Despite the evidence presented by Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, this RFC/U has received little attention since it was opened and it has largely been abandoned. There have been only one edit to this RFC/U since 6 November 2012 (to fix a formatting error) and the RFC/U talk page has little activity too. RFC/U closed due to inactivity and due to the low participation, there is no consensus for any remedy against RidjalA. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC).
Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
RigjalA's bias against the subject of the article of La Luz del Mundo. The article deals with a Mexican born church and he/she may be manifesting their bias in disruptive behavior. The bias itself is not the problem, it is RidjalA's actions of constant accusations against other editors, multiple consistent edit reversions and deletions of justified edits supported by sources and wiki policies, and insertion and forced preservation of unsourced content when it sheds a negative light on the church. RidjalA also consistently reintroduces content that was deleted for copyright issues and refuses to rewrite it in his/her own words. RidjalA has stated that he will keep the church's leadership in check. His/her edits match that of a person with a vendetta.
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}
The editor in question has engaged in behavior that may be article ownership, POV pushing and edit warring. In the controversy section of La Luz del Mundo page, any edits that Fordx12 has made have always gone challenged via deletions and reversals at first. Many of these were not clearly justifiable under wiki policy. RidjalA has constantly exclusively added content that sheds negative light to the church and challenges content that does not showing bias and POV pushing. Upon discussions in the talk page, RidjalA has been dismissive of other editors' opinions lumping both Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore together because they do not share his or her biased views on the church. RidjalA has also insisted in keeping negative unsourced content on LDM (Acronym for the church) in the article while diligently deleted non-negative unsourced content and deleted sourced content. RidjalA continues to restore content deleted due to copyright issues without rewording said content in their own words despite multiple warnings.
RidjalA has admitted indirectly to his/her bias, while this isn't an issue it is the actions that result from this bias that have caused problems.
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
Violations of WP:OWN
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Thank you for allowing me to present my response to Fordx12 and ajaxfiore, and thanks to those of you who will take the time to read my case.
Recently, Fordx12 introduced a large trove of information to wiki lldm that appeared to lean more towards the promotional side (in my opinion, but more of that in a minute). If it appears as though I have modified large portions of it, it is undoubtedly because contributions this large like the ones that Fordx12 has contributed require a vast amount of volunteer work to curate. To Fordx12 and ajaxfiore, this came off as me being disruptive. Fordx12 introduces tens of thousands of bytes of information and expects for me to revise his work with the same consistency as ajaxfiore by simply coming along into the picture and cleaning up a few bytes' worth of typos here and there (searching for the the amount of minor fixes in ajaxfiore's contribs here, and one can see that these types of contribs, including typo fixes, comprise the majority of ajaxfiore's contributions); furthermore, Fordx12 becomes frustrated when I bring up more serious issues, like abstaining from the repeated use of Wikipedia as an advertising platform for the benefit of lldm church.
In the most recent patterns of creating an advertising platform, Fordx12 changed the standard accepted acronym for the church from "LLDM" to an unheard of "The LDM", creating a clean slate for La Luz Del Mundo in search engines (it is fair to ask, since when is LLDM "the LDM"? Even the official church website is LLDMusa.org. Also, one can search and compare hits on a search engine for "lldm" vs "the ldm", or even "ldm", and see a stark difference)
If I were to open a discussion about it to try and revert "The LDM" back to "LLDM" using reliable sources, my concerns would be downplayed by a complicit Fordx12 and ajaxfiore by stating that my questions and reversion are out of line and "done against [their] consensus" as Fordx12 stated recently here, and I would endure rash criticism and attacks like the one I am responding to right now.
In another incident, Fordx12 introduces thousands of bytes of information and a new section he/she created called "Women in La Luz Del Mundo", and goes off portraying the church as this liberal pro-women religion, stating things like "this prayer provides space for empowerment in which women are able to express themselves and develop a status within the church's membership in much the same way that men do during other prayers and religious services" {1} However, it is important to note that Fordx12 omited a crucial fact in their source which stated that (translated from Spanish) "however, Patricia Fortuny remarks that 'the church explicitly denies such roles exist for women for fear that either women may be seen as equals to males, or that it may appear as an 'absence of subordination' in women'", which I introduced here
Hence, by ensuring that I incorporate a "check and balance" like in the aforementioned example, I ensure that this page does not turn into an advertising platform; for Fordx12 and ajaxfiore, this constitutes pushing a POV and being uncooperative.
Further, it is my inclination that Fordx12 has grown increasingly frustrated by his/her failed censorship of the controversy section. I feel safe calling it "censorship" because Fordx12 incriminatingly goes as far as to state that in regards to the controversy section, the user "would like for it to go away" {2} and asserts in the talk page that "Samuel Joaquin is an apostle of God," {3}
I believe that it is hard to argue in Fordx12's and ajaxfiore's favor that their deletions and revisions of content in the controversy section, as well as the creation of this report, are done entirely in good faith. Even in Fordx12's initial contributions as a new member to wikipedia, the user was dedicated to the deletion of content in the controversy section, like so
As far as ajaxfiore goes, I feel that the user reiterates and seconds Fordx12's views, and I must point out that they have yet to disagree on anything concerning wiki lldm. ajaxfiore's comments and edits are consistently in line with Fordx12's stance. For instance, their coinciding anti-Jorge Erdely dispositions found here, and their anti-Revista Academica stance found here. These two conservative standpoints (anti-Jorge Erdely and anti-Revista Academica) are an old recurring theme amongst the lldm faithful (another hint that both users are lldm adherents) in establishing a red herring so as to avoid discussion over victims' accounts of rape and abuse in the church, which is what Jorge Erdely published in Revista Academica.
