you need to be able to work effectively with other people to build the encyclopedia. -- ChrisO 21:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My misunderstanding, then. from how I read it, I thought using WP:AFD would be considered the more confrontational approach. Too many initials for my simple brain. BabyDweezil 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. No-one should object to any article being put up for a "vote of confidence". And I see that it has never had an AFD so all the more appropriate. --Justanother 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, obviously, putting God up for AfD would be trolling (or something) and the AfD would be instantly closed under WP:SNOW or WP:SK if not by other policy. However, this is a marginal article that does not really need to stand alone. --Justanother 21:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, neither AfD nor PROD would have been appropriate in this instance. The article wasn't orphaned or abandoned, it's had lots of editors and it already had references, albeit not very good ones in some cases. The appropriate thing to do would have been to flag up the article with one or more of the templates listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes and discuss your concerns with other editors, rather than going in guns blazing and trying to get the article deleted. The best way to deal with a bad article is to make it better. Wikipedia's dirty little secret is that most articles contributed to it start out bad, but get better over time. Only a comparatively small number of articles actually get deleted and then only because they're unrecoverably bad. I should know - as an administrator I'm one of the people who get to take out the rubbish! -- ChrisO 23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It is not so much about deletion as it is about WP:MERGE. --Justanother 23:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It depends on the articles in question: is there so much content that it's worth splitting some off into a separate article (as has apparently happened here)? This is plainly the case in some articles - for instance, George W. Bush links out to Early life of George W. Bush, Professional life of George W. Bush, Criticism of George W. Bush, Public perception of George W. Bush etc. The Bush article would be gigantic if it was all included. It's really a matter of practicality and judgment. In this particular case, I would say that a merge wouldn't be merited - Operation Freakout was only one chapter in Paulette Cooper's life, but merging the two articles would likely result in the Freakout section overshadowing everything else. The article would become unbalanced and disproportionate as a result. I think the current split is fine, as it avoids this problem. -- ChrisO 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, basically BD can AfD it or suggest a merge as he sees fit as he is the one that had the objection to it being a separate article and we can discuss it in depth at that point. --Justanother 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, always be painfully polite to POV pushers. After all, they constitute the majority over here in every other "normal" article, not to speak of the Scientology articles. Fossa_?! 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Rule; plus, when faced with POV-pushers, we have all the policies on our side. We need only keep our cool and persist. --Justanother 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awrite, awrite. But the operative word there is "painfully." In fact, a veritable world of pain!. BabyDweezil 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add some sarcasm tags to my edits. Rules don't count, and I prefer to tell POV pushers "Screw you", because in the end they win anyways. Fossa_?! 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find paint programs are fun way to blow off steam. (fast bot eh?) AndroidCat 22:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Kitty, granted that that's more effective in pushing your POV; as for myself, I prefer it the old-fashioned, straight-talking approach. I am fully aware, that that will not produce the desired results, but, then again, I'm not on a misson. I just like to state the obvious. Fossa_?! 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions to the Hate group page since 2/13/07 are a violation of Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule policy. Consequently, you are blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. --Modemac 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate block. I have asked Modemac to unblock you. --Justanother 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My blocking of User:BabyDweezil for 3RR violation was unfortunatelly premature, as pointed out by User:JustAnother. It's been a long time since I've blocked anyone at all (I think the last one was a Barbara Schwarz IP more than a year ago), and I'd forgotten the details of Wikipedia:3RR. I've requested an unblock.

