User talk:Fahrenheit451: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hi, Fahrenheit451, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or The Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on My User talk Page.

Additional Tips:

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like &#126&#126~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• You may want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Happy Wiki-ing. -- John Fader 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting system is featured

Finally, voting system has become a featured article!

I want to thank you for the work you've done on the article. The article wouldn't be what it is without your contributions. So it's your featured article too. Nice work! rspeer 20:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! We, and others who helped, share that credit for a job well done. Thanks, Rspeer!--Fahrenheit451 22:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Scientology stuff - good work

Nice additions on Scientology. The one thing I'd love to see is more referencing - as per WP:SCN, the average reader tends to find this stuff utterly unbelievable, so references are really important! - David Gerard 14:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The Scientology Justice article has cited references, but the other articles do need these added. That is the next project.--Fahrenheit451 17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Fahrenheit451, I noticed your reply to me on another user's page and would establish communication with you. I'm a Scientologist of long standing. My position re: Wiki is, let's keep Wiki's 1 policy in first (NPOV) and its balancing 2 policys (verifiability & no original research) in second. Again, have a nice day. I too have a talk page. Terryeo 15:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I never replied to you, I originated to Nuview. You are free to communicate with me.--Fahrenheit451 16:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, I am communicating with you. Hello. see below where I point out the uncited portions you put into the Sea Org article. Or someone under your sign in did. You can view it in Sea Org, History of the article. Terryeo 08:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem ;)

Thanks for your message. Yes, aware of the Freezone, in fact have done quite extensive research into the **ahem** "church" since they threatened me over my website... they are certainly persistent in their quest to remove all entheta from Wikipedia! Keep up the good work, Glen Stollery ^{C T} 02:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree my friend

Personally I think we have another sockpuppet. Here's what I just wrote in reply (and of course there's no need to keep this on your talk page if it clutters it up):

I am growing really tired of this harrassment

I have addressed ALL of this on your talk page, though you are obviously putting on a big song and dance for the administrators (even after writing "Just forget about it ok? It's over with." on my talk page). But I'll play your silly game, and I am going to go through this VEEEERY slowly so you understand as I've now told you THREE TIMES:

1. The warnings on my page were written by a user who (amoungst other abuse) wrote the following on my talk page:

"Now that I know who you are. I have a few words for you. Fuck you, you pathetic loser."

"I still think you're contentious AND pompous and biased"

"Beat it Stoolery. By the way your website is down, whats wrong with you?"

"your Outside View for Terryeo is full of claptrap lugged out of your despotic" ^[1]

He also wrote the same thing about me personally on at least three other people's user pages.

1. If that's not enough - The warnings themselves were unfounded, wholely without any merit and, in the words of an Administrator "the warnings were clearly done out of harassment"^[2] They were placed simply so (someone like you) could complain about their removal. If some random person went and placed half a dozen large unfounded warnings all over your talk page and expect you to leave them there? They were there, as the admin pointed out to harrass me.
2. Wikipedia policy states: "It is generally acceptable to remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid." ^[3]
3. Even though I was 100% certain the warnings were not valid, to be absolutely sure I checked with another administrator to confirm I could remove the harrassment from my page, which he confirmed I could. ^[4]
4. Regarding the warnings you left on my user page (which you vandalized as you are not permitted to deface other people's user pages) they stated "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia and kimigin (sic); it is considered vandalism" ^[5] - But I never removed any content all I did was add the speedy and AfD templates WHICH YOU REMOVED 7 TIMES!
5. One the same basis as above (simply there as a form of harrassment so you could complain about me) I removed them as completely unfounded.
6. You claim that we have tried to "cover up the truth" again is completely unfounded. For one we did not break the 3RR rule. There was no colaboration. Miljoshi's note to me stated "To avoid WP:3RR by either of us, some injection can be expected, hopefully" - note the part that says "avoid WP:3RR" - neither of us broke it (and even if we had it does not constitute a breach if reverting vandalizm - and even if deleted admins can see the history even if you can't so you assumption we had it deleted to hide our actions is false). My warnings to you (all FOUR of them) were placed after two warnings were placed on the article talk page - all of which were ignored.
7. You claim "My rule breaking was to remove the damn tag LITERALLY 2 minutes after creating the article". Again, YOU BROKE THE DARN 3RR RULE TWICE OVER WHEN YOU REVERTED SEVEN TIMES AFTER HAVING 6 WARNINGS! And, again as you can't grasp this concept Admins can still see the history of deleted articles so why would we try to hide this fact... upon reviewing they will see your breach (twice!)
8. Your call to have me "punished" is motivating me to have this looked into formally... Because I answered all your questions but you continually avoid mine. You came at me right from the start accusing me of deleting another persons warnings from my page before any of this began, and even complained to another admin wanting to know why I haven't been punished and I want to know why. Why do you even care about this? Who are you and what is your problem with me? You have come from nowhere (coincidently immediately after UNK was banned) and wrote about my citing confidential documents so are you a scientologist? Some admins suspect you are yet another sockpuppet of JimmyT/UNK (a scientologist) so please clarify why you are so motivated to bring me down. I await your reply. - Glen ^T _C 16:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what he has to say about it. - Glen ^T _C 16:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Email

