User talk:Sfarney

Welcome!

Hello, Sfarney, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

December 2013

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Divine right of kings. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. You need sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS for this, not the Bible itself. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2014

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Acts of the Apostles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not ADD personal opinion -- I REMOVED doctrinaire opinion. If I erred in this, please cite a sentence in which I erred and I will happily correct that sentence. That would be the correct way to approach this dispute.~~sfarney

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from User talk:JudeccaXIII into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

All that was done the first time around.--Sfarney (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney

Acts of the Apostles

I have proposed that discussion regarding this topic be continued on the article talk page. I acknowledge up front that wikipedia almost certainly could have enough content related to this topic to create a complete book in small print. That tends to be the case when the articles in the leading relevant encyclopedias are even longer than our longest articles here. There is not a lot of real question in such cases whether a lot of content merits inclusion in wikipedia somewhere, the question is where. In this particular case, I honestly have to say at this point I don't have a clue myself what would be the optimum structure of the article, having not looked at the appropriate recent reference sources yet. But the article talk page is probably the best place to discuss and resolve such concerns. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

I reverted your edit about Aryanism. Your comment was "Racial theories: There is no logical support for saying that the Nazis believed in Aryanism, hence Aryanism is a "primary motivator" for war crimes and atrocities." Do you really believe that Nazis didn't believe this? The article actually said "and hence a primary motivator for numerous war crimes and atrocities." Your edit left the article saying it "was one of the core tenets of Nazism, some proponents of which were found guilty of numerous war crimes and atrocities." Do you mean some proponents of Nazism, or Aryanism? Myrvin (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "of which" always refers to the most recently used noun, in this case "Nazism." Sfarney (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you are saying that there is no source that says that "Aryanism is a "primary motivator" for war crimes and atrocities." Myrvin (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As originally worded, the statement was erroneous. I.e., Nazis believed X, hence X is a prime motivator for war crimes and atrocities. And yes, I am saying that it is ridiculous to assert that "Aryanism is a 'primary motivator' for war crimes and atrocities." No Nazi has claimed that Aryanism is the prime motivator for the War, the camps, or anything else. Aryanism is only one of many master-race doctrines in the world, and none of the other resulted in a Holocaust. Sfarney (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added a citation and quote for the original words. Myrvin (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It does matter what source said that -- many hysterical claims have been published about the Nazis, and Wikipedia has to be somewhat discriminating. For an exacting use of language, read the intro for Aryan race. Sfarney (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll move this to the article's Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conspiracy theory. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

Hi Sfarney - I reviewed your contributions, and you are pretty inexperienced in WP. You are writing things on the Talk page, that are not based on how Wikipedia works.

I am sorry about this, but if you really want to get involved, it turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be both a garbage dump of random content and a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there is guidance for generating excellent content and there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it.

One of the hardest things for new or inexperienced users to get their heads around, is understanding not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I emphasize the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering") The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various drama boards and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place is. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. Anyway, I do hope you slow down and learn. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones.

PAG are described and discussed in a whole forest of documents within Wikipedia that are "behind the scenes" in a different "namespace", in which the documents start with "Wikipedia:" or in shorthand, "WP:" (for example, our policy on edit warring is here: WP:EDITWAR not here EDITWAR). You won't find these documents by using the simple search box above, which searches only in "main space" where the actual articles are. However if you search with the prefix, (for example if you search for "WP:EDITWAR") you will find policies and guidelines. Likewise if you do an advanced search with "wikipedia" or "help" selected you can also find things in "Wikipedia space".

The most important policy we have is WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia has plenty of policies and guidelines, as I mentioned, but really at the end of the day this place is ... a democracy? an anarchy? something hard to define. But we figure things out by talking to one another. CONSENSUS is the bedrock on which everything else rests. People are citing links to policies and guidelines in the discussion, and it is important that you read them and take them into account - they are the foundation for what we do here. Please do read them, and if something doesn't make sense, please ask real questions about how other editors are understanding the policy or guideline. Please discuss. Please only start to actually argue once you understand the policy or guideline.

If you and the other party or parties still disagree, there are many ways to resolve disputes (see WP:DR) - it never needs to become emotional - - because we do have this whole "body of law" and procedures to resolve disputes.

Anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I submit that your remark ("by the way, folks talking here should be aware of this: [2]. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)"^[1]) is deliberately ad hominem. Is that a part of the "letter and spirit" of Wikipedia, as you see it? Slade Farney (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

[1]
Talk:Conspiracy_theory#Content_Does_not_agree_with_Intro_line

I wrote this note to try to help you. You appear to be committed to being argumentative. That is the bed you are making, and we all have to lay in it. C'est la vie. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

to reply to your question, I don't understand why you would consider it ad hominem. If I called you ugly or stupid that would be ad hominem. Is there something ugly or stupid or otherwise embarrassing to you about your sandbox? If so, a) I am sorry for embarrassing you (really I am) and b) you should know that everything in WP is public. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is ad hominem in the same way that reference to my voting record, my choice of ties, or anything else about me other than the topic at hand is ad hominem. If you had honorable intentions and were simply misunderstood, feel free to explain your actions. Slade Farney (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your sandbox is directly related to what we are talking about on the article Talk page. In any case, I won't try to help you here any further. I do hope you read what I wrote above and consider it... but you will do what you will do. however, please do base your statements on Talk, on policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The sandbox content is troubling since it will never have the potential to be placed into article space and would not be of any benefit to the encyclopedia project. Included in the "list of conspiracies" are US legislation such as the Intelligence Authorization Act and FBI reports such as ‪Project Megiddo‬. A list article of events characterized as "harmful or illegal acts" would need multiple, reliable sources for each entry. It would also have to conform to WP:NPOV, which would rule out personal editorializing, such as publishing Lord of the Rings quotations as "alleged objectives" of the US Project SHAMROCK and NSA warrantless surveillance. Wikipedia is not intended to be a free web space for original research or a platform for soapboxing fringe opinions and viewpoints. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

LuckyLouie Be not overly concerned, Lucky. Or should I call you "Louie"? You will have adequate opportunity to comment, and edit, anything that is published. For now, I have freedom to insert POV when and where I wish. The sandbox page is in the process of maturing. I note that you have not edited anything on the List of Conspiracies page as it stands now. Slade Farney (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your list, for example, cites the US Post Office alleged objectives as "in service of the surveillance state", so you're apparently flaunting WP:POLEMIC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

LuckyLouie Please be assured that by the time I request comment, it will be as Wiki-compatible as I can make it. I am taking multiple passes through the material, carefully researching each item to harmonize all statements with the pages dedicated to each item. To the best of my knowledge, the material was never on the Wiki search engine. You have added code to ensure that it is not searchable, and I have merged that code with my work. I appreciate your interest in the page, and your helpful comments. There are still another two dozen entries to be tested and tried for inclusion, and more are discovered all the time. Slade Farney (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. For example, there's no source that could be applied to the Border search exception article to cite the subject as "a conspiracy to commit a harmful or illegal act" or that "it directly violates the Fourth Amendment, hence is an illegal violation of Civil Rights". In other words, without reliable sources that make such broad assertions of fact, this is all just soapboxing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

LuckyLouie Please be assured, you are making yourself clear. This is, as you no doubt know, an extremely contentious subject. How does one deal with a contentious subject from a neutral point of view? In the first passes, I have been granting those who call them conspiracies every opportunity to make the case of conspiracy, their best shot if you will, and recording those cases. But even so, some have not succeeded. Alexander's death in the first row is not unequivocally a conspiracy. As you will see in the new intro, it doesn't meet the bar. So that row must be removed, marked with bold font. Now we come to the rows about which you are concerned. I have made the best case I can. I have compared it with the Wannsee conference, which was totally legal, and yet harmful. Is the Border search exception totally legal, and yet harmful? In the same way? Well of course not in the same degree, but degree is not the question. I know my own view, but what will be the view of the Wiki consensus? The wiki has already spoken through the pages devoted to each subject. And so I am moving through these changes, and the page is moving through these changes. It is changing every day, and I have not yet asked for a review. When I do, will you be willing to review and offer your comments? Slade Farney (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If you will be submitting it to WP:AFC I'm sure there will be no lack of comments from others, and pending availability I may offer review comments as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 March

