Wikipedia:Requests for comment/81.9.61.227

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order 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: 07:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

81.9.61.227 (talk • contribs • logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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.

What looks like one anonymous user with a changing IP address has made 6 to 8 reverts to Thelema in a 24 hour period. These edits support the version of the article produced by sockpuppets of User:Ekajati. So far it seems like only the subject of this RfC has supported this version on the talk page since the most recent banning of Ekajati. User:Thiebes and Stealthepiscopalian have both questioned the subject's preferred introduction, although they focus on a supposedly questionable source for the user's definition.

User does not deny charge of breaking 3RR when explicitly asked twice, and refuses to stop reverting.

As of 06:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC) the editor, who seems to use Tor (anonymity network), has repeated the first known offense (3RR) and added more.

[edit] Desired outcome

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.

That the user stop reverting and focus on seeking consensus for his/her view.

[edit] Description

Ekajati pushed a definition of Thelema from the challenged source mentioned above. My revision (announced months ahead of time with request for discussion on article talk) included the source's view in the introduction but did not use it for the definition. I also included other sources given by the subject of this RfC -- all such sources that used proper grammar, I think -- and tried to describe their views accurately. Anonymous user reverted edits, along with many edits from other users. S/he is now also repeating quotes that already appear in the article and in others' versions of the article.

Addendum: anonymous user now reverting largely unrelated edits of mine elsewhere and adding his/her view on articles I've edited.

Addendum 2: anonymous continues this behavior, repeating his/her violation of 3RR after being asked more specifically to stop, and adding personal attacks.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Reverts in reverse chronological order:

These are not ALL reverts either, see below.

On Talk:Thelema, many different IP addresses appear to represent the same user.

Addendum: evidence of wiki-stalking, in chronological order:

here
here
here
and perhaps here.

Evidence of anon's refusal to cooperate here in response to new attempt at resolution (giving opportunity to deny charges) starting here.

Addendum 2: new batch of reverts, in the course of about an hour:

This is a series of small edits and NOT multiple reverts as falsely stated by User:Dan. They could have been done as a single unexplained edit like Dan has been doing, but were done one at a time so each edit could be explained. Somebody please EDUCATE DAN about what a REVERT is. 58.176.17.98 (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

more specific question about 3RR from Dan to anonymous here, here and here

personal attacks:

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

My attempt, after earlier requests for discussion here and then here.
Two users questioning focus on Mahendranath's definition here and here

And I (Dan) try to address the content issue that Anon mentions here at a number of points, notably here and here.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Dan (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
--Thiebes (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC) (Note: user has a grand total of 54 edits as of 05:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

Antaios632 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (Note: this user has a grand total of 10 edits as of 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

For the record, I deny that I broke 3RR in the first place, and I certainly did not repeat it. I didn't realize this until the second accusation. The 3RR page states: "Consecutive reverts by one editor are generally treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule."

In the first set of "reverts" listed above, only the ones numbered 5, 7 & 8 constitute reverts according to policy. The rest are not reverts. #1 removes a link from "Aiwass" which is already linked more than once from the article; #2 adds quotes around a word which is not being used literally; #3 a minor improvement in wording; #4 and #6 are additions of citations. This is not the "6 to 8 reverts to Thelema in a 24 hour" claimed, but simply a misunderstanding on the part of User:Dan as to what constitutes a revert.

The same thing occurs in the next accusation of "breaking 3RR". Dan claims that each of a series of small edits (which could have been done as a single edit but was done as separate edits in order to give the reason for each one) is a revert. However, according to WP:3RR, the whole series would be considered a single edit which constitutes only a single partial revert. I thought some of Dan's changes were good and improved on them. These edits are:

1) removal of material from a clearly self-published source, explained on the talk page but with no reply or discussion from Dan

2) a compromise edit with part of my wording restored and Dan's point made with "promoted" rather than "championed"

3) restoration of a more focused heading

4 removal of another bad source, a bulletin board post (really Dan, you know better)

5, 6) restoration of material removed by Dan with no explanation on the talk page or in the edit comment

7) fix a change made to a cited statement that did not correspond to what the cited source stated

8) remove an addition which seemed off-topic

9) Remove statements which were off-topic in the section where they were placed. They had been there for a while and not added recently by Dan

10) Remove an inexplicable footnote which didn't seem obviously related to the statement it was footnoting. Suggested that more explanation might be necessary to be clear.

