Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleBible prophecy, Peter Stoner et al.
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyRobert Stevens
Parties involvedkdbuffalo
Mediator(s)Nwwaew
CommentRFC filed

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Bible prophecy, Peter Stoner et al.]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Bible prophecy, Peter Stoner et al.]]

Mediation Case: 2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


Request Information

Request made by: Robert Stevens 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the issue taking place?
Bible prophecy, Peter Stoner, Bible scientific foreknowledge, Science and the Bible, and others
Who's involved?
User:kdbuffalo
What's going on?
I'm having problems with user User:Kdbuffalo, who seems to have a long history of religiously-motivated vandalism on several pages: he's a Christian fundamentalist with a habit of deleting material and references which take a critical stance, resulting in "edit wars". Apparently, all non-fundamentalist commentators and sources are "unscholarly" or unqualified in some fashion: but no replacement "scholarly" critical sources are forthcoming. He keeps deleting a reference to Farrell Till on Biblical prophecy despite the fact that Till is eminently qualified and is presenting a common and notable view. And he keeps deleting critical references on Peter Stoner despite insisting on presenting an apologist's response to one of the articles whose link he keeps deleting (and the apologist in question has no relevant qualifications himself, other than "he has his own Wikipedia page"). Attempting to talk to him is apparently futile: he has already deleted a message from me on his own discussion page, without comment.
What would you like to change about that?
Um, dunno. Protection of the relevant pages? A "cease and desist" warning? I doubt that mere discussion will be effective.
Please note that mediation is, by definition, "mere discussion". ~Kylu (u|t) 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
Whatever you see fit.

Mediator response

Accepted case, contacting users. Nwwaew(My talk page) 20:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Could I please see some diffs of what the user has been doing in regards to this case? Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 19:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo 2. --Ideogram 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this case has proceeded to RFC and the user has been blocked for a week, I will close this case if there are no objections. --Ideogram 11:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Comment from Andrew c

I have run into Kdbuffalo on a number of pages on my watchlist. My experience is that Kdbuffalo can be a productive wikipedian, but has POV-warrior tendencies. This user doesn't log in every day, so usually does not violate 3RR, however slow edit wars can go on for months and months. Also, when editing, this user does not always log in, so a number of edits are hard to track due to anon IPs (but you can see the overlap in the simimlar pages edited, and the same page being edited first by the anon, then minutes later by the logged in Kdbuffalo). That said, these edits mainly consist of removing links, categories, comments, references, etc that are critical of conservative Christianity. This user seems to edit and ignore talk pages as long as the edits are not being contested or reverted. The talk page discussions are rarely fruitful, and the controversial edits will continue without consensus (and sometimes against consensus). This user has a tendency to simply blank disputed content. I have suggested using fact tags and other tags, and discussing things on talk, instead of simply deleting objectable content, with no indication from Kdbuffalo that my suggestions were taken to heart.[1] [2]

Example of a slow edit war at Christian apologetics, deleting the entire criticism section:

(not to mention the 4 reverts of the same nature back in April from an anon who happens to edit the exact same articles as Kdbuffalo, most likely just not logged in.)

Example of slow edit war at Richard Carrier, blanking categories.

(followed by about 7 anon blankings, most likely Kdbuffalo not logged in, dating back to late May, plus Earl Doherty, Peter Gandy, and Timothy Freke have all experienced similar blankings under the same rationale)

Example of slow edit war at Biblical inerrancy, blanking of critical link.

In addition to these examples, KD was recently blocked for edit warring at Peter Stoner, and was previously reported by myself, but not blocked, for a 10 revert slow edit war at Bible scientific foreknowledge. Plus there was another slow edit war at Bible prophecy with at least 8 reverts if including not logged in anons.

