This is Carcassonne in southern France where I spent Christmas, safely away from Wiki temptations. Back to work now. I hope you have a great year in 2010 for writing, reviewing, or whatever takes your fancy. Keep fighting the good fight, Nancy. Always willing to help when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian! Happy New Year to you too! What a neat place to spend your holidays, I'm envious : ) NancyHeisetalk 06:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trials and tribulations of a "lead writer" trying to get an article through FAC[edit]
I think you might enjoy this... World War Wiki. You will need to turn captions on via the CC button at the lower right of the YouTube window. --Richard S (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Richard, I hope you and your family had a great holiday. NancyHeisetalk 06:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Regarding the meetup, I think we may need a more neutral location; Dania is too far of a hike for us Miamians. Let me know what you think about my note[1]. Thanks. P.S. Stunning pic! --Neon Sky (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, I haven't forgotten my promise to say hi! Sorry, its been a very burdensome time for me. Our seminary has grown to 6 now from 5. We have a certain person who is seriously considering joining and a few others who are discerning, but not yet joined. As for myself, I am struggling between an offer by a grad school and the seminary; do I leave for five years and get my degree and then return? At the same time I still need to struggle with celibacy, but its getting better. It takes time to realize that the creator is better than his creation, even though for a Catholic Christian such as myself it is a proven truth. Sorry I wasn't of much use for those other pages you asked me to intervene. Lately I have become a decent apologetic, in Aristotelian philosophy and principles of nature and in biblical apologetics. Gabr-el 03:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a pleasant surprise to hear from you! I am so glad to hear that you are still tinkering here on Wikipedia and progessing down your life's path as well. I will pray for you to know just the right thing to do and I'm sure you will know. I have much to say to you about celibacy so I hope you are prepared to get an earful! See my points to ponder below:
Christianity is about love - if you don't love people - you can't be a good priest and you will fail at celibacy.
All love comes from God - if you don't love the people you give your life to serve - ask God to give you love for them - he told us to ask for things and when we do, its never in vain.
Sex is from God. It is a beautiful gift that the Church teaches is holy and beautiful within the sacrament of marriage. Giving it up is a sacrifice.
God wants to marry us - according to Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body".
When you give something up for God - he rewards you "whosoever has left home or mother or father or children or wives for the kingdom of God..." Remember, God is never outdone in generosity.
Saint Teresa of Avila said (not getting the words 100% correct here) "We can not always know if we are loving God but we can be very certain if we are loving our neighbor"
Saint Teresa of Avila loved a priest friend very much. They wrote letters to each other. He kept all of her letters on his person for the rest of his life. They were in love but did not violate their vows - they expressed their love and they prayed for each other. Pope John Paul II also had a female friend he loved. Successful priests have people they love who pray for them. Prayer for a person you love comes from your heart, it is very loud. If you have ever felt the prayer of someone who loves you it feels like you are a dry plant and all of a sudden someone has poured water over you and you feel warm and life and love come all the way into your soul. If you express your love for someone sexually instead of praying for them, you will not feel this because you have spent your love in a physical rather than a spiritual way. If you are not married to that person, your mispent love can harm rather than help that person's soul. So it is important to ask God to give you a pure heart to pray for someone you love.
I know of two priests here in the Archdiocese of Miami with opposite stories. One loved a woman very much. He did not know what to do about his love and instead of praying for her, he had an affair with her and eventually left the Church to become and Episcopal priest so he could marry her see Alberto Cutie.
I know another priest who loved a woman very much. He did not know what to do so he asked God to help him love her properly and the Holy Spirit showed him how to express his love in prayer. His prayer helped her soul and she became a better Christian. She is a very happy loving person who prays for this priest she loves on a regular basis. This priest got sick one year and almost died. She went to Lourdes to pray for him. He was so near death that he was in a coma for nine days. She wrote to the bishops in South Florida telling them that in Lourdes, she experienced God's affirmation that he had heard her prayer for his healing. The priest recovered miraculously after that. Almost two years ago I went to a Mass celebrating his 35th anniversary as a priest. His best friend told everyone during the sermon that his recovery was a miracle. The Archbishop was there as well and he is one of the very best priests in the Archdiocese.