11) remove the unnecessary insertion of "many believe" when the source was clear on the topic and wasn't talking about what people believe. I can't see that the addition of unnecessary weasel words help the article. If there is another opinion or position held by different people, it should be added and cited.

above added 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Users Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Thiebes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Stealthepiscopalian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are all meatpuppets of one David Scriven aka Sabazius, King of Ordo Templi Orientis. They are here simply to mold the Thelema article to the party line of that organization.

The historical development of Thelema presented in the current lead is fully supported by multiple sources. It's widely known that Crowley derived his version of Thelema from pre-existing historical sources. Multiple independent sources acknowledge this. This attempt to make Crowley's made-up story that he "channelled" rather than simply wrote the Book of the Law primary by people who are believers in his "religion" is clearly POV based on conflict of interest. There are the supporting quotes:

"One of the first serious attempts to realise Rabelais' Thelemic Utopia was made in England in 1751 by Sir Francis Dashwood during the decade before his appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer." Frater Choronzon, THE HELLFIRE CLUB AND OTHER SWINGERS

"Francis Dashwood, who revived the Rablelais 'Abbey of Thelema'..." Adams, Ron. Ecumenical Thelema in Ashé Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, Spring Equinox 2004, pp. 71-78

"Many years later, Sir Francis Dashwood revived the Abbey and its delightful law in the grounds of his country residence not far from London.", "In more recent history Saint Aleister Crowley, who did much to reform and revive the Western Occult Tradition, in reverence to the Rabelaisian masterpiece also revived the Thelemic Law; and even, for a short period, established an Abbey on an Italian island.", "It may be new to those who read this manuscript, but the identical rule or law has been held in the highest respect in India and neighboring countries for thousands of years. It has been the amoral philosophy of the Nathas, Tantriks, and Siddha saints and sadhus. It made possible the Parivrajaka or homeless wanderer saints, and eventually led to the highest grade of Indian spiritual attainment known as Avadhoota or emancipated one. Thus Rabelais, Dashwood, and Crowley must share the honor of perpetuating what has been such a high ideal in most of Asia." Mahendranath (1990).

"Therefore, we can say, by this [Rabelais'] definition, a Thelemite is a person who is free, well-born, well-bred and capable of interacting in honest company. A Thelemite has an inherent sense of honour and a sense of proportion and discretion. ... Much of Crowley's work is an interpretation and extension of this simple summary." Alamantra, Frater. Looking Into the Word: Some Observations in Ashé Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, Spring Equinox 2004, pp. 39-59

"Crowley is misunderstood if he is seen primarily as the teacher of a new path to liberation, his sexual yoga and the abbey as a means of imparting this, with the theory behind it boiled down to the crude schematism of paths to enlightenment. He was part of a greater, far more intelligible tradition. Thelema itself is a rationally intelligible ideal that goes back to Rabelais, via Sir Francis Dashwood. Crowley gave this distinguished western tradition a new degree of development. The doctrine serves the man, not the man the doctrine. Not every practitioner of sex magic is a true disciple of Aleister Crowley." Moore, John S. Aleister Crowley as Guru in Chaos International, Issue No. 17.

"It's widely known that Rabelais said "Do what thou wilt", used Thelema and employed an Abbey of Thelema in his Gargantua and Pantagruel four centuries before Liber AL. The old Hell Fire Clubs continued that tradition through variation into the late 18th century. For some, this becomes a question of Crowley faking it. For others, it is more a matter of observing a gradual development of Thelema through the half millennium preceding the Aeon of Horus." Heidrick, Bill in Thelema Lodge Calendar for January 1995 e.v.

"The origin of 'Do what though wilt' is Rabelais' Abbey of Thelema in Gargantua and Pantagruel. The Hell Fire Club was deliberately copying Rabelais. Crowley, of course, had read Rabelais and undoubtedly knew about the Hell Fire Club (which is more correctly called the Abbey of Saint Francis, by the way), but he claimed to have received the Law of Thelema ... from a Higher Intelligence which contacted him in Cairo in 1904." Wilson, Robert Anton. The Illuminati Papers. Ronin Publishing, 1997. ISBN 1579510027

Users who endorse this summary:

217.114.211.20 (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

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.