User talk:Cinteotl: Difference between revisions

Kindly stop edit warring at Historicity of Jesus. You are aware that you do not have consensus for the edits you propose, yet you continue to ignore the consensus on the talk page to push your own ideas. If you cannot get consensus, then just walk away from the article. Continuing in the same way will result in nothing except you being blocked.Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: You reverted four of my edits:

• (→‎Widely accepted historical events: Fix Blainey citation, remove "failed verification" tag.)
• (→‎Widely accepted historical events: fill-out Rahner730, voorst15, voorst16 and DunnPaul35 citations, inlcuding quotations.)
• (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot)
• (Added "citation needed" template to first sentence in Lead.)

I see a few possibilities of how to handle this:

1. You could provide some diffs, to show how those edits are edit warring, or against consensus.
2. You could say "oops, I guess it wasn't edit warring or against consensus," and self-revert. Or,
3. We can take it to the article talk page (which is what you should have done to start with), and begin the dispute resolution process.

Of course, I could also just walk away from the article like you suggested, but... nah.
Ball's in your court. If I don't hear from you in a while, I'll post this conversation on the article talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunate, we edited at the same time so it may be an edit conflict where my edit removed more than intended. I'll look into it.Jeppiz (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now looked into it and I'm afraid I cannot revert. Most of what you added build on G A Wells, who is not an acceptable source under WP:RS. Wells was a professor of German with no academic authority on the subject of Jesus or indeed the entire time period. What he believes or doesn't believe is not relevant to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: Let me lay this situation out:

• I made four edits to the article, which included fixing a pre-existing citation that had failed verification, and improving three other pre-existing citations, by adding the relevant quoted text to the ref. All properly cited, and uncontroversial. See [1] [2] [3] [4]
• You reverted my edits, then came to my talk page, warned me that I was edit warring and editing against consensus, and suggested I "walk away" from the article.
• I asked you to either provide diffs substantiating your accusations, self-revert, or take the discussion to the article talk page. You did none of these.
• You responded that it must have been an "edit conflict" that removed more than you intended -- despite the fact that WP doesn't allow edit conflicts, so this is effectively impossible.
• After a little while longer, you responded that you can't revert, because G. A. Wells isn't a reliable source.
• You apparently didn't read the citations: they are from Van Voorst and Dunn (undisputed reliable sources.) I merely noted in the refs that each was responding to claims made by Wells. Further, the article has included citations to three of Wells' books for literally years, which is rather good evidence of a consensus that he is a reliable source.

I don't really care what your game is. I'm just tired of wasting time fighting with you over a few simple and uncontroversial edits. So, I'm moving this entire discussion over to the article talk page, and reverting. If you don't agree, we can move up through the dispute resolution process. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Blanking of the Historicity of Jesus page". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 October 2014.

The request for formal mediation concerning Blanking of the Historicity of Jesus page, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

You are indefinitely topic banned from any article related to the Historicity of Jesus. You are prohibited from making any edit related to the historicity of Jesus in any namespace, including his own talk page, except to appeal this topic ban or to seek Arbitration on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Any edit that violates this topic ban may be enforced by escalating blocks.--v/r - TP 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Thank you.

About the message: "You are prohibited from making any edit related to the historicity of Jesus in any namespace, including his own talk page..." Does Jesus actually have his own talk page?

More seriously: the only outcome that's likely to make a difference on the historicity of Jesus page is if there are discretionary sanctions. Do you think that if I posted a case to the arbitration committee, they'd be amenable to that? Or would it be a waste of time (or turn into a another zoo, like ANI?) Or do discretionary sanctions even do any good?

Regards my username, "Fearofreprisal": My main username is my actual name. I am the only person with in the world with my name, and have a relatively high google profile, which could leave me exposed to risk, were I to use it openly to edit some articles here. I created Fearofreprisal when I started editing Joe Arpaio, the local sheriff who is known for his reprisals against critics (The county has paid out many millions of dollars in settlements to those who he targeted.) I used the name because I was literally in fear of reprisals. I subsequently used the name to edit Ping Fu. She was targeted by a group of Chinese cyberbullies, in a year-long attack that still hasn't entirely subsided. (In that situation, I was one of the "good guys.") I was actually outed by the attackers, and the WP oversight people responded quickly and effectively to remove my personal information. Of course, in this case, the result has been a bit different. But I'm not particularly keen to go back into the arena. (FWIW, I contacted ArbCom way back when, to notify them about my use of a SPA.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on your name, I have had experience with people who predict their own expulsion from Wikipedia and then are total asses. In any case, I think the amount of times that this article has come up at ANI would make it very likely to see discretionary sanctions. I doubt Arbcom would overturn your topic ban, but there are several more personalities that may also receive one. I am neither encouraging nor discouraging you to seek that route.--v/r - TP 16:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the bit about your name from the close. When we see names like yours, they often have to do with disruption on Wikipedia. You've made it pretty clear that yours is related to off-wiki stuff and that makes what I said a load of baloney. Sorry about that.--v/r - TP 18:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: Thank you. You drew a reasonable conclusion, given what was said about me on ANI. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for making some nice comments on Talk:Buddhism. You are an intelligent contributor, I hope that you will contribute on many of these areas for a few months. I can promise that if you keep making these good edits, I will support lifting of topic ban. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bladesmulti: Thank you. I'd probably rather retain the topic ban. That may seem like a strange thing to say, but I can't envision a situation where my life would be made better by continued involvement with that topic. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really happy to read this message. You wouldn't be thinking the same tomorrow. It is great that you are feeling fine. Have a good break. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I know who you are now. Sorry I was so slow to figure it out. It might have helped other editors if you had explained your views on inclusionism. Anyway, I thought your filing for arbitration was some kind of kamikaze statement on your way out the door. Now I realize it isn't that at all. What you are trying to achieve is laudable in a general sense, but it would be helpful if you could find more inclusive ways to do it. Ironic. Anyway, cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fearofreprisal, I've dropped you an email. Worm^TT(talk) 08:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop by Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor, you have been mentioned in a less then appreciative manner.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcmatter: Thanks. Royalslongbeach1 is just trying to figure out his way around WP. He wants his article to be as positive as possible, and doesn't quite understand how to accomplish that -- especially with biased editors. If the mediation helps, I'm all for it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 29 October 2014.