Hey there's a couple of things I wouldn't mind chatting to you about in a not so public (read OSA) fashion... it you have a spare mo hit Email this user when on my user or talk page and I'll pop you back a reply. Thanks mate, - Glen ^T _C 16:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Check your email :) - Glen ^T _C 01:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology

Nikitchenko and I are now in Mediation based on his allegation of POV editing to the Office of Special Affairs article; See here. The Mediation is being held at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology. I notice there is a section, Comments by others so I thought given you have edited the article you may wish to comment when Mediation begins (I am unsure of the process at this stage). Look forward to hearing your opinion if you choose to offer it, and thanks in advance - Glen ^T _C 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

Fasten 21:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Another Question

Hi- Could you provide me with some additional guidence on what comes next when a RfC comes to a conclusion, such is the case in the RfC for User:Take Me Higher? I think that we have received all of the comments that we're going to get and the user has ignored the process. There is consensus that the quality of the images is substandard, with added violations for improper tagging. The RfC accomplsihed what I hoped that it would - that the subject now has a paper trail that can be reviewed if additional policy guidelines (more serious) are raised. I don't know how to close it, or who to notify of its status. I'm planning on WikiVacationing beginning tomoprrow, however I will make an exception to see that this matter is brought to a conclusion. Any help is appreciated. Stude62 14:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for an Advocate

Hello I'm Aeon. You recently requested an Advocate from the AMA, I'm here to help you in your case please give me any information you have and we will see what we can do Aeon 20:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

The Mediation Cabal: Case change notification

Dear Fahrenheit451: Hello there. I'd like to let you know that in a Mediation Cabal mediation case that you are involved in, or have some connection with: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-11 Scientology I've made the following changes: Nikichenko has now been blocked, case closed [6] I would be most grateful if you would please have a look at the mediation case page linked to above, and participate in the current stage of the mediation process if you wish. Of course, participation is completely optional, and if you don't want to take part in this mediation, that's perfectly OK. :-) If you have any questions or concerns relating to this dispute, the mediation, or the Mediation Cabal in general, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Terryeo

I've asked you before, I think, to stop referring to Terryeo as "banned user Terryeo". Just now you directed me to a supposed personal attack on you by Terryeo. I see no personal attack there except your own reference to Terryeo by the same epithet, "banned user". This is your final warning. Stop addressing and referring to Terryeo as a banned user. You will be blocked if you continue. Thenceforth you will be blocked every single time you refer to another editor, who is not banned, as a banned editor. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not warned me before and Terryeo is banned from editing any Scientology articles.--Fahrenheit451 21:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As discussed online, I had warned you on Talk:Patter drill [7] but you did not read the warning. --Tony Sidaway 22:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The warning was never communicated to me. You just dropped it on an article discussion page. --Fahrenheit451 22:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned now. Please heed it carefully.