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Reference errors on 14 April

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Orphaned non-free image File:L Ron Hubbard Messiah or Madman 1st Edition.png

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Reference errors on 30 April

talk page comments

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

Removal of Uncited Material

May 2015

Moderation

Spam

Scottperry/E-Meter

you have !voted twice

Zeitgeist (film series)

Hello Sfarney, I just wanted let you know you have already reverted twice in the article. Please try not to violate WP:3RR. I'm not saying you're being uncivil or anything wrong. I'v been watching the article for about a few days now, and I can tell the discussions are quite...well...deeply discussed. I will be watching for now on those reverts in the article. That would go for the other editors as well so don't feel misplaced about this message. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, [User:JudeccaXIII|JudeccaXIII]. However, I am following WP Policy:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

And I have raised the issue on BLP noticeboard.

Whatever the case is, do not violate WP:3RR. This policy comes before any other when it comes to disputes in articles. If you violate, you will be looked at as the "uncunstructive" editor and blocked most likley. As I said before...I will be watching for ANYONE who does so. You took it to a notice bored, good...be calm and patient. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My intent is to be firm but friendly. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII, the policy Sfarney quoted directly says that 3RR does not apply in such cases, you can't respond to that with "well whatever you do don't violate 3RR". The only valid argument here would be to explain how the specific material that is being removed is obviously not a BLP concern. Which I think it is, and I really don't understand what's wrong with the people who feel that the material has to be so urgently restored that they can't wait for consensus to form. I re-removed the material once but I was reverted by an admin so I'm butting out of this specific issue now, don't really want to get yelled at for doing the right thing. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yuck. This article has been a mess for a long time. It is now under a lockdown, but I am now recommending that it be sent to ArbCom to identify and sanction disruptive editors. By the way, it is true that BLP violations are one of the exemptions from 3RR, but it is also true that using the BLP card aggressively to edit-war is also considered disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I understand that any tool can be abused. I try to do what is best, and keep the faith that my intentions will be recognized by the greater community. Between a rock and a hard place on BLP because we have the responsibility to protect WP from the effects of wrongfully libeling living persons. At the same time, edit warring is a drag -- and pointless. Thanks for participating in the ANI. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that you were abusing a tool. I assume that you mean that the BLP exemption from 3RR can be abused. I agree that the article and its subject are between a rock and a hard place. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, while BLP is an exemption from 3RR, it is not an exemption against the rule against battleground editing. I know of one case where an editor was banned by ArbCom for, among other things, battleground use of BLP for battleground editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Request

I assume it was accidental

Notice: General Sanctions on all Zeitgeist Movement articles

Arbitration case request declined

Notice: General Sanctions on all 9/11 articles

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Business plot

conspiracy theory RS

conspiracy theories by nature are thought up by individuals and posted on the internet via blog, chat, social networks and every possible medium of content hosting. how does wikipedia's reliable source policy even apply to a list of them. this appears as an oxymoron and irony.

Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk · contribs), I agree with you totally. These pages becomes showcases for the orthodox elite to list all their pet peeves and to ridicule people who "fail" to believe what they are told to believe. Why is there no signature on your note? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

because I leave it to sinebot to do that work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk · contribs), I understood that to be the case, but in the first comment, the bot failed. Thought you might know why. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
returning to the OP, the reason I made it is that you happen to be one of those "orthodox elites" as you are the one who undid revision 681333245 in List of conspiracy theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 06:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk · contribs), without rancor, you are entirely too elliptical for my understanding: "... the reason I made it ..." Made what? Second, as explained in the edit note, I believed your edit was in good faith and I do not quibble with the statement -- it is most certainly true. But in Wikipedia we need sources, not just true statements. If I had not reverted it. someone else would, and not so politely. Please find a reliable source for the statement that there is such a conspiracy theory. Third, do you want your statement to appear beside the con-trail theory, the water-fueled perpetual motion automobile, and Rastafarianism? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: first answer, made the OP as in this post in the talk page. second answer, conspiracy theories are mostly made on internet blogs, chatrooms and imageboards, which are not considered as reliable source from what i noticed, so how is it even possible to have a RS for conspiracy theories?

IT's stupid, but that is the way it's done. You find an RS with credentials who says such and such is a conspiracy theory. Doesn't matter whether it's stupid, right, wrong, or only the RS's fantasy; it's a conspiracy theory if and only if an RS says it is. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

About Jainism

A barnstar for you!

A kitten for you!

Scientology intro edit

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Notice of discretionary sanctions on BLP articles

Living persons

Notice of Discressionary sanctions relating to Scientology

Rick Alan Ross

A conviction of conspiracy to defraud 40 years ago, at age 23, for which Rick Ross has obviously made reparation, shouldn't be part of the article IMO. Least of all in the form of a separate section with the eye-catching header "Criminal record", high up in the article. BLP articles do not have the purpose of shaming people, and it's not reasonable to insert so prominently such long-ago events, long since lived down. Compare WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Compare also this comment by User:Newyorkbrad when the material about Ross's criminal record was last discussed, in May. Thank you for only edit warring once to reinsert it, but you shouldn't have added it at all, let alone in that form, and twice, and certainly not without discussion. I'm glad to see you have already been alerted to the discretionary sanctions in force for BLPs and for scientology-related articles. I hope you realize that if you edit Rick Alan Ross with an obviously hostile agenda, you can be topic banned from it. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC).

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Since no one has commented on it directly, please remove, "If serving as an expert witness causes a person to become then and ever after a tool of the lawyer, by his own argument Ross has many masters, his intellect and integrity compromised by each." from your comment. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ronz:, will Ross be removing his comments on living person Shupe? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. How about going ahead with the refactoring, then we'll look at whatever you're concerned about? --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

WP:RS

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs

Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process

David Schoetz is, in fact, a known journalist. And an employee of ABC News when he wrote the post. Also has worked for the NY Daily News and MSNBC (where he is currently an Executive Producer).

The AP article he quotes states " His bond has been set at $5 million, a figure his attorneys say is "excessive and oppressive."" which is, it would seem, quite clear. Finding current weblinks to individual AP reports from 2010 is not all that easy, so the RS blog is sufficient. The AP has suspended searches for archived articles - so the fact is that the blog is the best link as a reliable source. It is not an "opinion blog" for this sort of material, and is done under the auspices of a highly regarded news organization.

