User talk:Achristiansoldier
August 2007[edit]
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Richard Rossi. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not reinsert unacceptable sources, nor remove valid categories. You undid hours of effort that was done on behalf of the BLP Noticeboard. Crockspot 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is an inaccurate characterization. No "unacceptable sources" were used. Please retract this statement. --Achristiansoldier 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Richard Rossi, you will be blocked from editing. Stop inserting unacceptable sources, and removing templates and other work. Crockspot 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I contest this characterization strongly. Please substantiate the charge that I inserted "unacceptable sources." If that cannot be substantiated, please retract the charge. --Achristiansoldier 14:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the statement on your user page, Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a soapbox. In addition, blogs, partisan or obscure websites and newspapers, and self-published sources may not be used to source information about living people. Repeated reinsertion of this material is a blockable offence, which is why you are now blocked. Please review WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR while you await your block to expire. If you reinsert the material again, you will only be blocked again. Of particular bad form was your wholesale removal of other improvements and valid templates that I had spent quite a bit of time contributing last night. - Crockspot 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I sincerely apologize for undoing your work on this entry, Crockspot; I have also apologized on BLP/NP. My actions were a good faith effort to restore material about Rossi's criminal record which were deleted. I clicked "Undo" without realizing the consequences. I regret the error. --Achristiansoldier 14:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Rossi[edit]
Unless you can prove that JB is in fact Rossi, I would suggest that you abandon those accusations on the talk page. Personal attacks against other editors are not only against policy, they weaken your arguments, because people focus on the attacks, and ignore your technical points, whether they are valid or not. If Rossi's only claim to fame, as you state, is his arrest and trial, then he probably shouldn't even have a bio on wikipedia, per WP:BLP1E. - Crockspot 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. I don't think it's much of a stretch to believe that a convicted criminal who has been sued for concealing his criminal past would alter his Wikipedia entry, but you may be right about the politics of this kind of confrontation. I'll do some cleanup.--Achristiansoldier 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]
|
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Richard Rossi[edit]
I am a new user of Wikipedia... rather, I am a reluctant new "editor." Wikipedia has been invaluable to me as a resource in the past. I hope it will be in the future, but my initial experience here has been bracing.
Stepping in as an "editor" is alien to me. By chance, I stumbled upon an entry about "Richard Rossi," who had made a no-budget video about Aimee Semple McPherson.
And he's not just a director.
Richard Rossi is a convict. He served time for aggravated assault for beating his wife into a coma, after a notorious trial -- and mistrial. Google had told me that much already.
But when I first looked him up in Wikipedia, "Richard Rossi" was stacked with glowing information about his career as a preacher -- a "healing minister" (another word for "faith healer") -- his famous exorcisms, his bold new career in planting home churches among the rich and famous in Hollywood. He was even labeled a "child prodigy" at guitar.
Huh?
The entry made no mention of his trial by jury for the attempted murder of his wife, who was smashed in the head and left for dead on a country road. It was a front page newspaper story in Pittsburgh for weeks.
There was nothing there about the members of his congregation in Long Beach who allegedly locked him out... and/or fired him... and sued him for changing the by-laws of the church to access church funds... and for concealing his criminal past.
The entry made Rossi look like a saint. You couldn't help but think that he wrote it himself. Or paid someone for the purple prose.
His criminal past hadn't just been sanitized. He'd been all but canonized.
Inspired by Stephen Colbert, I registered and started hacking away at the text. My biggest mistake.
Editor User:Crockspot stepped in... and his argument with me over "vandalism" upstaged all the work that desperately needed to be done on the entry.
It took a lot of doing to get attention to this. I stopped altering the text on the entry, and instead compiled extensive evidence in the Talk:Richard Rossi section. You can see it there: Dozens of newspaper clippings about Rossi's trial, plea bargain for aggravated assault, lawsuits, etc.
I waded through Wikipedia pages, posting a lengthy cry for help on WP:BLP/N, and reaching out to editor User:jossi.
Crockspot was argumentative to the end, in my opinion. But the work got done.
We'll see if the article stays the way it is at this moment: accurate. Thanks to User:THF.
I hope so. This whole experience has changed how I view the information on Wikipedia.
For a history of Crockspot's intervention -- ironically, perhaps, on behalf of a convicted felon who pled "no contest" to the crime of beating his wife into a coma -- read on. It's all there, the Wikipedia way.