I think it is important for wikipedia to represent all relevent POVs. And it is good to have skeptics and religious individuals checking each other's edits for POV and other issues. I would never want to censor the conservative Christian POV from relevent articles, however Kdbuffalo seems to have no problem simply blanking content that questions his personal POV. This by itself isn't a good wikipedian ethic, but the nature of Kdbuffalo's edits (not going to talk, blanking instead of tagging, edit warring, ignoring consensus, etc) are problematic. I don't know what can be done, except to plead that Kdbuffalo take step back, follow the rules, and (whether reluctantly or not) accept that critical POV are going to exist in articles. But looking through the majority of this users edits, this sort of rogue, POV-warrior behavior is the norm, not the exception.--Andrew c 22:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another great example of the editing behavior to which I am objecting. 21:37, 20 September 2006, Ken deleted a section from the Jesus page about the Jesus-myth with the edit comment I could find no other enycyclopedias which denied the existence of jesus. This edit was reverted 9 minutes later with the comment there were citations provided for those claims, why does it matter if other encyclopedias mention it? So Ken, 2 hours later removes the section again with the comment of no other encyclopedias mention this. this is not a notable view. Bare in mind that the Jesus-myth most likely takes up a dozen talk page archives, and that this paragraph went through months of debate, voting, and finally, this long standing consensus version. What happens next? 29 minutes later, a 2nd user reverts the deletion saying rv -- Isn't it against WP:NPOV policy to remove an accurate report of what a scholar wrote? Have you read the book? Only after 2 reverts does Ken take things to talk. There is some effort to work things out, but the discussion is very minimal, and a large number of users express their concern that someone would try to delete something that not only reached consensus, but is also supported by a number of sources. Then, 2 days later on the 23, there is a small edit war concerning the wording which leads one editor to say Let's not open this can of worms again. To prevent an edit war, I am reverting back to consensus version and recommend dicussion PRIOR to any further changes. and then Again, please STOP. The current version has been standing for MONTHS and was achieved through rigorous discussion and consensus. Achieve a new consensus BEFORE making unilateral changes. Instead of anything like this happening, Ken disappears from the radar. Fast foward to two days ago, over a month later, Ken comes back and does the exact same revert that started this whole ordeal saying No other encyclopedias mention this. (which was reverted by another user 2 and a half hours later). This little discourse shows that Ken does not want to compromise, or accept longstanding consensus, or NPOV, or reliable sources, but instead wants to every once and awhile try to remove content he finds personally objectionable and see if it can fly under the radar. It would have totally been cool if at the end of the talk page discussion back in September Ken said "Oh, I see everyone's point now. There was a long process of consensus that brought around the current version, and it IS a well sourced statement, even if I personally object to it. I undertand now why it is in the article, and I apologize for edit warring over whether it should be included." but no, we get silence, and then a month later the EXACT SAME revert, as if he hadn't learned anything a month ago. This is comparable to something that I have experience personally. I worked hard on the first paragraph intro to abortion. I am not happy with the current version, but I understand how it got to be the way it is today. I do not randonmly show up and try to change the long standing consensus intro, even though I still find part of it problematic. I have self-control. And I can respect consensus and other editors, even against my personal biases. However, instances like this Jesus-myth blanking makes me pessimistic about Ken's intentions, and I just wish that he could just let things go, even if he personally objects to certain content. NPOV is about showing all relevent POV, which means we have to represent views that someone is going to disagree with. And that should be the beauty of wikipedia, not a stumbling block. Sorry for the rant.--Andrew c 22:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really been keeping up with this recently, but I did note that ken tried to blank his talk page multiple times and was reverted by a number of different editors. There also seems to be controversy surrounding edits at Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, Evolution, Robert M. Price, and G.A. Wells (mostly having to do with linking to JP Holding's apologetic webpage. I will say that ken has made some effort to discuss on talk, but the comments are brief, and there are a number of constent reverts. While not breaking any policy, it seems odd to be reverted by a number of different editors on half a dozen pages over and over. I would suggest that ken, after being reverted once, just try to talk things out and not edit the article until a consensus is reached. Forcing an edit never works (and only leads to edit warring). I will say that I supported part of ken's edits at Richard Carrier, but opposed them at Richard Dawkins. Not sure what this mediation is intended to accomplish, but hopefully my comments (about a self-imposed 1RR policy) will be taken to heart by KD.--Andrew c 02:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Robert Stevens

It is quite evident that Kdbuffalo frequently edits without logging in. For instance, here[3] and here[4] user 136.183.145.193 (responsible for several blankings) edits a Kdbuffalo comment on the Peter Stoner talk-page. There are also numerous edits on various pages from addresses similar to this one (presumably dynamically-allocated addresses).