Is this quite clear? Would you prefer the exposure of your position on the WP:RS/N noticeboard - or is this sufficient for you to self-revert your deletion of the reliable source? Collect (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Collect:, please confine these discussions to the topic talk pages. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Um -- did you read my dang post here? It is about your misuse of the WP:RS which is at issue - but I am gald to bring this to WP:RS/N as you seem deaf to this head's up I offer. Collect (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Direct from AP search:

"An impulse to rectify a perceived violation of oneself"

What's this edit doing in the bio of a deprogrammer? Either it's a sly implication that Ross's deprogramming work "results from an impulse to rectify a perceived violation of oneself" (which would be offensive psychobabble), or else it's utterly irrelevant and undue in the article. I look at it as a transparent attempt to make Ross look bad, just like the "Criminal record" edit that I warned you about above. One more and I topic ban you from the article. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, Perhaps we should rename the Wikipedia, Flower's Blog: If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Deprogrammers (in this case a "public figure") are being protected from all scholarly discussion and analysis, while the targets of deprogrammers are open season. Can you explain what is going on here? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about forwarding Ross's theories without criticism, it's about how the criticism is done. Do you not see how offensive and intrusive the choice of a quote about "violation of oneself" is in a biography article? Please try to apply the "high degree of sensitivity" that WP:BLP requires for biographies. If you find that difficult, perhaps you had better propose changes on talk instead of putting them straight into the article. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen:: Despite Collect (talk · contribs)'s complaints, I have not suggested any criminal conduct by CAN or anyone affiliated with CAN. CAN's decision to spend the insurance money on appeals rather than the judgment is a documented fact, and no one has produced a contending source. That such an act by a corporation might be thought "criminal", or that the action would be attributed to people who are not owners, founders, shareholders, officers, or employees -- shows a profound miss-education on the civil legal system. But that bizarre structure of presumptions is the foundation of Collect's complaint against me. Perhaps you can address the issue with him -- he seems not to understand simple words when they are followed by my name. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Assertion that a NPO deliberately bankrupted itself is not in any way criminal? Really? Note the source you love to use was by Shupe who was the one who quite erroneously claimed Ross was not acquitted - and where you repeatedly sought to have Ross's BLP state he was not acquitted. Until others pointed out that not only was he acquitted, it took only two hours for him to be acquitted. Where a source has been found to be errant in statements of fact, other facts asserted in such a source fall under a teensy cloud. I trust this clears up your apparent misapprehension about what is and is not a reliable source when dealing with living persons. With glorious cheerfulness, Collect (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"deliberately bankrupted itself" -- those are your words -- no one else has asserted that. It is a straw man.
that CAN did anything that was "in any way criminal" -- that is your idea -- no one else has suggested that, not then and not now, and not in the RS. It is a straw man.
bankruptcy as a deliberate strategy (if we must presume CAN did so) is not considered a criminal act -- or not usually. Again, this is something you have added to the subject and the discussion that is not inherent, not in the RS, not in the reverted edit, or anywhere else. It is a straw man.
the crimes of a corporation (if there were a crime here) rarely reflect on individuals. When it happens it is very notable and exceptional, like Enron. And in those cases, the crime reflects only on officers or staff members who personally commit egregious fraud or other crimes. For example, BP was convicted of criminality for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but the individuals are charged only for the acts each individual performed as an individual. But none of the people you name are founders, owners, officers, or employees of the corporation. The whole line of argument borders on preposterous.
"Where a source has been found to be errant in statements of fact, other facts asserted in such a source fall" -- so you have stated many times, but you have never quoted WP policy on that point. If we applied that principle universally, Singer's discredit in the DIMPAC should completely discredit deprogramming as a science and Ross as a practitioner of deprogramming, given that he continues to admire Singer and quote her on just that erroneous point. But you resist universal application of that principle.
On the BLP/Notice board you asserted that an error on a fact of the case should discredit a source on all other facts of that same case. I attempted to show you that the bankruptcy was not associated with the same case as the one in which Ross was acquitted. I will indicate the same again to you now. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC) (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC))

Continued problems with Rick Alan Ross

Well Done

Reference errors on 16 February

Vandalism and Disruptive Editing

accusation of OR

Olsen

Collapsed Text

Please do not edit text that has been collapsed. No one can see it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I fixed a missed word. I presume at some point the text will again visible -- you did say it would be a discussion of content, not of editors? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That particular text will probably not be visible again, but I am not sure. When the case is opened by a volunteer moderator, they will probably instruct the participants to be civil and concise. That post isn't concise. DRN always has a rule to comment on content, not on contributors. If you want to comment on contributors, go to a conduct forum such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I do not want to comment on contributors, except in the Dispute Overview, which is necessary for understanding of the issues. I do not understand why you wanted Rick Alan Ross here as a part of this discussion since he is not a contributor. His presence makes it difficult to discuss his page objectively. My concise statement is in the dispute Overview. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not correct that I wanted Rick Alan Ross as a party. Another of the parties said that he should be added, and he should have been added, and was. He is not and should not be a contributor to his BLP, but he does have a right to comment on his BLP. You are expected to discuss his biography objectively with any member of the community including its subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments on contributors should not be necessary to understand the issues if the issues are content issues. Are you willing to discuss content without discussing contributors? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought my statement above was clear. The DR process requires the naming of other contributors involved in the dispute. I did that. Ross is not a party to the dispute because he is not a contributor, so I did not name him. Now it is time to discuss content. This will necessarily involve comments about Ross and his activities because he is the subject of the page. If Ross is not discussed, there is no discussion of page content and we are done. That is why Ross should not be involved in the DRN. Let us please proceed to a discussion of content. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Imprisoned?

Hi. I read your filing at DRN, where you said "Ross was pleaded guilty to embezzling conspiracy, imprisoned for a year or so, and later exonerated by a judge." (I guess the "was" was in the wrong place.) I don't remember hearing of Ross going to prison before. Can you give a source for it, please? Bishonen | talk 23:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: You are correct, there was probation only. I misremembered the details of his conviction when I wrote the DRN note, though the statement I put in the edit was fully sourced. Have you been canvassed to participate in this DR? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I was pinged. So you'd say something like that without even checking? I'm just going to bed; I'll decide tomorrow whether it is now time to topic ban you from Rick Alan Ross, broadly construed. I'm sure you realize that all pages on Wikipedia must be free of BLP violations. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

Prison and parole both involve a criminal conviction, and the crime and conviction are the character blemishes in the real world. Most people do not have criminal convictions in their histories. Ross has two. ("I was convicted of one felony and a misdemeanor. These were both non-violent crimes. My misdemeanor conviction was for "Conspiracy" to commit a crime. This involved an attempted burglary of a vacant model home in 1974. No one was hurt or threatened in any way and I received probation.") The sentence is a detail. If a criminal conviction were falsely asserted in civil society, it would certainly be libel. If the sentence were misstated, it would not be libel. One of the issues on the article is blanking of all mention of Ross's criminal convictions. But you will do what you will do. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's principles for BLPs (and for all other comments on living people, such as your DRN filing) aren't based on whether what you say would be "libel" in civil society; they're considerably stricter. I disagree that "the sentence is a detail"; that somebody has been in prison, versus that they have been paroled, are two things that make very different impressions in the world I live in. I've warned you before about the way you've been going on about Ross's 40-year-old conviction (at age 23), specifically about the disproportionately prominent way you inserted it in the article earlier. Given that, I'm really surprised that you would misstate it as you did here. I thought at first you had to know what you were talking about, but your carefree wording "a year or so" (my italics) suggested that you didn't in fact know, and that's why I asked. I'm topic banning you from further comment on Ross, on any page. Of course this ban is not placed for this latest misstep; that's merely the last straw in the campaign against one of our article subjects that you've been waging. The entire tone of your DR submissions is inappropriate; here's some more of it. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

you are indefinitely topic banned from Rick Alan Ross and all related pages and content

You have been sanctioned for persistent attacks on Rick Ross in the article, on the talkpage, and in your WP:DRN submission. Compare my first and second warning on this page, as well as this elaboration of my second warning and my response to you immediately above. You have also been warned by other people, as can be seen above on this page.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I have never attacked Rick Alan Ross. In fact, I have supported his requests in opposition to other editors. I have insisted on the truth with fully supported references -- with the exception of the last, which was an honest mistake. Since this is a "BLP" ban, "all related" seems exceptionally broad and opportunistic -- like a deliberately outstanding arrest warrant left in place to conduct personal searches at any time and place. As the record shows, including the "warnings" you cite on my user page, other partisan editors have used BLP like the DoJ uses the Commerce Clause. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"All related pages and content" is the nature of a topic ban. Please check out WP:TBAN for details of what "related" is intended to convey; you're banned from editing content related to Rick Alan Ross, nothing else. As an example, I would say that probably includes all editing of the Jason Scott case, but not Scientology articles in general, unless the context of your edit directly involves Ross. Please feel free to ask if you're uncertain of a particular edit you wish to make. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC).