We have already been through that several times. Are you personally attacking me by repeating that again and again? --Fahrenheit451 21:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I see that you have place a "watch list" of users you don't like on your user page. This could be interpreted as a personal attack. Please remove the list. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you allege that Terryeo did not personally attack me. Now I put up a watch list of two users which includes you on my personal page, add factual statements, and you say that it could be interpreted as a personal attack. Please demonstrate to me that it is indeed a personal attack.If you cannot, then our discussion ends.--Fahrenheit451 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd encourage the removal, because such lists are bound to poison the wikienvironment and to create ill-feelings. Will you consider removing it? -- Drini 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me what policy it violates. --Fahrenheit451 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between a personal attack and something that "could be interpreted as" one. What exactly is wrong with having a "List of people I disagree with, and here's my side of the story" on one's own user page? More importantly, it was my understanding that Terryeo is indeed banned from editing Scientology-related articles. Are you saying this isn't so? Please clarify. Terryeo's own user page says in the very first paragraph: "I did not do well and have been banned from editing in those articles." Is Terryeo himself mistaken about his own banned status? Please clarify. wikipediatrix 19:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was a personal attack. I'm saying it poisons the well. He's not writing his version of history, he's compiling a white(or black?)list of people, to be watched over for what?. This has nothing to do with the actual items described, it's just that having so-called "people's watchlist" isn't a very good practice. 19:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no "people's watchlist". I have published a list of two users whose conduct I have observed as being objectionable to me. I have every right to do so. --Fahrenheit451 21:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no you don't have any such right. But I'd encourage you to remove the attacks voluntarily. --Tony Sidaway 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

User pages are not "personal webpages". They are to be about your wikiwork -- Drini 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please show me that my statements about your conduct on my user page are personal attacks. I ask you for the second time. And by the way, I DO have such a right: "Anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project."--Fahrenheit451 21:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're lists of some of your fellow Wikipedians whom you have singled out for special attention. Alongside them you list some derogatory (whether true or false) personal statements. This is certainly gross incivility and, if you persist, the likelihood that it's intended as a personal attack--that is to say, a way to attack the person rather than engage in building an encyclopedia--increases. Which is why for now I'm only asking you to voluntarily remove the attacks. --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The list totals two users, you and one other. It is not incivility, but rather protected free speech. Again, please demonstrate to me that those statements are personal attacks. --Fahrenheit451 21:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Incivility may be free speech. Free speech is not protected on Wikipedia. I have told you several times that I do not yet regard these as fully fledged personal attacks. My opinion on this, and that of other editors, may be influenced by your responses to my polite attempts to reason with you. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

O.K. So we agree that the watch list are not personal attacks. I politely attempt to reason with you as well. Essentially you are telling me, "I don't like the statements about my wikipedia administration you put on your user page." I am telling you that you treated me unjustly. You remedy that and your name will be taken off the watch list.--Fahrenheit451 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I thought I had said, and you can see it above, that a watch list may well be a personal attack. I'm not concerned about what you say about me, but about the fact that it's derogatory. That's grossly uncivil. We have a dispute resolution procedure and it doesn't involve putting statements on user pages and saying you will only remove them when you're satisfied that your grievance has been assuaged. This is why I ask you, without conditions, to remove your watchlist (and let's be honest, it's actually a hatelist) from your user page.

I'm still asking nicely. A positive response would be welcome. --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And I am telling you nicely. Your statement that the watchlist is a "hate list" is a false accusation. That is uncivil and I do not appreciate it. --Fahrenheit451 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't a hatelist (a list of people you don't like, which you refuse to remove despite polite requests by a number of other editors) what is it? --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is what it is labeled, a watchlist. I suspect you are harassing me with redundant questions.--Fahrenheit451 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Think carefully about this, Fahrenheit451. You put names and derogatory statements on your user page. You are asked nicely by other editors if you will remove them. You refuse. You are reminded about dispute resolution, but you don't take the hint. At some point in the near future, it is going to be impossible to avoid the conclusion that your purpose is to make a personal attack on those whom you have listed. I'm not harassing you. I have not put two personal attacks on my user page and refused to remove them in the face of very, very polite requests. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the title that you have found disturbing. --Fahrenheit451 16:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the list that I find disturbing. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'n' Balanced alright!

You're welcome. Or maybe it is Fair 'n' Balanced and we're now owned by Fox?! lol. Nah, something not right there. I just added the diffs to my post for crystal clarity, and anytime :) - Stollery 03:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey that really smart to have on your user page? Will create quite a bit of hostility towards you I'll imagine, especially when one would hope admins reading your AN/I posts AGF --> that may just make them turn a blind eye. Have you thought about maybe creating a /watchlist subpage instead? Just a thought anyway :) - GIen 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I hide nothing. Terryeo was already quite hostile to me, and Sidaway demonstated his hostility through his comments written above. If Sidaway wants to change that status quo, then I would suggest a mediation.--Fahrenheit451 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm only hostile to your abusive behavior towards Terryeo. As an administrator I've warned you not to persist in personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not consider it a personal attack, but I no longer address Terryeo as a banned user. Actually, I no longer address him at all.--Fahrenheit451 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this is for the best. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've decided not to interact with Terryeo, would you please consider removing the reference to him from your userpage? --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When Terryeo demonstrates that he has reformed, I will remove him from that list. --Fahrenheit451 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So do you intend to stalk Terryeo? --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, where does that come from? Looks like inspection before the fact paranoia. Please explain yourself.--Fahrenheit451 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Such an unfair accusation sounds like a personal attack on Fahrenheit451, Tony. wikipediatrix 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not accusing, but you've got me wondering what the attack on Terryeo is doing on your page, on a purported "watchlist", when you've clearly indicated that you don't intend to interact with Terryeo any more.