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Andrew P. Thomas, Prosecutor, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Please make some sort of attempt to actually understand policies and guidelines before invoking them. Your edit history is a matter of public record, and in no way qualifies as "personal information." On that basis, your rather ridiculous attempt to have information which indicates a possible geographic connection between you and Kww suppressed as an inappropriate action on my part is an unfounded aspersion, as your edit history is a matter of public record and there is nothing clearly identifiable as "personal" in it. I have restored material to the relevant page, indicating some of the specific articles involved. As they relate to your edit history, they are relevant to this case, and there is nothing inherently in them which would reasonably qualify as "personal information." Do try to know what you are doing before casting further unfounded, some might say ridiculous, aspersions on others. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cinteotl. You have new messages at John Carter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Carter (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your concerns about your real-world identity have merit. For example, I know the "old" you and was able to find out almost everything about you - where you live, where you work - in less than five minutes. Therefore, this is not a matter to be taken lightly. In my own case, the week after I filed for arbitration someone left a live bullet on my doorstep. Coincidence? I'm glad I established a pseudo-identity here and have been diligent about keeping it that way. You might want to consider a fresh start at some point to permanently retire your old identity, although doing it now would create a Streisand Effect. Imo, you are doing the right thing by speaking up for yourself. Ignocrates (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never in my life here ever made any sort of attempt to verify any other editor's real life identity in any way, and have no intention of doing so. This includes cases where others have done so, sometimes very easily. I am not really any internet geek and I actually know it much less well than many people who aren't baby-boomers like I am. I do however know that I live in St. Louis, Missouri, something I have said repeatedly and which is extremely public knowledge. Actually, at some point, I even went so far once as to indicate what my real given name is. I do myself know that I have never even attempted any form of any form of direct outside contact with anyone else here, although I have in a few cases engaged in some online discussion with others, always at the direct request of those others. And, living where I do, in the most racially segregated city in the country, I don't want to tell you all the, um, interesting things I have found on my doorsteps, sidewalks, windows, sometimes broken windows, mailboxes or slots, and, once, even taped to the back of my cat. There are a number of fanatics around here and elsewhere who really like attempting to dredge up outside information on others. I don't myself know that I have ever gone so far as to do any more outside search than checking someone's IP address, and then only once or twice. And, honestly, to you directly, if you stopped engaging in the degree of self-dramahtizing and somewhat self-aggrandizing behavior you seem to rather regularly engage in here, I don't think anyone would care about who you are any more than they really care who I am in real life. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).[reply]

Fwiw, I think you are handling the outcome of the Historicity of Jesus arbitration with a lot more class than I have seen in some recent cases. Please continue to keep it constructive. You may want to check out these essays by Guy Macon and Risker about "one against many" content disputes and reflections on the arbitration process, respectively. Good luck in your future editing. Ignocrates (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ignocrates: Thanks for the references. I read them, and found them interesting, but, sadly, not all that useful. The Guy Macon essay makes the assumption that dispute resolution processes actually work. They don't when dealing with long term persistent editors.

Ultimately, it's not the result of the arbitration that disappoints me, it's the failure of the process. And I don't think that can easily be fixed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you refer to "failure of the process", it depends on how you define success. ArbCom's mandate is to prevent the disruption of the encyclopedia, not to decide who is right or what is true. This is one of Risker's most important insights in the above essay. Both of us have been around long enough to understand that concepts like fairness and justice don't exist here, at least not in the way most people would understand them in Real Life. I accept that is the reality I have had to live with every day I have edited here for the past nine and a half years. In the end, all you can control is what you do - the quality of your edits and how you conduct yourself. Ignocrates (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))[reply]

Oh wow, I completely missed that all of that was ancient history, relatively speaking... sorry about that! Appreciate the note. · Andonic ^contact 11:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with my comments taken out; there has never been substantiation of an affair; very difficult to prove a negative; but, no proof of affair. I have referenced 3700 pages of FBI information that does not substantiate Should be at least able to say such? If you don't like what I say, let it play out on talk page and we'll see if there is a consensus. I'd prefer not having an edit war. I would prefer not sending this to arbitration.Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• fyi, I also added this to his talk page:
  • Eavesdropping Allegation

2 points I'd like to make: 1. There is no citation. 2. It is alleged that he spoke about it; no evidence yet that he did recommend eavesdropping, and no evidence that it happened; AND, if it did, what did he say about it? Did he say it was illegal and therefore shouldn't be done; I will take the allegation out unless we have evidence about exactly what he spoke about and what he told his underlings to do.

I wish for this to be discussed and hopefully we will have a consensus.Mwinog2777 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • I believe we should have a direct citation for the allegation. Nothing has ever come of it legally. Are leaked comments to the press reliable sources? Was this a leaked comment? Where is the verification for the comment? We are left hanging. This is a living person and we should not include defamatory comment unless they are verified explicitly. This was not. Hey, is there a way you can see changing the wording to make it less defamatory.Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwinog2777: This conversation should be on the article's talk page, not here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • OKMwinog2777 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Avono (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]