I am being subjected to a concerted group effort on a number of pages Barbara Schwarz, Hate Group by POV pushing editors who auto-revert edits I make without discussion or explanation, attempting to bait 3RR blocks against me. Smeelgova, if you check his history, has been systematically Wikistalking my edits and reverting them. On Barbara Schwarz, at least one— Tilman (and no doubt many) of the editors have serious WP:COI issues, editing a page about a woman they are engaged in a nasty, heated (and disturbingly sexist) internet war with. On that talk page, I get abused for even bringing this up, and I continually seem to be the one who receives reprimands, (see above for my "criminal" history!) despite my consistent explanations for edits that I make. This is getting silly! BabyDweezil 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just make sure that you keep a good count! --Justanother 16:06, 14 February 2Italic text007 (UTC)

I ran out of fingers and toes, so I have to stop at 23! BabyDweezil 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, are you bald? --Justanother 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only in my left eye. BabyDweezil 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

snort --Justanother 16:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment: One must be very desperate or worried to try to black PR other's faiths on WP, the bad way. Though personally disliking both capitalism and communism, I wouldn't see myself in good order and whatsoever editing those articles. --Jpierreg 21:00, 14 February 2007 (GMT) )

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): According to your block log [15], you have been unblocked. I have removed your autoblock, so you should be good to go. If you still cannot edit, please copy/paste the full message so that we can see why you are still autoblocked. Thank you. Request handled by: BigDT 18:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me (don't answer that) or is the existence of the Barbara Schwarz merely a reality in order to use Wikipedia as an extension of a rather vicious, nasty, sexist and unencyclopedic internet war between this beleagured woman and a cabal of um, zealous, anti-Scientology editors. Fer ejemplo, do a lil Google search of "Barbara Schwarz" and "Tilman" and you will get a flavor of this mess. I will be filing an AfD for this article on what might be novel grounds--humanitarian reasons, since additional simple Google searches will show that the existence of this article about a marginally notable person (she's gotten marginal press coverage for filing obsessive FOIA requests and lawsuits against her perceived enemies) will show that the article's existence is causing her additional emotional distress. Personally, I find the use of a Wikipedia article on the part of this group of editors to haraunge, embarrass (by highlighting in detail--without, largely, WP:RSs) pretty despicable, and using Wikipedia as an extension of a petty, nasty, sexist pissing contest is just silly. And by the way, a few days ago I had no idea who this woman was. I have no opinion of her one way or another, and no doubt she is not saintly, but I find this Wiki-abuse of someone who is clearly troubled by poeople who should know better to be nauseatingly distasteful.BabyDweezil 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help with this. I nominated it for deletion last year, at Ms Schwarz's request. You certainly have my vote. On the other hand look at the bright side: If Wikipedia had been around in the 1930s maybe the Nazis would have spent all their time editing articles and the world would have been spared a lot of grief. Cheers. Steve Dufour 06:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent observation. BabyDweezil 23:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you nominate it for deletion please let me know on my talk page. Steve Dufour 04:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of your personal opinion on the motivation of my particular edits, I request that you please stop your attacks against me and inappropriate commentary in the edit summaries. This is not what the edit summaries are for and it is highly inappropriate. Thanks. Smee 05:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Simple solution--stop your creepy stalking. BabyDweezil 05:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple solution - stop interpreting my editing articles that have been on my watchlist long before I encountered you on Wikipedia as "creepy stalking". Thanks. Smee 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Simple solution—BabyD, take a look at the lack of support here for your attempt on WP:ANI to convince uninvolved admins that Smeelgova is performing "creepy stalking". In my opinion you're heading for a community ban or arbitration, whichever comes first. I'm not in general one for blocking for personal attacks, but you are making the climate of article talkpages intolerable with your persistent rudeness and assumption of bad faith, as well as edit warring on the articles themselves. Please stop both these activities and start editing collaboratively, or I will block you. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Rick Ross (consultant). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Sfacets 06:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not because I'm trying to hide it--it's in the history--but it clashes with the design and color scheme of the rest of my talk page. But yes, I was warned--it's in the history. BabyDweezil 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Please do not comment on my talk page about this, but rather at the noticeboard. Thanks. Smee 08:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Smee , you are banned from my talk page. Do not post here again. Your 3RR complaint was bogus, and a lie, as you know I modified the edits to mollify your bogus complaint that it was "OR." You were just trying to bait a 3RR violation (which I didnt commit) and since you have proved yourself intransigently hostile and a compuslive liar, you are banned from this page. Do NOT post here again, and dont put any more harrassing NPA things here either. Take up your lies with an admin. See ya. BabyDweezil 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive just messaged Antaeus re the edit warring on the Rathbun page, and explained that if the material does not