When you place such an attack on your userpage, and then refuse to remove it when asked nicely, but instead set preconditions for the removal of the attack, that looks pretty bad to me. It sounds like you harbor some malice towards this editor. Hence my question. Do you intend to harass Terryeo in some way? --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no attack or malice. I advise you to follow wikipedia policy and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. I wonder if you are harassing me with non-sequitur questions.--Fahrenheit451 23:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Be a good chap. Read my section "What you can really do about Terryeo" below, put it into operation, and remove the reference to Terryeo from your user page. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

knock knock...

Tony Sidaway didn't answer my questions above, so apologies to Fahrenheit451 for taking up more space on his talk page for this, but this is where the conflict started. I'll ask Tony Sidaway AGAIN: Tony, it was my understanding that Terryeo is indeed banned from editing Scientology-related articles. Are you saying this isn't so? Please clarify. Terryeo's own user page says in the very first paragraph: "I did not do well and have been banned from editing in those articles." Is Terryeo himself mistaken about his own banned status? Please clarify. Is he conducting a personal attack on himself by referring to himself as banned? Please. Clarify. Please. wikipediatrix 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be silly. Fahrenheit451, however, was obviously engaged in a personal attack on Terryeo when he addressed him, on numerous occasions, as "banned user Terryeo." That was completely uncalled for. He must not repeat that. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my main question. I'll ask it again, a third time. Is Terryeo not banned from editing Scientology articles? If the answer is yes, then it is ludicrous to forbid another editor from ever mentioning this. Are you prepared to also jump on editors who make mention of the fact that Mistress Selina Kyle is banned? Or Daniel Brandt? I'm certainly not saying that being banned means they're fair game for personal attack, but I am asking you to give a greater explanation than you have so far for your insistence that we must not call Terryeo a banned user when, in fact, dammit, he is a banned user. wikipediatrix 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't answer your question because I didn't think it was a serious one. Addressing someone as "banned user Terryeo" or whatever is a personal attack. That's why you mustn't address him in that manner. I can't put it clearer than that. See No personal attacks/A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down" --Tony Sidaway 12:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You simply stating that it's a personal attack doesn't make it so. Break it down for me. Where does the "attack" lie? Specifically what part of it do you think could be taken as offensive? How is it "personal"? It's a matter of public record that Terryeo is, in fact, banned from editing Scientology-related articles. I'm well aware of the "Kicking them while they are down" text, but I see nothing in it that pertains to your argument. Referring to a banned user as a banned user is a simple and verifiable statement of fact, nothing more, and if there is a specific sentence in WP:NPA that countermands this, I'd love to hear it. wikipediatrix 14:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't wikilawyer. It looks bad. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will accept your brush-off non-answers to my sincere questions thusly: I suspect you originally made your hyperbolic command to Fahrenheit451 to stop saying "banned user" in a fit of rashness, and that now, later, perhaps you realize you were overstepping your boundaries somewhat, but have been stubbornly arguing back and maintaining your position nevertheless, rather than back down even an inch (it's OK, I've done it before myself). I have been pursuing this matter not just to defend Fahrenheit451, but for my own edification, because I too have made reference to Terryeo's banned status in the past, and intend to continue doing so - without intended malice to Terryeo, but as a simple statement of fact. I was hoping you might shed some light on the matter so we can avoid similar disputes in the future, but you seem think that kind of stuff is just "Wikilawyering". Having said that, I guess I will drop the subject for now, because this has mostly been a one-way conversation. wikipediatrix 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your assessment is completely and utterly wrong. Nobody on Wikipedia must be addressed, or habitually referred to as "banned user X". Demanding a full explanation of why this is such a bad idea is an example of wikilawyering. Implying that personal attacks are not attacks if they're based on fact goes against the spirit and the letter of our No personal attacks policy. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you think it's "Wikilawyering" to ask you to point me to specific relevant text in a policy that you yourself invoked. Oh well, at least I tried to communicate, anyway. Bye-bye. wikipediatrix 19:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've cited Wikipedia:No personal attacks and all I ask is that you read it with a view to understanding it, rather than finding a detailed set of codicils specifying what is and is not permitted. Personal attacks such as addressing someone as a banned user, or otherwise raising the status out of context, are not permitted. That the user has been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee does not excuse the attack. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What you can really do about Terryeo

