Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Foxe

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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

John Foxe is acting as an owner of the First Vision article, in violation of WP:OWN.

Additionally, John Foxe has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to edit according WP:NPOV.

The result of John Foxe's behavior is that many editors have abandoned the article, and many potential editors are frightened away.

[edit] Desired outcome

Experienced editors with no previous connection to the First Vision article will evaluate John Foxe's behavior and comment on the talk page.

If the consensus is that John Foxe is demonstrating WP:OWN behavior then he should acknowledge this and agree not to repeat this behavior.

If the consensus is that John Foxe does not understand WP:NPOV then he should acknowledge this and agree to study and apply WP:NPOV when editing and discussing the article.

A record should be kept that will allow an administrator to act quickly to block John Foxe based on this consensus if he should fail to acknowledge his problems or return to them.

The goal is not to block John Foxe from editing. I and other editors value his POV, but his WP:OWN behavior and lack of understanding of WP:NPOV are disruptive to those trying to edit the First Vision article, and obstructive to progress toward WP:NPOV and WP:GA status. If he will acknowledge the problem and change his behavior, fine. But I want him on probation. The dispute resolution process is very time consuming. If John Foxe refuses to acknowledge the problem or returns to this same behavior, I want an administrator to be able to take immediate action based on previous discussion and consensus.

[edit] Description

John Foxe is acting as an owner of the First Vision article., in violation of WP:OWN as evidenced by reverts and revert-like edits to:

  • protect a particular version of various sections in the article
  • prevent a certain POV

Additionally, John Foxe has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to edit according WP:NPOV as evidenced by:

  • talk page statements insisting on inclusion of only a particular type of POV
  • talk page statements rejecting basic WP:NPOV concepts

The result of John Foxe's behavior is that many editors have abandoned the article, and many potential editors are frightened away.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Evidence of innappropriate reverts and revert-like behavior to:

protect a particular version
prevent certain POV

Examples (most recent first, oldest last): Original edit diff / John Foxe 'undo' diff / net result diff

  1. [1] / [2] / [3] Material previously deleted by John Fox restorated with additional edits attempting to address John Foxe's objections over about 4 hours by 74s181 / All edits except for a few rearrangements and one discarded by John Foxe in about 15 minutes
  2. [4] / [5] / [6] Edits addressing John Foxe's objections, quotes restored to article by 74s181 / quotes moved to footnotes again by John Foxe.
  3. [7] / [8] / [9] New section added by 74s181 / John Foxe moves the quotes in the footnotes.
  4. [10] / [11] / [12] OR and NPOV tags added by 74s181 / removed by John Foxe.
  5. [13] / [14] / [15] OR and NPOV tags added by 74s181 / removed by John Foxe.
  6. [16] / [17] / [18] - wrp103 edited, restored material previously deleted by John Foxe / John Foxe deleted, performed additional edits.
  7. [19] / [20] / [21] 74s181 added a quote and reference / John Foxe deleted, performed additional edits.
  8. [22] / [23] / [24] - multiple edits by 74s181 / reverts and other edits by John Foxe.
  9. [25] / [26] / [27] - deleted material restored by 74s181 / moved to footnotes by John Foxe.
  10. [28] / [29] / [30] - 74s181 reworked 3rd paragraph of lead / reverted by John Foxe.
  11. [31] / [32] / [33] - attribution added, other edits by 74s181 / attribution removed, other edits by John Foxe.
  12. [34] / [35] / [36] - section header restored, other edits by wrp103 / removed, other edits by John Foxe.
  13. [37] / [38] / [39] - section header restored by 74s181 / removed by John Foxe.
  14. [40] / [41] / [42] - response section and intro restored by wrp103 / removed by John Foxe.
  15. [43] / [44] / [45] - response section and intro restored and edited by 74s181 / deleted by John Foxe.
  16. [46] / [47] / [48] - Character statement added to the lead by wrp103 / deleted by John Foxe.
  17. [49] / [50] / [51] - response section and header restored and edited by 74s181 / deleted by John Foxe.

Evidence of inability or unwillingness to edit according WP:NPOV:

talk page statements insisting on inclusion of only a particular type of POV
talk page statements rejecting basic WP:NPOV concepts
(note some duplication among examples due to same diff containing multiple problems)
  1. Rejection of 'critics' or 'criticism' [52], [53], [54], [55]
  2. Insists his 'historical facts' are not criticism: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]
  3. Responds to attempts to explain WP:NPOV by calling it a 'Mormon smokescreen': [61],[62]
  4. Examples of rejection of 'character' POV: [63], [64], [65]
  5. Rejects example of 'Good Article': [66]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:OWN
  2. WP:NPOV

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

Here are some old attempts to work with John Foxe: 74s181 02:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. [67]
  2. [68]
  3. [69]
  4. [70]
  5. [71]
  6. [72]
  7. [73]
  8. [74]
  9. [75]
  10. [76]
  11. [77] (an attempt at humor, not everything in this is applicable to John Foxe)
  12. [78]
  13. [79]
  14. [80]


Here are some of the more recent attempts. 74s181 06:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. [81]
  2. [82]
  3. [83]
  4. [84]
  5. [85]
  6. [86]
  7. [87]
  8. [88]
  9. [89]
  10. [90]
  11. [91]

[edit] View by User:Wrp103

User '74' tends to overwhelm people with detail. Allow me to present a simplified overview of the dispute.