meet WP:BLP then it cannot be readded. However - I personally believe you are pushing the bounds of this policy with your repeated removal of this info, as it doesnt seem overtly negative nor badly sourced. This for example (IMO) meets WP:RS - therefore, I have told Antaeus that IF the material he wants in the article can be reliably sourced, then (and only then) he may readd it (once). To this end, if you remove it again citing WP:BLP then I will be forced to investigate it fully, and if I find the material is sourced adequately then WP:BLP has not been breached and your 3RR violation will apply. In any regard, the edit warring must stop or the article will be reprotected (no doubt, on m:The Wrong Version; Glen 09:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negative info from personal websites and POV pushing extremist wenbsites violates WP:BLP, why dont you comment on the gross violations instead of fishing for one that "might" be OK. 15:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[16] made on February 17 2007 to List of groups referred to as cults

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

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Glen 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bogus violation. In the course of my edits, i made adjustments to the edit to try and placate a team of edit warriors who were intransigently reverting a NPOV edit to clarify a minor point with spurious explanations for their edits. Although its comical watching a nattering nabob of POV pushers construct twisted complaints elsewhere, fact is this 3RR "complaint" was and is purely hostile, dishonest, and an aggressive use of Wiki procedures for purely hostile purposes by Smeelgova in his obsessive attempts to harrass and penalize me simply for challenging gross POV violations in articles he happens to be involved in (in this instance working in concert with Antaeus Feldspar). This bogus block should be removed. BabyDweezil 16:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you ban Smee from this page, while also insulting him, and the only reason I didn't extend your block for those insults, after all my warnings, was that the 3RR block you're presently under is in fact connected with Smee's actions (not that I'm saying he did anything wrong). I feel a user needs some extra allowance made under those circumstances. All right. But now I see that you yourself continue to attack Smee here—after saying he can't post here! That's not going to happen, are you kidding me? While your talkpage "ban" against Smee (which of course only holds by his courtesy anyway) is supposed to be operative, I hereby ban you from talking about him. Don't mention him, don't allude to him, don't try to be funny and talk "round" him. I will either protect this page so you can't edit it at all, or give you a good long block—depending on circumstances—if you do any of that lot. You know something? I'm a very patient admin. It just ran out, though. (And if somebody else sees your Smee insults on this page and decides to extend your present block, I won't object.) Bishonen | talk 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi BabyDweezil, I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating WP:POINT and causing disruption on L. Ron Hubbard and Dwight D. Eisenhower. If you have a problem with the Barbara Schwarz article, you need to settle it through appropriate dispute resolution channels. I previously blocked another editor for one hour for the same offense today. Your block is longer because you have been warned and blocked before. Please use this time to think about how you can make positive contributions while causing less disruption and hardship. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 07:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over-reaction by an admin/editor involved with BabyDweezil in a content dispute at Barbara Schwarz. Johntex, I think that you should have posted this to an admin board and let someone else handle it as this looks a lot like "conflict of interest". I make no claim to be a mind reader and make no claim as to what motivated you in this block, I am telling you what it has the appearance of, to me. It would have been better to avoid that appearance. And if you are going to say that BD can appeal the block, I think that you know as well as I do that there is a big difference between another admin undoing your block vs. another admin not making the block for you in the first place. The former, undoing, is a much higher hurdle. The funny thing is that wikipedia is full of silly trivia and the Schwarz claims are interesting trivia for both Hubbard and Eisenhower and, certainly Eisenhower as he has a trivia section. It is trivia that he plays a part in the suits brought by the "queen of FOIA". So was it WP:POINT? Perhaps, but it was also a valid edit in Ike and needed only minor editing, to identify it as trivia, to be a valid edit in LRH. Personally, I see this block as piling-on on BabyDweezil. Please remove the block and post it to an admin board and let a non-involved admin make the call. Thanks. cross-posted to Johntex --Justanother 13:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...But then again (just to stir things up), isn't it COI on your part to contest the block? Sfacets 14:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, you are stirring the pot (smile). But I did not block anyone. Nor unblock anyone. All I did was communicate. BTW, do you know what Hubbard says are the only two "crimes" a being can commit? Be there and communicate. Well, here I am. And I sure do communicate. Guilty!! --Justanother 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of reply to JustanotherHi Justanother, thanks for your message. Yes, I considered that there my action may appear to be a conflict of interest and I still decided that to take action was the best course. There were several factors to my decision. One of them is that BD's behavior is consistently bad. This was not an isolated incident. Another is that I had previously blocked a different editor for the exact same thing. BD came along and made the same edits. It was a clear violation. Another factor is that BD has received many warnigs and even previous 24 hour blocks. Yet another is that the project favors action, and that any decision can be undone. In short, I was confident enough in my actions that I didn't feel