Judge for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Richard_Rossi_Entry:__Vanity_Article_with_Criminal_Concealment
--Achristiansoldier 01:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Achristiansoldier, your extensive 1:34 remark violates Wikipedia's no personal attack policy. Crockspot did not do anything wrong in his dispute with you; please do not imply that I have suggested otherwise. The standard for Wikipedia edits is verifiability, not truth, and WP:BLP requires special attention to that policy in cases where there may be libel. This means that Wikipedia pages will often be inaccurate, but you can understand why it is better to be inaccurate in one direction than the other. See Seigenthaler controversy for a vivid example of life before the BLP policy. You violated the policy after being warned. I request that you rewrite your 1:34 comment to be less confrontational. Per WP:COOL, I suggest that you also apologize to Crockspot, and acknowledge your mistake: it will do a lot for your credibility to third parties. You've had a bad first experience, but the people you are arguing with are reaching out to you and simply asking you to follow the rules of the site. You'll have a more pleasant experience here if you are less confrontational: most of the people here are working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. THF 08:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:NPA --
- Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.
My account stands. The characterization of "argumentative" is not a "personal attack." (I will strike the only phrase in my account that could remotely be considered a "personal attack." I do not intend to attack anyone.)
If you believe that his messages were not argumentative, that is your opinion. My opinion is that he "argued" with me.
From where I'm sitting, your accusation of a rules violation is, in fact, a form of personal attack according to WP:NPA.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPA#What_is_considered_a_personal_attack.3F
Please also see Crockspot's gratuitous criticism of my personal statement about "exposing charlatanism in the name of Christianity." Crockspot may disagree with that statement, but it is certainly not anathema to Wikipedia. (Furthermore, characterizing that criticism as "gratuitous" seems perfectly within bounds: It was not and is not germaine to the discussion of the newspaper-published facts of Richard Ross's criminal record.)
For further context to my remarks, please note that the first warning, second warning, and block were all made within ten minutes. This is not a "warning," as I understand the word. --Achristiansoldier 13:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I respectfully request that Crockspot substantiate his charge that I inserted "unacceptable sources." If the charge cannot be substantiated, I request a retraction.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, Crockspot posted no warning when explicit legal action was threatened on Talk:Richard Rossi, nor did he correct the numerous ad hominem attacks. This appears to be a kind of selective enforecement, given his extensive involvement in editing/correcting the entry.
Are you certain that Crockspot "did nothing wrong"?--Achristiansoldier 14:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Re THF's statement:
- "You violated the policy after being warned."
This is not factual.
By my reading of the time logs, I may have "violated the policy" at the very same minute as the warning. But I was given no opportunity whatsoever to react to the warning:
(cur) (last) 19:26, 1 August 2007 Jossi (Talk | contribs) (6,487 bytes) (removing doubtful material to talk, until it can be properly written and sourced) (undo) (cur) (last) 19:18, 1 August 2007 Crockspot (Talk | contribs) (12,296 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Achristiansoldier identified as vandalism to last revision by Crockspot. using TW) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:14, 1 August 2007 Achristiansoldier (Talk | contribs) (11,674 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:13, 1 August 2007 Crockspot (Talk | contribs) (12,296 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Achristiansoldier identified as vandalism to last revision by Crockspot. using TW) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:10, 1 August 2007 Achristiansoldier (Talk | contribs) (11,936 bytes) (undo)
The first warning: Crockspot 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The second warning: Crockspot 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocked: >(talk) 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Rossi&action=history
Will you please retract your erroneous statement, THF?
Your block[edit]
I've just been reviewing some of the edits on the Richard Rossi entry -- and Crockspot's work seems seriously questionable on some edits/restorations. Here's one in particular, in which Rossi's criminal past was scrubbed -- even though much of it was properly footnoted. It wasn't sent to Talk. It was just erased, wholesale: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Rossi&diff=150686337&oldid=148555192
Furthermore, on Talk:TalkUser:Jacksbernstein, Crockspot openly offers him the opportunity to scrub the article -- and that he, Crockspot, will try to stave off "disgruntleds" who may attempt to restore references to Rossi's conviction:
- Richard Rossi
- I've removed the sources that violate BLP and V from the Attack section. I'm out of time, and you are more familiar with the material, so feel free to rewrite that section to fit the sources that are left. I'll leave a note on the talk page to stave off any disgruntleds. - Crockspot 03:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacksbernstein#Richard_Rossi
Upon investigating Crockspot, I've found that he's seeking an admin position. This strikes me as potentially unwise, given his role in scrubbing Rossi's entry. Should I post something about this?