Hey

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

"cleared the company of the charges."

Hello, I tried to answer on my Talk page, but you probably didn't see it. I would be grateful if you can tell me whether this version is gramatically correct (unfortunately I am not a native speaker):

Amway has been subject to several investigations whether it runs a pyramid scheme. The investigations took place in the United States[31], the United Kingdom[32], and two states in India.[33][34][35]. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom[36] cleared the company of the charges. Best regards,--Historik75 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(Sorry I did not follow your page. You can ping other editors with the code @Historik75:.) Consider this:

Amway has been investigated by several governments for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. Amway was investigated by the United States,[31] the United Kingdom,[32] and two states in India.[33][34][35] An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States and by the High Court in the United Kingdom[36] cleared the company of suspicion of pyramid practices.

According to this page, the Amway case in the US was not a court case. It was an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). That was my initial concern -- there were no "charges" (a term criminal proceedings) filed. Note: always put the footnote after punctuation. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, still learning how Wikipedia works. :-) Thank you very much for your corrections. How about a more "condensed" version (just not to repeat investigated-investigated-investigation)?

Amway has been investigated by governments in the United States,[31] the United Kingdom,[32] and two states in India[33][34][35] for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States and by the High Court in the United Kingdom[36] cleared the company of suspicion of pyramid practices.

I would like to suggest this one for RfC.--Historik75 (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That's good! @Historik75:, thanks for asking my opinion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

One last thing: do we have to say "by governments"? Isn't this a redundant info when we are later talking about FTC and the court? How about leaving that out? It's for the lead, not for the article body.--Historik75 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Investigation" does not imply government investigation. What about this:

Amway has been examined the Federal Trade Commission in the United States,[31][1] the High Court in United Kingdom,[32] and governments in two states in India[33][34][35] for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes.

Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, I assume you meant: "examined by"...--Historik75 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I did. and the governments of two states ...

if no charges were files or complaints issued, we should mention that as well. And "civil charges" is a correct term for complaints by the FTC (which is a "government agency"), etc. Collect (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about "civil charges" if the complaint was never filed in court. Was there a complaint filed in the FTC? I don't think we can characterize all investigations by Federal Commissions as "charges." Let's take this discussion to the topic talk page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Hi, and welcome to the discussioon. :-) I assume you were talking about India when you wrote "if no charges were files or complaints issued". Am I right? The problem is that the Indian case hardly can be considered controversy because it was raised only because India has still not adopted regulation regarding direct selling. I understand that the critics would like to make a mountain out of a molehill, as the India is the only place in the world that still gives them hope, but I personally would leave India completely out. The court said that the Act did not prima facie apply, the Indian Minister apologized... Should we put all this information into the lead? I doubt it. But two other editors strongly disagree even with the quotation above (don't know why) let alone if we leave out the India. ;-) --Historik75 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sfarney: I agree, but can we move it there? There is a dispute resolution process running and the moderator asked us not to make any edits there.--Historik75 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Re FTC: I believe the complaint was filed. See the document. It says Complaint on the very first page.--Historik75 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Correction: I have just noticed the word "court".--Historik75 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(1) Yup, the moderator asked for no more discussion on the talk page. (2) This appears to be a hearing before the FTC, not a formal court, though it uses the formalities of speech and actions of a court. (3) I do not see the word "court" used in reference to the current action, only in reference to precedential cases. But you are correct that it characterizations the accusations as "count" -- as though it were citing to counts in an indictment. Maybe "charges" is not that far wrong. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So would it be correct to say, at the end of the sentence: "cleared the company of charges"?

Still don't know whether to include India or not. If so it should be explained that the court said the Act did not prima facie apply. What do you think?--Historik75 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no sources on the India thing -- and I don't know how the courts operate there. However, if the law "does not apply," then AMWAY was cleared of charges -- if it was indeed charged. That is the way the law works in most countries. Charge: "You broke this law." Judgement clearing charges: "You did not do as accused." OR "That law was not applicable to your actions." Sorry I can't help any further. Be glad to help with English phrasing, though. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. The court said that it did not prima facie apply, then said: "if the allegations contained in the report of C.No.1474/C-27/CiD/2006 dated 24-9-2006 are taken on their face value they make out an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act." In August, 2007 the Indian Supreme Court ordered the Police to complete their investigation within 6 months, so the case could proceed. After 7 years it still has not been completed.

In short, according to the sources , including the Indian official, the case is clearly a misuse of the Act that could only take place because of absolutely no regulation for direct selling in India. India promised to create it years and years ago, but nothing happened. Amway, in its statement regarding this issue stated: "It is pertinent to note here that content of all the recently filed FIRs is identical to each other and have been filed by advocates or activists." So all of these events appear to be one person's activity.

Controversy? Yes, but on the part of the Indian law, not Amway.--Historik75 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

In U.S. law, that would be null pros, -- an abusive action on the part of prosecutors. They were not cleared of all charges, then. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for your help.--Historik75 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC):Hi, Historik75 notified me of this discussion.

Just a quick note on the FTC case, it was a hearing before an FTC Administrative Law Judge. I believe they are generally considered a type of "court" but I'm not sure it's a significant issue in terms of wording. --Icerat (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

R2-45

Talk page guidelines

R2-45

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Final warning

Talk page guidelines

Ideologues

ANI

Very interesting. I definitely have a lot to catch up on. I've never encountered that image before, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is impossible to authenticate or verify in any way. There are also some definite problems in terms of accuracy and verification at Scientology and the occult, the first I've just tackled being the misuse of Hugh Urban's book to allege Hubbard's "membership" in the OTO, which Urban doesn't claim or even attempts to assert. But that looks to be just the tip of the iceberg, which I won't even fact check further so I can have a chance to see what's been going on at this ANI discussion. Laval (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty sad that even some admins appear to have such a strong and unchecked bias that they would make blatant personal attacks against you as some kind of covert agent of Scientology. The same has been leveled at me several times, off-wiki as well, and just as absurdly the very opposite by the Scientologists themselves. As an aside, just for the sake of curiosity and absurdity, I was once told by a recent church defector that my real name (which they had allegedly connected to my Wikipedia handle) was on a list of top enemies of Scientology because of my editing here and my attempts to adhere to total NPOV. I have no idea if that's true, but assuming it is, just as ridiculous is that some regulars from Tony Ortega's blog comments section contacted me to let me know he hates me with a passion because of the drama that took place on the talk page of the article about him.

I am definitely impressed by your managing wikistress very well and not allowing all the personal attacks and attempts at imposing bias and POV from dissuading you to edit further, especially when they're ganging up on you. As you know, this is a totally volunteer thing and we're not getting paid, so as I get older and older it becomes difficult to justify to myself subjecting myself to these "gangbang" style attacks and such. I tip my hat off to you, my friend. Laval (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laval: Thank you for your kind words. I wish I could communicate what I have discovered about that in the last year or so — it has made all the difference to me. In a way, improving Wikipedia resembles backgammon. With each cast of the dice, a player has a limited choice among moves. Sometimes, even making the best choices, the game will be lost and Wikipedia is slightly degraded. So be it. With time, you learn better strategies.

The primary strategy for enforcing bad content on Wikipedia seems to be the personal attack. Some editors have little else in their quiver. If you oppose their religion, philosophy, politics, agenda (etc., or their anti-whatever) in the slightest degree, their response is an immediate attempt to put YOU in a box/category with an ad hominem attack. Such attacks can be very bold, even on ANI, as here and here, where a person would expect more polite behavior.