His stated reasons for his deletions (on those occasions where he does bother to try to justify his actions) are clearly spurious, and inconsistent. He objects to articles by Lippard and Carr on Peter Stoner because they're "not notable" (they don't have their own Wikipedia pages), ignoring the fact that they're peer-reviewed and published by the Secular Web Library at Internet Infidels (which does have a page, and is the source of many references throughout Wikipedia). On Bible prophecy, and earlier on Bible scientific foreknowledge, he objected to articles by Farrell Till (another notable person with his own page) alleging that he wasn't "qualified", but he frequently cites articles by a former prison librarian with no relevant qualifications (J. P. Holding).

Deletions by Kdbuffalo on Peter Stoner: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]

Deletions by Kdbuffalo on Bible prophecy (after citations were provided): [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]

He also has a long history of vandalism on Bible scientific foreknowledge. Among other things, he has repeatedly deleted criticism from Farrell Till, and has also repeatedly filled much of the "Criticism" section with a long polemic against ancient Egyptian medicine, which is entirely off-topic (he deletes the link to Ancient Egyptian medicine). --Robert Stevens 10:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from The Hokkaido Crow

I interacted with Kdbuffalo on Bible scientific foreknowledge, which for over a year he's been trying to turn into a pro-Christian apologetic article. The pattern there has been as has been described on other articles, I will not belabor it. Other unmentioned issues that bear mentioning:

I'd also like to build on what Robert Stevens about the anonymous edit-warring issue... while I'm sure we all agree that occasional anonymous edits are unremarkable and acceptable, what is unacceptable is using anonymity to edit-war surreptitiously. Last July, Ken began objecting to a particular critic of biblical inerrantism and began simply blanking adequately sourced and notable material [30]. Of course I reverted, and soon after, we saw a spate of anonymous Ken-like deletions... hardheaded repetitive suppression of criticism of Biblical inerrantism, no engagement on the talk page or recognition of WP policy [31]. 3 weeks later I finally got a semi-protect request approved, and unsurprisingly, now Ken pops in under his own login with the same edits again [32]. Shortly thereafter, protection was removed due to lack of anon reversions (of course, because Ken was logging in at this point), and immediately the anonymous deletions of the exact same section resumed within a week. [33] By all appearances, Ken simply intends to railroad his beliefs through Wikipedia, confident that the governance organs are lax enough that he can keep probing for weaknesses, flouting policy until he wears his opponents down through sheer repetition. The Crow 03:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by kdbuffalo

I believe that AndrewC who commented above can be reasonable and open to working out editing disputes. However, I think the other people who have commented above are not so reasonable. They seem to be militant atheists who are not open to working things out. ken 19:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

Please explain on why you feel that way, and give examples. Nwwaew(My talk page) 01:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the relevant talk pages for details. ken 22:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]
OK, then please list the relevant talk pages. I dont want to have to wade through everyones archive. Nwwaew(My talk page) 14:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbusto

kdbuffalo CAN be worked with, but he is a fundamentalist who cares little for people without his own view. At times, he can be unreasonable to work with. Just see his justifications at Talk:The Skeptic's Annotated Bible/Archive 1 towards the bottom. Arbusto 09:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Vanished user

I must admit that I'm a bit horrified by this edit summary, in which to remove a section "under the radar" he claims he wrote it! Vanished user talk 02:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also done here. Indeed, if you check [34] and search for "I wrote", you'll find about a dozen of them. Look under "Criticism", and you'll find more blanking, but not so sneaky. Vanished user talk 07:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh. That is not good. This sort of perfidy represents a very poisonous influence. If this is permitted, then things will quickly head off into the weeds.--ReasonIsBest 03:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to file an WP:RFAR. --Ideogram 07:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RFAR is a last resort in DR. However, as KDB has not seen fit to respond to the Rfc currently underway except to malign and attack the filing editor, we may have to move to Arbcom. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should. He did another somewhat dishonest edit today: Removing a cited section, claiming it uncited in the summary. Vanished user talk 05:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category