Here's a telling series of exchanges between Crockspot and me on the BLP Noticeboard:
Would you please review Crockspot's work on this entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achristiansoldier (talk • contribs)
- Assume good faith on Wikipedia. The WP:BLP policy requires editors to err on the side of exclusion. While this means that some editors can abuse the policy to get legitimate information removed, this cannot be done so long as the article edits comply with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and other Wikipedia requirements. This edit by you violated several policies. Editors who are not aware of the nuances of the BLP policies and repeatedly violate them will end up with less credibility in discussions; editors who appear to be single-purpose accounts have less credibility than those who understand the rules; and outside observers, who are all volunteers, rarely spend enough time to learn all the details to distinguish between truth and fiction or between smear-artists with an agenda and novices acting in good faith who don't completely understand the rules, so mistakes are going to be made from time to time; you got out-Wikilawyered by Jacksbernstein, who knew how to work the system better than you. WP:CHILL: Wikipedia is full of errors, and approaches accuracy only in fits and starts. I don't see anything wrong with how Crockspot acted, given the information he had.
- It appears to me that Jack Bernstein is violating WP:COI, and I will make an appropriate warning on his talk page.
- I'll be watching the page to make sure it isn't inappropriately sanitized. If you're interested in being able to better navigate the Wikipedia policies, I recommend the WP:WELCOME, WP:RO, and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User pages. THF 08:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm more than happy to assume good faith... but feel obliged to consider all evidence. In this case, some of the editors' actions do not appear to me to be in accordance with that good faith. Please see my user discussion page, where I delineate a couple of those apparent conflicts.
- Also, I have asked for correction, specific to your statements.
- Any ideas why active editors didn't warn Wikilawyering jacksbernstein that threats of legal action -- and ad hominem attacks -- violate policy? The selective enforcement in this matter seems noteworthy.
- Thanks again for your help. --Achristiansoldier 15:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Did Jacksbernstein specifically threaten you with legal action? Please provide an edit diff, and I'll raise with the appropriate authorities.
- But simply mentioning the WP:BLP policy is not a legal threat. WP:BLP is considered perhaps the most important policy on Wikipedia, so allegations of violations are taken much more seriously, and blocks come much more quickly. You reverted without discussion on a talk page after a warning and violated BLP again. That's very serious. You repeatedly attacked Crockspot on the BLP/Noticeboard. That made sure no one took you seriously, because you showed no indication of understanding the policy. THF 15:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive me for pointing this out: I was the first person attacked. That has somehow been overlooked.
To wit:
1) I was blocked without warning. What's more, the warnings both contain misstatesments of fact.... namely, that I was "inserting unacceptable sources." This is demonstrably false. See my Talk:Achristiansoldier page for time stamps and substantiation. Is this according to WP policy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Achristiansoldier#Richard_Rossi
2) I invite you to review the editing that I performed. There is no "unacceptable source" invoked. My additions were sourced to easily verifiable reports in the Long Beach Press-Telegram. (They may not have been formatted correctly, but that's a different matter.) Despite the verifiability of the source, the NPOV additions were purged by Crockspot. After I attempted to restore them by clicking "undo," I was blocked. With no warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Achristiansoldier
3) Crockspot appears to have assumed bad faith on my part, but assumed good faith on jacksbernstein's part.
- Crockspot admonished me on my user talk page for my user name, and criticized the motto of sorts I posted on my page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Achristiansoldier#August_2007
- Did he also examine jacksbernstein's user page and contributions? Those contributions clearly should have raised suspicions, despite the presumption of good faith. Jacksbernstein's first act was to created the Richard Rossi entry. He also created the entry for Richard Rossi's father. The corrections show a long-term pattern of focus on Richard Rossi; a cursory examination shows that the writing was not NPOV, but strictly laudatory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jacksbernstein
- Crockspot personally invited jacksbernstein to rewrite the entry while he, Crockspot, fended off corrections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacksbernstein#Richard_Rossi
- Crockspot extended this special invitation AFTER jacksbernstein stepped in to threaten legal action on behalf of Richard Rossi. Didn't you address COI with jacksbernstein? Either Crockspot knew jacksbernstein to be Rossi, or his appointed representative, and offered him the opportunity to correct for that reason -- or he did not know that to be the case, and offered preferential treatment to a poster with a dubious history of contributions. Was this good faith?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Rossi#Legal_Investigation
I appreciate that "personal attacks" are out of bounds, and I do not wish to engage in such.