So far, I have not been attacked through any medium other than Wiki editorship. I am very sorry to hear that you have. This should be reported immediately to the upper admin or regents, however they are called on Wiki. I am coming to understand that as a primary reason we are to be anonymous, and that the OUTING of editors is punished so severely. Let me know if you need help reporting the problem. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 21:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

9/11

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Titanium

I think I have to chalenge your reference on titanium dioxide nanoparticles. The use of TiO2NP is limited in "electronics" to the Dye-sensitized solar cell which is compared to the other uses ignorably small.

It might be possible to use a better source, which is not mentioning the electronics uses. or doi:10.1007/s11434-011-4476-1

I like your work on the elements articles, although I sometimes do not understand the differences, but this is the native speakers.

--Stone (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Stone: Thanks. Please edit. I didn't explore the statement in the article, as I should have, so I welcome the correction.

My edits for native English are oriented to the language of settled agreement that was spoken in the 20th Century, rather than the vernacular of our own times. My reasoning is that the language of those times have greater stability, longevity, and universality than the momentary and regional fashions on TeeVee and the chat boards of current day. A few common examples may help.

Deductive consequence and logical consequence are often confused in language, and that confusion is further muddled by common words in English. I try to remove that ambiguity, particularly by eliminating the conjunctions "due to" and "as" (synonym of "because"), which are not a part of that older language.
Inanimate objects:
- should rarely be stated to have possessions or other anthropomorphisms
- are not "responsible" for anything, nor do they cause anything.
Numbers should not be qualified with "over" and "under", which confuse locations with quantities. Numbers should be "greater" or "more than", etc.
Clarity is often improved by reducing qualifiers and verbiage, particularly by removing redundant qualifiers. To the best of my ability, I retain all of the sense of the text while shortening it, though sometimes the antecedent of a pronoun should be explicit when the antecedent is so distant it becomes ambiguous.
The phrases: "such as", "at least", "referred to as", and a number of others can be difficult to parse. I work to remove or clarify these where possible.
Modifiers should be as close as possible to the modified word or phrase without intervening text.
Often a series of statements can be understood by the reader as a series of assertions, and the repeated occurrence of "also" clouds more than it clarifies. This falls into the general category of excessive connectives, such as "however", nevertheless", "in addition to", "as well as", "hence", "thus", "therefore", and other verbal Styrofoam. These are the words of argument and advocacy, rather than an encyclopedia.
The borrowed word "via" (as a synonym for "by") is much over-used, more difficult to say, pretentious, and not an improvement. "By" should be used in phrases of agency and tools. "Via" has use when naming an intermediate state. Pig iron is produced by (not "via") smelting. She traveled to London by (not "via") ship.
"Ones" is an excessively lame pronoun that rarely adds anything to a sentence. It is also an oxymoron, given that "one" has no meaning BUT singularity, while the suffix "-s" attempts to make it plural.
"Very" and "extremely" can usually be discarded. If a text that means what it says, it does not require such intensifiers. If it does not mean what it says, we have other problems.

Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 20:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

R2-45 Controversy

I had to delete your request to the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning R2-45. It appears that you entered it manually rather than using the automated interface for the purpose. Cases that are manually entered cause the bot that maintains the list of cases to break. This is a limitation of the bot, and has no comment on the merit of your case. However, as to the merits of your case, it appears that you are identifying conduct issues, such as article ownership, and DRN does not address content issues. You may refile your request for moderated dispute resolution using the automated interface, but I suggest that, if you want to address conduct issues, you should consider relying on ArbCom discretionary sanctions for the Scientology topic area. If the subject editors have not yet been cautioned as to the availability of discretionary sanctions, caution them as to the availability of discretionary sanctions. If they have been cautioned, and they persist in editing that you view as disruptive or otherwise contrary to policy, you may report them to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon Thank you. I wish there were more indication of the fussybot's personal problems when I saved the text. But you are probably right that the other forums (fora?) are more appropriate. I will study. Thanks again. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a blue button that is available to enter a case. Maybe there should be a clearer statement that cases that are entered other than through the automated interface cause problems. In the past, when someone has entered a case manually, we have seen that it breaks the bot and has to be deleted, so this time I deleted it without waiting for the bot to break. Other than that, as I explained, it appears that you have a conduct dispute that, in this case, is best handled by Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon Thanks again. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

He's right, there are severe ArbCom sanctions in place and they are clearly in violation, especially if they are still edit warring over the inclusion of hearsay and other unreliable sources and removing NPOV and accuracy tags. All of them have even stated they have an absolute bias against Scientology, which is also evident from their edits, with at least one of them (Damotclese) admitting that he is a veteran anti-Scientology activist from back in the Usenet days (alt.religion.scientology or ARS). Feoffer is a very new account and has already been engaging in extremely biased editing and misusing sources, for example on the Scientology and the occult article. Slashme began the current edit war over my removal of the absurd picture of a handgun, though another editor had also put the picture back a couple times after I removed it, but they did not appear to be anti-Scientology, or even know much about it, and based on their edits seemed to be primarily focused on articles about guns and weapons. After they stopped, Slashme entered the fray, insisting on its inclusion. I don't know anything about Prioryman, but based on their comments and edits, obviously has a very strong bias against Scientology.

Keep in mind when ArbCom banned both pro and anti-Scientology users engaged in edit warring, some of the people who got permanently banned included prominent anti-Scientologists like Dave Touretsky and Arnie Lerma, among others. The edit warring of Slashme, Damotclese, Feoffer, Prioryman all reflect the same kind of aggressive bias and smearing (including accusing anyone attempting genuine NPOV as being covert agents of Scientology), but more extreme.

Considering the fact that they essentially bullied us for attempting to inject some rational balance and NPOV instead of dumping on Scientology as some kind of Jonestown or Heavens Gate type cult, ArbCom is definitely the place to take this. I haven't even looked at that article since the constant edit warring and removal of neutrality and accuracy tags actually forced me to go back on anti-anxiety meds, the chest pain was getting that bad. When editing on Wikipedia makes a person feel like crap and like they're going to suffer a heart attack, there's no point in continuing. Plus, some of the off-wiki harassment and threats (which I don't want to make an issue of here because I don't want my identity inadvertently revealed, and I'm not suggesting at all that they are in some way involved -- I have no evidence of that, and I'm doubtful they would go that far, so it's irrelevant as far as this case goes) was more than enough to keep me away from that article.

If there's one thing that always gets to me is getting bullied. Laval (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laval: I was not aware of all those things. My participation in Scientology subjects is quite recent. The mess they have made of those pages is embarrassing. I will do what I can, though it will take a while because it must be done well. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 06:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that my editing record speaks of "aggressive bias and smearing". I try to be neutral and balanced. See this edit and this one for example. I thought a picture of a .45 pistol was appropriate for an topic named after a .45, but I relented, and even removed the picture myself in the end, so I'm actually amenable to reason in the long run. If you feel that I bullied you, @Laval:, please let me know where and how. --Slashme (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