Fordx12 and ajaxfiore feel compelled to chastise me and castigate me for impeding their progress in promoting the church. In the past I have helped to clean up the lldm page by ensuring that it doesn't turn into a publicity page again, which has been an issue in the past as evident by early discussion in the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo and back in 2008 when the page was primarily used for the boasting of random facts about the church http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&oldid=224121459
I have tried to determine if these two users are lldm members for the purpose of determining if they comprise a genuine consensus. So far only Fordx12 has come clean as belonging to the church. Ajaxfiore has yet to announce whether he/she believes Samuel Joaquin Flores is an apostle of God (there is nothing wrong with believing that, it's just a matter of being honest to determine if we need more outside people).
The last straw for Fordx12 and ajaxfiore, I feel, was when I did not admit to their forceful demand for me to apologize for our differences {4}. Even in the 'Desired Outcomes' contained in this report, the fourth sentence reads "RidjalA will admit that his/her bias is a cause of these issues" (after reading this response, Fordx12 crossed this out in the report here, but argumentatively this is a straw man since it ignores the fact that I responded in full to the rest of this report; so why not also cross out DO#6? Did I not just show how I ensured that sections like "Women of la Luz Del Mundo" are unbiased?) Fordx12 and ajaxfiore expect for me to self-abashingly apologize for our differences. While it would appease them for me apologize, I sincerely believe that self-penance is not genuinely warranted in this case. I have truly been cordial to these users, and I have maintained my respect for them, and have been especially careful to state that I do not in any way seek to question their faith and that I appreciate our work together. In fact, in discussing our differences, I have always encouraged for us to continue working together regardless of our discord, and remained an open avenue for discourse at all times (when I discussed one of my concerns regarding Fordx12's close paraphrasing, although we disagreed I ensured the user that "I do appreciate our dialogue, and any disagreement that arises out of our discourse is merely a necessary process that is characteristic of progress. I look forward to continuing our collaboration, and in contributing our share of knowledge to lldm wiki." {5}) Thus, if I were to admit to any wrongdoing as they demand, I know that it would be an insincere thing for me to do. I firmly believe that civil honesty is a most cherished virtue, and I stand by that.
As far as the sock puppetry goes, my looking into a sock puppetry investigation was a legitimate concern of mine (even though an admin did not feel compelled to look into it further), given that a few weeks ago a new user (Bravoq) emerged and blanked the entire Silver Wolf controversy section here, when in fact it's been Fordx12 and ajaxfiore who have had a recent interest in deleting that exact same section, evident when Fordx12 states in the talk page that in regards to the Silver Wolf controversy, "the only reasonable action to take is to delete the section." {6} To no one's surpirse, ajaxfiore comes along and immediately seconds Fordx12's viewpoint by stating that "the Silver Wolf Ranch subsection of the article no longer belongs in the Controversy section" and should "perhaps [be] removed altogether." {7}
So no, I am not attempting to take ownership of the lldm page to any degree. I am ensuring that there be checks and balances on this page. On the contrary, I am inclined to say that Fordx12 and ajaxfiore's ostensible convictions are a ploy to gain dual-editor ownership by censoring me so that they, as promoters for the church, may create their preferred version of wiki lldm. They are complicit in their opinions, and complicit in striving to silence dissenters and controversial matters surrounding their church, and they are now attempting to censor me in a concerted Orwellian fashion.
It is for these reasons that I feel that the claims made by Fordx12 and ajaxfiore are columny, unfounded, and dishonest to not only me, but to the general wiki community as well. Such behavior should warrant further examination to determine if any applicable warnings may apply to prevent further false consensus and to impede their progress of attaining multiple-editor ownership.
I have been careful to not come off as disruptive in volunteering for la luz del mundo wiki in ensuring that it doesn't turn into a publicity page, including closely monitoring the sweeping deletions from the controversy section that these two have recently sought to make. I have a strong inclination that fordx12 and ajaxfiore are taking a Hail Mary approach at censoring me by accusing me of POV pushing, making personal attacks, and for attempting to take ownership. Even right now as Fordx12 finished finalizing this report, the user went back to lldm wiki to continue to try and bait me by making spurious revisions to the controversy section:
User reverted my most recent edit here
User removed sources on Controversy section, citing "redundancy" {8}
User changed source to "Todd Bensman", rather than citing the news agency itself {9}
User changed number of adherents from "5 million according to the church, less than 1 million per outside sources" to "7 million", when user acknowledges that there is an ongoing discussion as to which numbers to cite (I've suggested we offer the highest and lowest values, like it was before) {10}
User again disclosed source as "Jorge Erdely", as opposed to the newspaper where the news originated from. {11}
User (for the fourth or fifth time) changed the introduction to Rape Accusations when there is an open discussion awaiting a third opinion on how to best present the introduction while avoiding copyright issues {12}
As proof to which of us is acting in good faith we should also consider how we each propose to fix our different philosophies. Whereas Fordx12 urges that I be reprimanded for my "conduct", among other corrective sanctions, I urge that the best way to settle our differences is not by reprimanding, nor by obliging an apology, but by the simple continual utilization of independent third opinions. Also, I would recommend that an outside administrator be assigned to overlook this page for the time being. That way, we are all given a fair chance at offering our insight- although I wouldn't be at all against a temporary cool-off period for both parties.
By adhering to the five pillars of Wikipedia, I firmly believe that I have acted in good faith in ensuring that ajaxfiore and Fordx12 do not take dual ownership of the lldm wiki, and that they do not convert the lldm page into an advertising platform for the church's benefit.
Please contact me any time for any inquiry.
Users who endorse this summary:
This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}
Users who endorse this summary:
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.