This is a delineation of Crockspot's actions, and a request for correction.
I await your correction of the statement: "You violated the policy after being warned." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Achristiansoldier#Richard_Rossi --Achristiansoldier 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BLP. You were warned to follow the WP:BLP policy, and assumed you were following it without understanding what that policy requires, and made an additional revert. Jossi was the admin who blocked you, not Crockspot, and he apparently felt that one warning was all you should get given the seriousness of BLP charges when you violated BLP policy by citing a potentially libelous claim with only a newsletter that didn't qualify as a source under WP:BLP.
- Editors with a COI are permitted to delete violations of BLP. BLP trumps COI. In any event, I didn't warn Jacksbernstein about COI until after Crockspot was no longer involved. Crockspot was summoned by the claim of a violation of a BLP policy, he found a violation of the BLP policy, and your counterproductive argumentative style (on display here) and edit-history and continued failure to understand BLP didn't ever persuade other editors to investigate: everyone here is a volunteer, their time is scarce, and they see dozens of editors with little edit-history who don't understand policy yelling about admins discriminating against them. After enough of them cry wolf with an accuracy rate close to zero, it's easy to jump to conclusions when you imitate their tactics. It didn't help that Jacksbernstein misused the system by misrepresenting the facts, misleading Crockspot into thinking that Rossi had been exonerated. If I hadn't remembered the Rossi case from when it happened, and hadn't been curious about whether there had really been exoneration, I wouldn't have investigated. THF 20:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please excuse my "counterproductive argumentative style."
Another misstatement of the truth:
- "The sources you used, which were self-published webpages and newsletters, do not qualify as reliable sources on Wikipedia."
The only source I used was the Long Beach Press-Telegram.
And another"
- "You were warned to follow the WP:BLP policy, and assumed you were following it without understanding what that policy requires, and made an additional revert."
I did not make an additional revert, and have proved as such.
Prove otherwise, please, or retract.
I still await your correction re your claim that I "violated policy after being warned." This has been demonstrated to be false.
And, BTW, since it's okay for you to call me argumentative, why not Crockspot?
I am merely insisting that you set the record straight: I did not "violate policy after being warned." I did not use any source beside the Long Beach Press-Telegram.
Please correct. --69.235.19.29 22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Didn't I warn you about crying wolf? You just lost a lot of credibility with me, and I'm quite angry at you that you wasted my time with this false claim that the "only source" you used was the Long Beach Press-Telegram. This is the edit you made that got you blocked. You added links to "langston.com", "crystallinks.com", the North Texas Skeptics Newsletter, and several other sites that don't even qualify under WP:RS, much less the stricter WP:BLP policy. After this, I'm not investigating anything else you send my way. THF 23:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can't explain your anger, which I view as inappropriate.
The edit was a "revert." I did not add those links. I did not write any material that referenced those links.
Your misstatesments have not been corrected. My request stands.
--Achristiansoldier 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, per WP:COOL:
- If you're angry, take time out instead of posting or editing.
When you're less emotional, perhaps you'll do the extra reading necessary to understand what happened: Crockspot erased my work -- all sourced to the Long Beach Press-Telegram -- but also did some other additions/deletions. When I reverted -- in order to restore my work -- the other additions/deletions were reverted as well. I have apologized for this inadvertent consequence.
But your characterization of a "false claim" on my part is erroneous, and a personal attack. Please withdraw the assertion.
My requests for correction stand. --Achristiansoldier 23:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- A revert that adds links is an edit that adds links. The links didn't belong, and were removed according to WP policy, and you put them back in violation of Wikipedia policy after you were explicitly warned not to, so there was nothing inadvertent about it -- because you did it twice. You can keep requesting, but I was right, and Crockspot was right, and Jossi was right. You also made edits that violated policy like this, this, this, and this. Perhaps you could consider that you are in the wrong? Why don't you work on a productive edit to Wikipedia instead of talk-page arguments rehashing the mistakes you've made? An editor looking at this is going to think that you're not here to contribute productively, so perhaps you should work to improve that 0-for-92 ratio. And if you don't recognize that what you did was wrong, that what administrators did was right, and that all you've done in this discussion is exhaust the patience of the only person on the site who was willing to look past your blatant policy violations to try to help you, perhaps this project isn't for you. This discussion is over. THF 00:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)