If you really do intend to do something about Terryeo, you have the tools. Terryeo is under probation (can be banned from articles he disrupts), and personal attack parole (can be blocked for personal attacks). There are nearly 1000 administrators, at least 100 of whom are active on any given day. If Terryeo breaches his ban from Scientology, engages in personal attacks, or disrupts an article, report in on WP:AE or WP:ANI, being sure to refer to the arbitration case. You don't need to depend on my judgement. If any administrator agrees with your assessment, Terryeo can be blocked for up to a week. After three more such blocks at the time of writing, he becomes eligible for a block up to one year.

Good, accurate reports of breaches of arbitration rulings by Terryeo are welcome and will produce results. Listing his name on your user page is counter-productive. I urge you to remove it--at the very least, such an act would tend to enhance the credibility of your reports. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you in theory, but I have not seen that from you in practice in the last instance. You leave me then, with the other alternative of protest. Justice is actually doing what is right for all parties concerned.--Fahrenheit451 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to rely on me. Remember what I said above: " If any administrator agrees with your assessment, Terryeo can be blocked for up to a week.". I mean any administrator. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion...

I appreciate the enthusiasm you bring to editing the Scientology articles, but I do have to suggest that that effort would be applied with more focus if you took a bit more care with referencing everything as well as you can. It's what separates us from the OSA, after all -- we are telling the truth, and the more we can show we are the ones telling the truth, the more convincing we are to anyone who hasn't yet realized how untrustworthy the Church is and how many lies they're telling. Think of it as making sure your feet are braced before you take a swing... -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, an excellent example would be the St. Petersburg Times article that you added to Patter drill. It's from an established newspaper; you can find the article right on the paper's own website so there's no room for you-know-who to whine that maybe the article as it appears on the Web isn't the same as it appeared in the newspaper; it directly supports the statement being made. When you-know-who complains about so-called "personal websites" being used as sources, he may get some people on his side who don't know the whole of the situation. When he whines about perfectly acceptable sources like this one, he shows himself to be a dishonest weasel who is looking for something to whine about. (You know, I caught him once -- he was claiming that he "couldn't find" the information that was being referenced in the Los Angeles Times article that was referenced. I checked the URL and sure enough, the information was right in there. The only way someone in good faith, with normal reading comprehension, could have missed it is if they missed the "Go to next page" URL at the bottom of the first page. I found the URL on the website for the non-paginated version of the story, and gave it to you-know-who. You know what he did? He started hinting at how 'suspicious' it was that I gave him a 'different' URL from the one he had gotten before. Like I say -- he looks like a dishonest weasel, and in this case, an idiot as well.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

St. Petersburg Times Special Report, by Robert Farley: " SP profiles"

I know you have been working a lot on the "Altered texts in Scientology doctrine" article, and in case you missed it, there may be a usable cite in this June 25th St. Petersburg Times article: SP profiles («Tom Smith, 49, of Clearwater, was declared an SP in August 2005 after he repeatedly challenged the validity of a "patter drill" in which he was instructed to read passages of a course to a wall. Smith insisted the drill was not based on Hubbard teachings.») It is the fourth part in a serie of four articles. Raymond Hill 16:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking both User:Fahrenheit451 and User:Terryeo for two days for gross incivility, personal attacks and bickering

