Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Williamo1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

(Williamo1 | talk | contributions)

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

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

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Williamo1 has repeatedly inserted his own POV edits into the article Hyper-Calvinism. He has been asked on repeated occassions to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page. He has refused to comply, instead placing unencyclopedic material on the article page to justify his edits.

[edit] Description

Repeated addition of POV material to Hyper-Calvinism.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

WP:NPOV
WP:NOR
WP:DR
WP:3RR (previously dealt with)

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

(provide diffs and links)

Talk:Hyper-Calvinism#Feb 2006 additions
Talk:Hyper-Calvinism#2nd notice before RFC. Note that the possible RFC mentioned here would have been an article content RFC, not a user RFC. However, rather than agreeing to discuss changes on the talk page or submit to article RFC, the reversions continued without discussion.
User talk:Williamo1#Re: Hyper-Calvinism
User talk:Williamo1#Hyper-Calvinism

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Lbbzman 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC). I consider myself to be an impartial outsider who has kept watch of this dispute and reported the original 3RR violation. I have no interest in what the content of the article ends up being, only in preserving a civil tone and adherence to Wikipedia standards.
JoshuaZ 17:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Unfortunately, Williams edit problems are not just on the Hyper-Calvinism page, but on a number of related pages as well. See the talk page of this RfC for more details. (William has just made his standard POV edit to Hyper-Calvinism again. JoshuaZ 22:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)) Also, an added note, it appears that William's recently deleted autobiograpical article was remade by a sockpuppet/meatpuppet Jugementonyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). JoshuaZ 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
KHM03 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Jim Ellis 18:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Witty lama 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Scary use of OR to assist a personal agenda; the complete lack of discussion is unsettling. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 05:58, 29 March 2006 (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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view by Witty lama

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.}

I've been following Williamo1 since he began Citywide Church and have tried to resolve the dispute there, by I've not had anything to do with the hyper calvanism discussion. However, Citywide Church suffers from the same editing strategy by Williamo1 as hyper calvanism.

He consistently places POV edits that are similar (if not exactly the same) to previously removed sections of text. He also has never responded to any warnings or requests from other users on any of the relevant talk pages. Furthermore, he never leaves an edit summary to justify his edits. Good faith has been assumed many times but there is no reciprocating good faith from Williamo1. I believe a similar story has been unfolding at Roy Gordon Lawrence - however he has left an (unsigned) message there defending his edits.

I suggest that, if possible, Williamo1's entire edit history be taken into consideration as all of the pages Williamo1 edits are closely related and he is CLEARLY personally involved in the issue. Rob believes that Williamo1 is a pastor at Citywide Church and has left a message on the talk page to that effect.

Thankyou, Witty lama 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--Rob 04:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Agree. On a side note, he identified himself as William Oosterman, who, until recently, was pastor of Citywide Church. So, there's no dispute about that. To his credit (sort of), he's never hid who he is, what he beleives, or what he's trying to accomplish. I'm signing here, because I'm not familiar with "hyper calvanism", but am too familiar with what Witty lama has discussed.

[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.