But your opinion was not solicited in this conversation. 07:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And I find it amusing that you are monitoring my talk page. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 05:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not monitoring your talk page. You put a notice on my talk page about the DRN and I came here to reply, and found a discussion already in progress, with my name being mentioned, and decided to reply. --Slashme (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Concur that Arbcom is best venue for a definitive resolution. Earlier offer stands, can you think of ways we can make it more clear that the lectures were humorous? Would you support a fair-use audio clip so readers can HEAR the laughter? Feoffer (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's pure original research. You'd need a reliable source where the lecture is being discussed and identified as "humorous." You can't just insert your own observations or even those of a multitude of other editors. If you're not familiar with the policy, please see WP:OR. Laval (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Laval. Feoffer, I have never investigated or argued about humorous intent. My objections are clearly stated on the talk page. Please address those concerns on the talk page, and desist from using this page for subject discussion. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have no intention of being dragged into an edit war, but there is no justification whatsoever for their grossly inappropriate removal of tags from the article, which any admin can see for themselves. The whole thing mostly consists of primary sources and direct quotes, on top of which using Ortega is totally inappropriate as it is a blog and as such totally unreliable. There's not even any attempt there at verifiability. It's a similar set of problems at alt right. Laval (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On top of which apparently they are making out-and-out personal attacks against you as being a Scientologist -- if they continue removing tags and reinstating dubious sources, then they've essentially made things that much worse for themselves. Laval (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On the ArbCom requests page, Robert McClenon is suggesting Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement since there are already discretionary sanctions in place from the original case some years ago, and those sanctions and such are listed here . What's funny is that my name is there after being warned regarding Grant Cardone, where another editor and myself had reliable sources identifying Cardone as a Scientologist (which he not only is, but he's one of the top Scientologists, in the same bracket as Robert Duggan (venture capitalist), yet a couple of other editors didn't like that, for whatever reason. Even more interesting is that is where Tony Ortega's blog and the Village Voice were dismissed as unreliable source by the two admins involved, which I accepted and haven't ever used since. And Ortega is at the center of this new situation! But none of the others involved in the dispute were warned, just me, so personally I'm skeptical about how fair and accurate the process for enforcing existing sanctions is, without first going through a new ArbCom case. However that goes, I will start preparing my statement in the meantime. Laval (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement

Feoffer

Feoffer's accusations are actually a very good thing, because they don't bother to address the fact that Tony Ortega is not a reliable source. It's very simple. If Ortega isn't a reliable source for information on Grant Cardone, Robert Duggan (venture capitalist), Milton Katselas, Tom Cruise, Leah Remini, etc etc then by Wikipedia standards, he is not a reliable source at all. If Ortega was writing about the alt right, not a single editor there -- not even the most liberal or progressive editor, no matter how anti-Trump and anti-reactionary they are -- would accept him as a legitimate source, and if I were insisting on including him as a source, I'd end up getting blocked. I was threatened several times with a block, along with User:Thimbleweed, over insisting on using Ortega as a source at Grant Cardone and Milton Katselas. In retrospect, we were both clearly in the wrong, but it did clarify the fact that not even primary documents from Ortega's site are acceptable. In that specific case, it was over a bunch of very emails sent by Cardone in which he leveled some pretty heinous and sordid allegations against Katselas (most, if not all of which, were false or highly exaggerated) -- in this case, the information was easily verifiable, but no news outlets reported on it, just Ortega and maybe a few other bloggers, and that combined with WP:BLP made them totally useless as source material.

So, they can keep arguing for the inclusion of Ortega, but whether one goes to ANI, RFC, or Arbitration, the end result will be that Ortega is not a reliable source, and both his previous Village Voice blog and his current freelance blog are both unreliable.

If Feoffer is genuinely a new editor, they may be completely ignorant of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, verifiability, and how to actually use such sources properly. Given the unencyclopedic tone and misuse of sources at Scientology and the occult, I think this is the principal issue.

Either way, Ortega isn't reliable, and neither is WikiLeaks, which is just a collection of primary documents, with most of the Scientology material there being unverifiable to varying degrees. Laval (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The other thing is, which is pretty damning, is that the claims about R2-45 put forth by Touretsky and Kent, and other amateur anti-Scientology "observers" and conspiracy theorists, is that Lawrence Wright, Janet Reitman, Hugh B. Urban -- all three being considered the most credible critical sources on Scientology, with Urban being the only one who is actually a religious scholar -- don't mention it at all, not even in passing. Lawrence Wright's book and the associated documentary Going Clear (film) mention nothing about Hubbard ordering his followers to go out and murder this person or that person, or that he allegedly came up with a process that involved such murder. It's really very stupid, and it speaks volumes that when you dissect that article and separate the facts from the garbage, there's no article. I'm assuming that's the only reason they are so desperately insisting on using Ortega as a source, because the rest is just pure original research based on personal opinions of a few Hubbard quotes, that Wright and others have ignored due to their being fringe conspiracy theories. Laval (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I received notification I was mentioned here. There are a few factual errors in the above I would like to point out:

1) I was never threatened with a ban. The discussion between User:Kevin Gorman and myself on the Grant Cardone discussion page was certainly spirited, but I was never threatened with banning.

I didn't say you were threatened with a ban. I said we were both threatened with being blocked. Not that it even matters anymore or that I'm accusing you of anything, but I can find and post the diff if you want. Laval (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

2) The requirement for sourcing in WP:BLP articles are quite a bit more stringent than those on more general articles. That a couple of editors insisted Ortega was insufficient in the Cardone article, does not mean he isn't relevant as a source at all. He's considered an expert on Scientology and is a much cited source by other media.

Who exactly is claiming that Ortega is considered an "expert" on Scientology, other than himself and his fans? Laval (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

3 Stephen A. Kent is hardly an armature. He's a professor at the University of Alberta, and has published several peer-reviewed articles on Scientology. As such, he's actually a professional. Thimbleweed (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

He's an amateur when it comes to religious studies and scholarship. Touretsky is a professor, but of computer science. That doesn't mean he has any standing or qualifications in the fields of religious studies and comparative religion. Laval (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The claim that Kent has published "peer-reviewed articles on Scientology" is also apparently in dispute -- which journals are these exactly? Laval (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard de Mille

Feoffer

The diffs collected by Feoffer actually work against him, rather than against me. I'm not sure what he's accusing me of, but I would be surprised if Prioryman actually decides to continue accusing you and me of "smearing" Tony Ortega. Wasn't that resolved on ANI, where it was concluded that Ortega was not a reliable source, and that his accusations of "smearing" Ortega were baseless, and that whatever dispute Prioryman had in relation to the legitimacy of Ortega as a reliable source, were actually with Feoffer, who brought up this issue of "smearing"? Is Feoffer in any way connected to Ortega personally? Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would push for this pro-Ortega stance so aggressively otherwise -- the fact that Feoffer is personally attacking me based on my stating the fact that Ortega is not a reliable source speaks volumes about the level of bias and prejudice here. SUch tactics are only demonstrating just how screwed up an article like R2-45 is. Laval (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, why do we keep getting attacked as being part of some Scientology conspiracy to "whitewash" the article, or even as "Scientology followers" outright? What the hell is that all about? Just because someone strives for NPOV, accuracy and verifiability that person is automatically tarred as being a Scientologist? Laval (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laval: Their reasoning is the most primitive sort. They cannot imagine a neutral view of facts. They have only allies and enemies. If you insist on historical factuality about the Nazis, some Zionists will call you a Nazi. If you defend in court someone accused of terrorism, a militarist will call you a terrorist sympathizer -- or a terrorist. Because they hate Scientology and you oppose them, you must be a scientologist. It is the thought form of mobs and fanatics.

I do not know who is connected to whom. These folks have made a real hobbyhorse of these attacks and I could easily believe that some are connected in the real world -- or even be some of the same people. If they are not connected to start with, birds of a feather tend to form flocks. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are prohibited from (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, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth, for a period of one year.