User John Foxe has very strong opinions about Mormonism in general and the First Vision in particular. He believes that the First Vision did not happen. He believes it was fabricated by Smith. He also believes that there are historical facts that support his belief.

John has also expressed on several occasions that his main objective is to present the truth. He has indicated that he feels free (perhaps obligated) to ignore any Wikipedia policy that prevents him from presenting the truth in this article. He also seems incapable of accepting the possibility that what he perceives as "historical facts" might actually be a POV interpretation of historical claims. John tends to view any attempt to present this viewpoint as a POV spin by Mormon apologists.

John also believes (or at least acts as though he believes) that WP:NPOV means that an article should not contain any POV statements. We have made some progress in this area recently. He once resisted any attempt to use the term "critic" or "apologist", stating that only (his) historical facts should be presented. Recently, those terms have been allowed, however he still presents his beliefs as facts, and Mormon beliefs as POV statements.

John frequently places "historical facts" in a sequence that leads the reader to conclude that the First Vision did not happen. This often includes quotes by Mormons that present a one-sided viewpoint. (For example, a Mormon historian has admitted that there are differences in the various accounts, but then talks about how his view of past experiences has changed over the years. John continually drops the second part of the quote, including only the fact that he admits to the differences. The result is something like "Critics claim the event was fabricated because of major differences in the various accounts. Mormon historian admits there are differences.")

John's actions have essentially involved reverting good-faith edits that have attempted to present what Mormons consider a balanced description of the pros and cons of the issue. He tends to view statements that support his belief as facts and those that don't as POV spin. Although John often describes the dispute as a battle between him and the Mormons who are promoting their view, in fact many of us are as likely to add negative information about the article as any other editor, although we also include the Mormon reaction to these claims to balance the presentation. (For example, "Critics claim there are major differences, but apologists believe the differences are overstated." You would not believe how long it took to get the second half of that statement into the article.)

Originally, John would revert directly, often waiting until a series of edits were made, and then reverting the article back to his last edit. When threatened with WP:3RR, he changed the appearance of his actions, although the result was much the same. Rather than reverting directly, John will make a series of edits, changing each section back (or almost back) to its previous state, with edit descriptions using such terms as "tweak", "rework", and "tighten". In most cases, rather than modifying what someone else had done, he simply replaces the section with his earlier version. Sometimes he will change the section into an intermediate version, and then later change it again back to its original form.

Unfortunately, John does not tend to get involved in discussions on the talk page to improve or reorganize the article. He will sometimes insert comments, but they are more often a statement of his position rather than an actual dialog. When it appears that a consensus has been reached and someone (usually 74) makes a series of changes, John will often revert those changes, ignoring the discussion on the talk page.

The general pattern has been:

  • Somebody makes a change to present what they believe is a balanced POV
  • John Foxe will revert those changes, with an edit summary indicating why he is "reworking" the section
  • Somebody re-makes the change with modifications that attempt to address John's reason for his revert
  • John reverts those changes again with a possibly different edit summary

This continues until the other editor get discouraged and quits the attempt, or a compromise is reached that John can accept. Unfortunately, what often happens in the latter case is at some later date, John will "rework" the section and restore the original version.

Again, this is a summary. For all the gory details, see the sections by "74" above. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. 74s181 06:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Robert Horning 15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Isaac Pankonin 05:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Laleena 12:45, 30 September 2007 (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.

This dispute is not about John Foxe but about the larger and more serious issue of how Wikipedia should conduct itself toward a consensus of editors who represent a minority position in opposition to a single editor who represents the majority.

The First Vision is an important Mormon doctrine. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has canonized Smith's 1838 account as scripture. An official website of the Church calls the First Vision "the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ." In a January 2007 interview conducted for the PBS documentary "The Mormons," Gordon B. Hinckley, current head of the LDS Church, said of the First Vision, "[I]t's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud.”[1]

Unfortunately for Mormonism, the canonical First Vision story has numerous anomalies. The first published account did not appear until 1840, twenty years after Smith’s is supposed to have had the vision; and Smith's various accounts are wildly divergent. In one account Smith sees angels; in another, Jesus; in another, God the Father as well as Jesus. Furthermore, in her several recountings of the early history of the Mormon church, Joseph Smith’s mother never mentions the First Vision. Neither does Brigham Young.