I'm taking into account both Fahrenheit's continued provocation and Terryeo's personal attack parole. While Terryeo must not be drawn into such bickering, nor should Fahrenheit make statements like "The creepy tactics you describe Antaeus are exactly what Joseph Stalin employed during his purges in the old Soviet Union". This was quite out of order. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The behavior concerned here is this and a subsequent edit by Terryeo, which relate to the criminal actions of Scientology's "Guardian's Office" in the 1970s. On reviewing, I think I should probably warn Antaeus Feldspar for inappropriate comments, too. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I should note that I have warned Fahrenheit451 already about his personal attacks and provocation directed at Terryeo. This is an ongoing problem that must be addressed (as is Terryeo's continued engagement in uncivil exchanges). --Tony Sidaway 18:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack or incivility, rather a comment on the actions of one particular personal in the cofs. You have it wrong again, Tony Sidaway.--Fahrenheit451 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a grossly uncivil comment, and a severe provocation, to compare someone's religion with stalinism. It had no place on Wikipedia. You have been repeatedly warned about your unsuitable and provocative behavior (as has Terryeo). --Tony Sidaway 14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You have it wrong again, Tony. I compared the actions of ONE PERSON to Stalin. Your rough administration has no place on wikipedia. I suggest you knock it off. --Fahrenheit451 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus referred to Hubbard himself and you referred them to David Miscavige, who is, in effect, Hubbard's successor as de facto religious leader of Scientology; specifically you both referred to "creepy tactics" used by a religious organisation in dealing with alleged malfeasance. This was extremely provocative. That kind of thing that might be considered appropriate for alt.religion.scientology is not tolerated here. --Tony Sidaway 14:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I think you are wikilawyering here, setting your own standards and selectively enforcing them on me in retailiation for our earlier rough exchanges. I also think you are abusing your power as an administrator. I am asking you to straighten that out. The first step is to unblock me. What you are doing is unjust. --Fahrenheit451 14:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll unblock you immediately if you promise to steer clear of Terryeo and avoid using loaded, provocative language such as "creepy" and referring to Stalinist tactics and the like. Please try to keep your personal feelings in check during discussions. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, "creepy" was originated by Antaeus. I do not directly address Terryeo and have not for a few weeks. I was in a discussion with Antaeus, not Terryeo. I will abide by Wikipedia policy, Tony, not guess at your standards. Our discussions have NOT been productive and I suggest you and I "break contact, continue mission". If any of the other hundreds of admins think I have violated a policy, any of them can take it up with me. I wish you well. --Fahrenheit451 14:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "creepy" was originated by Antaeus. You added the reference comparing Stalinism and the rule of Miscavige. Looking at your edit I see that it was your first intervention in a discussion between Antaeus and Terryeo, and its provocative nature suggests to me, in the light of your history of provoking Terryeo and then trying to get him blocked for responding, that you deliberately aimed to rile Terryeo into an extreme response. You succeeded in small measure, but your behavior is not acceptable. You cannot treat Wikipedia like Usenet. --Tony Sidaway 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not violate any wikipedia policy. My reply to Antaeus was NOT an attempt to provoke Terryeo, that is a false allegation. I have nothing to do with the "Usenet". I think your adminning is rough and unacceptable. --Fahrenheit451 14:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly you grossly violated Wikipedia policy. Civility demands that we refrain from needlessly provocative comments. And while I would normally assume good faith with respect to your intentions towards Terryeo, even though you intervened in a discussion in which he was involved, that option has been exhausted by your past history of provoking Terryeo and trying to get him blocked under his personal attack parole. Those earlier edits, by the way, were breaches of No personal attacks (see the section A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down"). --Tony Sidaway 15:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I was made aware that referring to Terryeo as a banned user was not appropriate and stopped. You seem to have started a war with me and are misusing your position as administrator to do so.--Fahrenheit451 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do would be to work really hard to avoid Terryeo. He does appear to be trying to needle you into trouble (in my subjective opinion) — that's the hazard of a widespread assumption of bad faith, it leads to thinking others are "fair game" (conventional English language sense, not Scientologese) for attacks, once one has presumed they're of bad faith. Note also that Tony has lots of personal experience of this attack method ... It can require tremendous mental effort to stay calm in the face of this sort of crap, but it is also necessary to do so. I don't know how to get Terryeo to accept we're all here to be encyclopedists, but he'll need to - David Gerard 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

GIen's RfA: Thank you!

Fahrenheit451 for your Support! I I feel truly humbled & honored by your support in my RfA, which closed at 90 / 5 / 0. Thank you! If you need me for anything, just say the word. For now however, just like Mr Potter here: My mop & I shall thwart all evil :) IThank you once again my friend. GIen

PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)

Thanks for your support matey - someone is probably turning in his grave! - GIen 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

I have detailed the blocking rationale further for Terryeo as he seems to be unable to grasp any concept of wrongdoing at this time - Glen 20:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)