You have been sanctioned under Remedy 5.1: 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. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Signature issue

Ganging up

I'm sorry others, including apparently administrators, are ganging up on you and making blatant personal attacks (as shown above) over the absurdity of R2-45, and ignoring users like User:Feoffer, who are so obviously biased against the subject that topic banning you and not them makes no sense. I wouldn't be surprised if they topic ban me next, though with my health issues they won't have to worry. I've tried my best to keep Wikipedia articles as neutral as possible, but when it comes to Scientology, it's even more of a nightmare to deal with other editors than with Islam-related articles, which are still problematic, but nowhere to the extent as with Scientology. Things have definitely improved in the main articles, but it's in the sub-articles and sub-sub-articles like R2-45 that other editors can get away with just about anything fringe. Whatever happens, and in spite of the shameless ganging up on you as demonstrated above, I hope you don't give up completely on Wikipedia if possible. Wikipedia needs people who, at the very least, strive for some level of neutrality. Laval (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It didn't take the bullies long. They've bullied me out of Wikipedia. My health and sanity is more important than trying to achieve NPOV here. They don't need to topic ban me. Laval (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Laval: Prioryman has been here a very long time. He was an administrator sanctioned under another name in the 2009 arbitration, but magically had the sanction lifted. He is bold because he knows he has allies among the current administrators. This is where it will go from here: . Here is an interesting comment on the admin's page:

There is a reason that remedy is almost never used. Because its for SPAs. If you are topic banning Sfarney as an SPA for pro-scientology, you need a damn sight more evidence than has been provided. Especially since the person who raised the AE request has a long and well-published history of anti-scientology editing on wikipedia. Prioryman under his former username ChrisO was actually restricted *in that case*. You did read the finding of fact for him right? "13) ChrisO significantly edited, between August 2005[78] and September 2007, a subsequently deleted attack page, re-instating unreliably sourced material[80] and voting to "Keep" the article in an AfD discussion.[81] In his sysop capacity, he protected the article; declined a CSD; and blocked the subject of the article herself. and twelve of her sockpuppets. Elsewhere, he added disparaging material from an inadequate source to a BLP; and restored self-published material". Sfarney's comments regarding the current use of unreliable sources have more legs to them than I believe you have looked into. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (source)

I am very sorry to hear about your health problems. Take the rest you need to recover, and don't worry about these things or about me. I have enjoyed working with you. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Sanction update

Prioryman

I wish I had encountered this weeks ago -- considering how he and the anti-Scn gang have been able to get away with their blatant violations of policy, plus his even worse violation of policy in attempting to "out" you (based on nothing but total speculation), explains volumes. There is apparently a lot more information out there about his history here, and I am incredulous that I never bothered to Google his username. I'm too old and sick for this nonsense, I suppose. If they still continue to insist on topic banning you and not the others (or at the minimum, Prioryman), then its clear the bureaucracy here is broken beyond repair. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if I get banned simply for posting that link. Laval (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Prioryman: It is polite to alert an editor when you're talking about them. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You responded here pretty fast. What are you, friends with Prioryman or something? This is an editor's talk page. Why don't you go complain to Prioryman, Slashme, Feoffer, etc about their backchannel communications via email? Have you been communicating with them via email as well? Is there some system in place to politely alert editors when people are talking about them on IRC, email or other backchannel communications? But like I said, the speed at which you responded to my private comment to Sfarney indicates that you're a little more involved in this than you're letting on. Laval (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, are you keeping tabs on Sfarney's talk page, or using some bot to watch for any instance of the term "Prioryman"? I'm just trying to understand why you would be responding to a comment that doesn't even mention you with such quick speed. Interesting. I've been on WP since 2007, but I'm just beginning to understand just how exactly things work here backoffice wise, with IRC, email, etc. And very sad. I have a life to get back to, thanks. Laval (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no backchannel communication going on here. Whenever I comment on a person's talkpage, and especially when I issue a sanction, I Watchlist the page so I can respond to questions, comments, insults and aspersions. The edit popped up on my watchlist so I took a look. That's how things have worked for as long as I can remember. Speaking of aspersions, I would ask that you stop casting them and making accusations you can't back up. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no backchannel communication going on here. -- this from the editor who sends accusations around in secret, then advertises the fact to convince others that something really bad is going on, even though the others don't and can't know what it is? Wow. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

I hope you do not resume editing tendentiously on this article. You removed accurate information that was cited. Not a good idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: You replaced good text with babytalk: "Samuel Gilonis describes the movements opinions as wanting to replace all private property with for what Joseph refers to as ..." That is not good editing. A movement does not have opinions. You are not following WP:BRD -- Bold, revert, discuss. Go back to the talk page and explain why you are nullifying the work of other editors. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: has asked me on my talkpage to review your edits in this area. After looking into it, you do come off as rather aggressive and insulting in some talkpage comments, especially within the last month or so. Invoking WP:AGF, I'm assuming you didn't intend to give that impression and probably didn't realize it. I'm not going to issue any sanction or formal warning or anything silly like that, but I thought I'd come here to ask you to please try to be more polite, especially when you disagree with someone. Putting others on the defensive only makes them dig their heels in and makes it harder for them to see your perspective. Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Are you looking at only one side of the conversation? Do you see Earl King calling me a Holocaust denier (out of the blue), and accusing me of "tendentious editing" when I add a sourced fact to the article? Do you read, "I know that you are tendentious and like to make points by being insulting."? What is your role in this matter? I won't bore you with the fact that Earl King considers himself the WP:OWNer of this article, attacking anyone else who attempts to contribute to it -- unless they disparage the subject. You might not be interested to know that Earl King has worked for years to remove the article entirely from the Encyclopedia, and protested vigorously when it was restored. WRT this article, Earl King Jr. is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedic article. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That...doesn't actually address anything I said. I'm here in good faith, in an unofficial capacity, to ask you to please be more polite with other editors. If you believe that Earl King has violated policy, I believe you know where WP:AE is. Even if he has done what you say he has, that still doesn't excuse anyone else from having to be civil. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you have presumably looked at the Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement page, I am curious that you would approach me directly without approaching Earl King Jr. directly, given his insulting remarks cited above? Conversely, if EKJ asked you for your assistance, why wouldn't you just suggest he go to ANI like you did with me? These are technical questions about the art of being an admin. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason I approached you here and not him is that he just commented about your civility, something which does not typically end up at noticeboards unless exceptionally egregious. I exercised my discretion to handle this unofficially. Your allegations are more serious. You accuse him of OWNership, casting aspersions, "disparaging the subject" (arguably a BLP issue), bad faith, and WP:NOTHERE. Things like that, if you believe them to be true, are things that should be handled at a Noticeboard with input from multiple editors.

Regarding the "art of being an admin", as you put it, it isn't really a question of adminship. Even before I was given the mop, I had a background in informal mediation at WP:MEDCAB. I still believe that mediation results in better outcomes than Dramaboards, so if given the option (as I had when Earl asked me) I would much rather try to resolve the situation peacefully and stop it from getting to the level where Noticeboards have to be involved. Despite what you may think of me, I don't like handing out sanctions. I prefer having a polite conversation to resolve differences. That's why I went to your talkpage, because I had the choice to try this first. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There must be some mistake -- I do not use the word "aspersions." Have you read the talk page? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You have not used the word "aspersions", but when you said "calling me a Holocaust denier (out of the blue)" that was de facto saying that he cast aspersions. As for the talkpage, I have read it but not dug into the archives. What I see is a content dispute, like hundreds I've seen before. Ideally I'd like to prevent it from becoming a user conduct dispute. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You should read this and the rest of the page.. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

People v. Turner

I need your attention to The Zeitgeist Movement and contribution of Mr User:Earl King Jr.

How to stop the drum beat of the negativity of the press towards Scientology

We have all seen, many times, the results of what one might call a "press feeding frenzy." The day that LRH had feared, where a seemingly unstoppable deluge of negativity from the press might be released upon the CoS, now seems to have possibly arrived. While for many years I was generally opposed to all things CoS, for whatever reason, over the course of the last year, I sincerely believe that I have had a sort of a "conversion experience," regarding the CoS. By this I mean that I feel that my "fears" about the CoS, have somehow been converted instead into certain "hopes" for it.

I do believe that there are certain highly valuable aspects of Scientology, and I no longer believe that it is without merit of any kind. I truly wish that this ongoing "feeding frenzy" of negativity, that is now being directed towards the CoS, might somehow be able to come to an end. I have no doubt that many have been "healed" or otherwise helped by certain Scientology practices, and I wish that there could be some way that such things could be brought out more clearly, in light of what is now so clearly the ongoing, "excessive negativity."