it was beneficial to the project to delay while waiting for another admin or set of admins to review the case. I stand by my action. I also note that no admin has yet found issue with the block. Johntex\^talk 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply is on my talk page but, BD, we will see anything here and will continue here if you come in. --Justanother 15:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, Johntex was just about the first to jump in, sans acknowledgment of his editing conflict, on my proposed month long sock in the mouth, following notification of the action by my own private stalker, who alternates between obsessively undoing nearly every edit I make, and filing complaints with whoever he thinks will be a sympathetic ear to get me tossed. Sometimes I think the main problem with Wikipedia is the lack of adult supervision! BabyDweezil 15:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get used to it BD. I used to have not one but two (at least) minders. My solution? Be super-transparent; don't break the rules; and contribute to the project. Oh, BTW, "minder" might needs an article. You know, the minders that accompany Westerners when they visit a repressive regime. Would you like to work on that with me? --Justanother 15:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be able to respond to the discussion on ANI of the proposed one-month block, I'll unblock you for the purpose. This is on condition that you voluntarily edit nowhere else. Only in that ANI thread and on this page, until the 24 hours would have run out. Please let me know here if you'll agree to those terms. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sure, I have no problem with the terms, although this particularly 24 hour block was less than honest, brought about hastily by an admin heatedly involved in the same editing dispute, who failed to acknowledge it as such, as well as his own increasingly antagonistic attitude towards me in the course of that editing dispute. I'm not sure what I would add to the ANI, since to counter the negative spin against me would take a huge effort of parsing through each and every complaint, and demonstrating how a series of small distortions, exaggerations and outright falsehoods in each one accumulate over time to paint a overall dastardly picture (this is an old trick in the shady world of smear artistry being that's being used rather amateurishly, though apparently effectively, here). In any case, I'll agree to your terms. BabyDweezil 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have been unblocked. Please give it a few minutes before you try to edit, I'm just checking for autoblocks now. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, cool. Case in point about responding to the ANI, besides the usual suspects making the same old overdramatized invective filled complaints, am I really s'posed to respond to the likes of KillerChihuahua's nasty, abusive bilous self-righteous tripe in there? Ironically, all of the venom of that that consistently gets spewed ostensibly is to counter my supposed "personal attacks;" to borrow a phrase that you, Bishonen used during your brief sojourn as my Wikishrink, I think we here have a classic instance of the projection you had attributed to me in the course of your Wikidiagnosis.:) BabyDweezil 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BD, hope you are not on a "slippery slope". Here is an example of another fellow I knew that "had a way with words" and took a ride down that slope. You may want to take a nice walk outside before responding further. --Justanother 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as you take that walk, please make a conscious effort to look at and put your attention on things around you that you see. And do that repeatedly until you feel decidedly better. I hope that you can forgive the advice of a Scientologist. --Justanother 18:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no prejudices with regards to advice. I'm simply unaccostomed by nature to being a punching bag without responding in kind, but it would be rude to dismiss your sincere advice, so I'll happily abide. BabyDweezil 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This all sounds like a bad case of bullying. Sfacets 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Explain, please? --Justanother 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a block by a single admin because he/she doesn't like the user's edits. The user has been given no warnings, but has been arbitrarily blocked. Now, he is being offered a "compromise" - or a way to control how he edits articles. Sfacets 02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, are you stirring the pot again? I think that BD would be well-advised to ignore the pot-stirrers. And take some good advice to chill and contribute, especially in other areas. All that pot-stirring does is grease his slippery slope. Is that the intent? --Justanother 03:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Mr. I-have-no-clue-but-I-try-to-be-impartial-or-maybe-I'm-just-a-plain-pov-pusher-admin offers a conditional unblock. I'm impressed. Fossa_?! 02:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helpful. See my above re pot stirring. If you'all want to help then go over to AN/I and oppose his proposed 30-day block, if that is how you feel. Or support it, if you care to. --Justanother 03:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Stirring things up" is just an expression (no pots involved, or slopes for that matter). Sfacets 03:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Same difference. Unhelpful. --Justanother 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to join my tea party?[17] BTW, well done on keeping cool. And don't let any pot-stirrers stir you up either. --Justanother 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted. A civilized respite is always welcome. BabyDweezil 20:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thought exactly. But that one I found was just too bizarre not to pass along. Definitely a work of (warped) genius. --Justanother 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check out the rest of her artwork?[[18]]. Pretty wild. BabyDweezil 04:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for a week per the discussion here. Bishonen | talk 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]