For this reason, Mormons are especially sensitive about criticism of this important doctrine. As one Mormon editor wrote on the talk page some months ago, “I don't care much what happens in an article such as Golden Plates which only 20 or so people will ever read, but this one counts.” Bochica 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC). 74s181, who created this Request for Comment, says on his talk page, "Like most people who regularly edit Wikipedia, I have an agenda. Unlike some, I freely admit it and state my agenda right up front….I hope to protect the seed of truth from the ‘fowls of the air’ that ‘devoured it up’ before it had a chance to sprout, and help others overcome some of the ‘thorns that grew up’ and ‘choked it,’ preventing it from bringing forth good fruit. What does that mean in English? It means that I will work to ensure sure that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrines and beliefs are fairly and accurately portrayed.”

I have been the only non-Mormon editing at this article for at least a year, and while some of the many Mormon editors who have dropped by during that time have edited in good faith and significantly improved the article, I have faced repeated, and sometimes concerted attempts, to squelch expression of non-Mormon points of view, especially when a group of Mormons decide among themselves that I am violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV.

Let me suggest that before you criticize my struggle to construct and preserve a fine NPOV article—in my opinion, one of the most neutral and best-written articles about any Mormon doctrine on Wikipedia—that you look at the article as it stands today and then read a version from several months ago. See if you can detect any gross imbalance in the treatment either then or now.

In passing, no one has charged me with incivility or personal attacks. The Mormons and I have had, as they say in the diplomatic service, “a frank exchange of views.” But rarely has discussion stooped to the nasty—and never on my part. Finally, the accusation of WP:OWN is ironic because 74s181, who made the charge, has edited at First Vision—and virtually only at First Vision—almost every day for more than four months, a period during which I’ve created at least five new articles, none of which concerned Mormonism.

In maintaining the neutrality of this article on First Vision, I have worked toward the interest of the greater Wikipedia community, and in my view the community should not lightly relegate such an article to the tender mercies of those whose interest it is to protect Mormon doctrine from the "fowls of the air."

  1. ^ PBS interview with Hinckley

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. John Foxe 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. 7390r0g 04:49, 22 September 2007 (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.}

[edit] View by Tom Haws

There is clearly a difficulty underlying this. But I'm not sure it's unilateral. And I'm not convinced a thorough and careful study of WP:Neutral Point of View and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial by any party involved has preceded this request. I would personally prefer not to comment further until assured that all interested parties have conscientiously studied those documents. Tom Haws 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going on wikiholiday again. As I leave I want to thank 74 and JF profoundly for their dedication to the ideals of Wikipedia. If either of you run out of ideas, I offer the following ideas:

  • Perhaps review and follow the neutral language section of Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial in all editing.
  • Perhaps review and follow the information suppression section of Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial section of the tutorial in all editing.
  • Perhaps review and consider the article naming section of WP:NPOV for ideas on First Vision. Could it be that more content and discussion and history about the name "First Vision" itself might help clarify this conflict?
  • Please, please, please search those two documents for ideas and fresh approaches that might break your stalemate. Those documents are not just constraints on you, but they contain solutions for your editing troubles.

With love and Wikilove, Tom Haws 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Tom Haws

[edit] View by Isaac Pankonin

I think this quote explains it all: "Frankly, Les, every time you start citing Wikipedia rules, I tune them out as Mormon smokescreen."[92] I think that signifies his complete disregard for Wikipedia's policies. As controversial as Mormonism is (it's heresy if you ask me), Fox should be able to find sources that state his point of view. If he can't, it's improper synthesis and doesn't belong in the article. I think the complaint here is completely legitimate.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Isaac Pankonin 05:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 17:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. FyzixFighter 22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. 7390r0g 04:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Laleena 12:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Cool Hand Luke 04:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC) (although for full disclosure, I should note that I'm at least a nominal Mormon—somewhere in the Oort cloud, anyway)

[edit] View by Val42

My "summary" was becoming so large that I decided to create my own section. But this basically belongs in the "View by Isaac Pankonin" section.

The First Vision article is one that is important because I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have left the editing of this article to others, but I regularly monitor it and the talk page. I can't attest to the history of the edits that John Foxe has made because I haven't kept track of who made what edits.

However, I can say that I have paid attention to the discussion on the talk page. John Foxe has many times exhibited the attitude as demonstrated by the quotation above that demonstrates his disregard for Wikipedia standards. His summary of the situation is also very telling: It's John Foxe's version of the TRUTH vs. everyone else's pushing of falsehood. There have been multiple attempts at resolution, which John Foxe agrees to then doesn't follow through with. The threat of an outside third-party gets minor, short-term results, but no long-term change.

I could speculate as to what result this level of outside intervention will or will not result in, but then someone would think that a personal attack.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Val42 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC) I just reverted another edit by John Foxe who reverted someone else's edit without comment. — Val42 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[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.