Admittedly I do not agree with all Scientology practices, but rather I tend to believe that there are both positive and negative aspects within the movement. We are all humans, and our movements are human too. As human beings, we tend to sometimes be imperfect, and unfortunately our movements tend to reflect this as well. I believe that just as no human is perfect, neither is any human movement perfect as well.

I do truly believe that it is of the utmost importance that all voices, including the voice of Scientology itself, be permitted to properly defend themselves in the arena of public opinion. It is my opinion, that currently Scientology has been unfairly stripped by the press of its right to properly defend itself in this arena.

I apologize for posting this here on your talk page, and I have no objections if you erase it, object to it yourself, or if you simply ignore it. I will assume that you probably will object to it, and therefore unless I hear otherwise, you have my word, this will be my last post to you here. If, contrary to my preconceptions, you might ever want to continue this conversation further here or elsewhere, should that ever occur, I would then certainly be most welcoming of that possibility as well. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Scottperry: My goal is to build a clear, informative, and neutral encyclopedia on all subjects, including the controversial. I try to assume good faith with the editors as well as the subjects, as hard as it gets sometimes with politicians and other terrorists. That said, I welcome your assistance in this effort, and have no itch to push any conflicts of the past. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that Farney. Perhaps we will be able to collaborate more closely in the future than in the past. Some of the CoS folks that I believe are in the Sea Org still express to me that they continue to have greater reservations than the sentiments that you have just stated to me here, and they are still acting, in some ways, as if they were still afraid of me. Nonetheless, I hope that your sentiment towards me might prevail, and that ultimately WP, and all of those organizations, individuals, and topics that WP has now "sided against," might also one day benefit too.

When two who once believed that their goals were naturally opposed, suddenly find that their goals are actually nearly one and the same, greater cooperation can usually ensue. On the day that WP started requiring that all articles had to be "(weighted) in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint," or in layman's terms, all articles had to be "slanted towards the majority view", was the same day on which I started to lose faith in the neutrality of WP. Let us both hope that one day a greater WP-neutrality might one day be restored. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence closed

At the direction of arbitrators on the clerks-l mailing list, the above-captioned case request has been dismissed as a violation of your arbitration enforcement topic ban. Please note that you may still appeal that restriction at WP:ARCA. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sfarney, "violation of your arbitration enforcement topic ban" is indeed what it was, in my opinion and that of a few other arbs (and a bunch of commentators at the case request page). I don't see any haste to block you yet, though I haven't heard from all of the arbs, but please let this be a warning for you. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: The "bunch of commentators" are mostly those who are enforcing the violations of the 2009 ARbComm, including ChrisO who was sanctioned in that action. Effectively, those editors are arguing that the action by one administrator cannot be appealed, even if that administrator is totally wrong. Quite a setup. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, they are saying that your attempt to bring a case is a violation of your topic ban. As Kevin said, you can appeal the ban. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It all sounds hypertechnical. Wikilitigation, and none of it on written rules or structures. I think it means, you think it applies, and they all say ... Not the best setup.

"You are prohibited from (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, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth, for a period of one year." There is nothing hypertechnical about that. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed my wording was not clear. The primary forums for appeal are WP:AN or WP:AE, using Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal:

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;

request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and

submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org).

— Arbitration Committee, WP:ACDS#Appeals

Arbs have previously noted that they will only overturn actions at ARCA if they are clearly an abuse of discretion or similar. AE/AN should be primary appeal routes absent a special reason. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Than you, L235 (talk · contribs), but I have made many errors in this process -- it seems I cannot anticipate or guess how others understand these things. Therefore, please clarify. You indicate that an arbitration appeal is still open to me. But I have not been sanctioned by arbitration, so that is not an option. I have been sanctioned by an admin who still has not named a reason to sanction me. I have sought arbitration against that admin, but according to this ruling, that door is automatically shut against me, and I am banned from discussing it on those forums you mention. The admin has made itself waterproof. Is that really how this system works? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Good morning. The ban was placed under the authority of ArbCom as authorized by the remedy. Essentially, appeals are not a breach of your topic ban if they fall under the second point of WP:BANEX; any appeal must be strictly focused on your ban only and should not touch on the conduct of others. Quick notes:

The reason the admin noted was that you appear to be (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda, which gives admins discretion to topic-ban for up to one year.
You note in your statement that The topic ban did not (and probably could not) forbid Arbitration, given that this is the last court of appeal. This is correct insofar as you can seek review of your ban at ArbCom (at WP:ARCA only). You can also seek to have The Wordsmith or ArbCom grant a limited exception to the ban to seek specific dispute resolution.

I've not looked at the merits of any of this, I'm just trying to explain the procedural posture. If you still intend to appeal this sanction, AE is the best venue. See Template:Arbitration_enforcement_appeal#Usage. In my personal capacity (and explicitly not on behalf of the Arbitration Committee), Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Seeking perm ban for abusing editor

"You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration." -- No I am not, stop trying to drag uninvolved people in to your Scientology abuse. I'm recommending perm ban for you for spamming editors with your Scientology abuse. BiologistBabe (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There might be something inconsistent in that statement. ;-) Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that Wordsmith does not admonish "BiologistBabe" for her blatant personal attacks against both you and myself. Notice he didn't even bother pinging either one of us as he did so when I mentioned Prioryman in a comment here. Some of the responses above from are also interesting considering the fact that Feoffer, Damotclese, Thimbleweed, and Prioryman are almost obsessively focused on Scientology for the purpose of attacking and denigrating it. In particular, Feoffer's account seems to be a single-purpose activist account and only to be used for negative writing on Scientology.

I also find it interesting that Wordsmith claims to be the only Wikipedian who is thoroughly knowledgeable about Scientology, so much so that apparently he not only has read but has access to OT levels IX and X, which have never been released and which former execs like Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder have said are non-existent.

A part of me really wants to pursue some action against Wordsmith and his pals, especially after allowing BiologistBabe to attack me as a agent of Scientology and a sockpuppet. That is really disgusting behaviour from the both of them. Laval (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I also find it curious, after reviewing your attempts to appeal Wordsmith's topic ban against you, that none of the other admins and editors who rallied behind them (pretty much everyone -- a flagrant ganking, if ever there was one), none of them bothered to comment on the evidence, nor the fact that Wordsmith claims to be Wikipedia's absolute authority and expert on all things Scientology, and that he could back up Prioryman's edits, even though that is obvious original research. I'd like to know just far down this rabbit hole goes and to what lengths they will go to turn Wikipedia into a propaganda platform to attack Scientology. At least they appear smart enough to avoid this type of behaviour with the Judaism and Islam articles. So much for NPOV. Laval (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Given the ban, you will have to presume what I would say, and you will probably be right. You might also notice the BiologistBabe does not edit articles, but tags along on the talk pages like a socialite. In the last three years, BiologistBabe has edited one (1) page by adding a Facebook link. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Curious and curiouser. Damotclese appears to behave in the same way, not editing Scientology articles, but rather using the talk pages to promote his anti-Scientology agenda, which to his credit he actually admitted to and canvassing around to help stop anyone from attempting to NPOV any articles on Scientology. The funny thing about this desperation on their part to paint Scientology as a homicidal cult of gun-wielding maniacs and assassins is that the article they have chosen to take ownership of is so over-the-top and stupid, with pathetically unreliable sources that Lawrence Wright and Janet Reitman wouldn't dare touch with a ten foot pole, that the few people who will come across it will just dismiss it outright as yet another garbage article from Wikipedia, like the crap they print about Tom Cruise or John Travolta in the tabloids and gossip columns. And the Wikimedia Foundation wonders why the hell Wikipedia keeps losing more and more editors every year? Laval (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

	The Real Life Barnstar
	You have an heart of gold because of the Talk page of Nimit you should what are your thoughts, not because you were liking Jainism but because of your thoughts of peace. You are man with a Golden Heart I appreciate you!!!!! Keep it up! Spread peace in whole world!!! BOTFIGHTER (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Related Articles