Gabrel, If you decide on celibacy, I hope you will be like the second priest and discover a beautiful way to love and serve God or else I hope you find just the right bride if you are meant to be a married priest in the Eastern Rite - whatever God leads you to do. One of the priests I know was in love with a woman and almost married her before he decided to be a celibate priest. I think he is a very good priest because that woman continues to pray for him. Maybe that is what will happen for you. You should have someone who knows you and loves you to pray for you and be a spiritual friend on your journey. I will ask that for you and keep you in my prayers. NancyHeisetalk 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Nancy. Most of the above I know more or less. Its been a year in the seminary so far for me. I am skeptical about married priests, even though I don't think there is anything wrong with it, and the Russian Orthodox Martyr who was killed a few months back was both married and an excellent priest (his dad was also a priest!). That's a shame about the Episcopal priest, though perhaps with the Anglican Communion being pushed to Catholicism, there might be a chance for him to come back; he needs our prayers. Forgive me for being so blunt, but I think that celibacy can't be had in degrees; I like to cut to the chase. I'm not interested in finding a particular girl that will love me in a sisterly way; rather my Bishop told me to love everyone as a brother and sister and not be focused on one person. I think Celibacy is best taken as it is; I will and I am slowly accepting the brutal hard and cold fact of celibacy; whether its for me or not is a different matter. I feel that the other opportunity that God gave me, pursuing a great grad school is a waste rather than a sacrifice. Yet at the same time the Chaldeans are in great need of Priests, but then again which rite in the Catholic Church isn't? Thanks for your prayers, prayers are the way, always the way. Anyways, I know Lent starts in the Latin Rite on Wednesday, today was the Chaldean Rite's first day. Have a Great and fruitful Lent! Gabr-el 03:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gabr-el - saying "yes" to God is a good thing. You are going to make a great priest! NancyHeisetalk 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no pressure then hey!? May God guide the path so that I see it but keep it as open to take credit for it! Have a great Lent. Thank goodness Jesus ate fish after he was resurrected or else we wouldn't be able to eat sea food on Fridays either! Gabr-el 05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here! Here! (Just finished a fish dinner with husband, kids and my dad)NancyHeisetalk 02:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy. Do you have time to look at the Catholic social teaching article? It is being re-assessed with regard to references etc, and needs a wider range of sourcing. See the talk page. Are you able to help on this? Xandar 23:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Xandar, I teach my class tonight and Im still getting ready for it. I'll try to help out later in the week as Im busy all day tomorrow. I hope you get the help you need and I appreciate your tremendous help and improvement on the Catholic articles. If you weren't around they might all be a ridiculous mess. I hope Wikipedia appreciates you! NancyHeisetalk 18:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement on the Catholic Church arbitration request[edit]
Please note that there is a 500 word limit on the request for arbitration page. That includes your initial statement and replies to others. Yours currently stands at over 1500 words. Please shorten it so it is below 500 words as soon as possible. Regards, RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptions are quite frequently allowed, and this case is much too complex to summarize in 500 words; 800 seems a reasonable limit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
500 words is ample. As this case is likely to attract a lot of commentators, it's especially important to enforce the word count. Should you require more words, you can create a page in your userspace and link to it on the main arbitration page. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. I've substantially trimmed my response by moving text here and providing links in the arbitration. It's now about the same size as the other responders' statements. NancyHeisetalk 04:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Hesperian offers no links to support his assertions and that is because we have never supported using such a source or engaged in such a battle.
He is speaking about the section of the article entitled "Origin and Mission" where we discuss the various points of view held by scholars. We encountered Harmakheru last November who tried to make us eliminate all mention of scholars that supported the Church's view of its own history. He did not like our sources so we changed them (full story with links to discussions on article talk page here [2]). Karanacs suggested the present wording cited to our present sources which were supplied by me.[3].
That section of the article has been thoroughly discussed and reviewed and remained relatively unchanged through the last FAC, peer review and good article reassessment all of which saw many of Wikipedia's best editors involved.
Here is that section per the last FAC [4] Here are the FAC editors and their comments many by frequent and respected FAC editors and reviewers like Ealdgyth and LingNut who supported the page and sources for FA. [5]
Here is the same section after the last peer review [6] Here are the peer reviewers which included Karanacs, Ealdgyth and Dweller among others [7]
Here is that same section per the Good Article Reassment review [8] Here are the good article reassessors [9] - note that neither I nor Xandar voted in this reassessment.
As you can see the section never uses the source Hesperian alleges and to this day is in much the same form as its been for the past two years, here's the section as of this writing [10]
Hesperian provided a link to the article talk page where I provide an 1840's googlebooks source that I never proposed using as a source in the article. I posted it to prove a point that there were scholars in other centuries who agreed with the Church's position of its own origins.
After that post, I went on to provide many highly respected modern scholarly sources that were agreed to be used in the article to support the assertion that some scholars agree with the Church's position of its own origins. [11], [12], [13], [14] which led Karanacs to propose the suggested wording we eventually used [15] that included my newly supplied sources as well as some previously supplied ones.
Hesperian's accusation here is an example of what happens often on this article's talk page. Our efforts to make the article meet WP:NPOV are not always well received by those who are often astonished that scholars say what they say about the Church. Instead of noticing that these are expert historians telling the story, those of us who are trying to include solidly referenced facts cited to multiple WP:RS sources that meet the highest standards of WP:Reliable source examples get accused of POV pushing.
Another example of this is our attempt to include information on the condoms controversy. The Church has been widely criticized in the media for its stance on condoms - particularly where people in Africa are dying of AIDS. This is such a notable controversy that just googling Catholic Church, Africa and condoms will get many hits to the world's most reliable news organizations. The article included mention of the controversy but it does not mention that a leading AIDS researcher, scientist and professor at Harvard came out in defense of the Pope's statement regarding condoms. I brought several references to the talk page for discussion but was instantly accused of POV pushing - actual statement by Haldraper was "quick lets get some pro-Catholic apologia into the article". [16] Here's another example as well [17]
I have previously complained about Karanacs misuse of power as an admin and FAC assistant [18][19] and her tendency to use this power to disrupt the progress of the article's talk page[20],[21] in a way that bullies those who do not agree with her preferred point of view. I see this arbitration as another example of this misuse of power.
Evidence of our problems with Karanacs behaviour on the page[edit]
Karanacs has not exhauted all other forms of dispute resolution. She has not proposed a content RFC or user RFC's against the most vile contributors. Her suggestions for more sources and different approaches were welcomed by me and Xandar [22] She has not proposed anything new since this post. I am not sure why, all of a sudden there is a need for arbitration when she has not proposed any new text to go with her suggested new sources.
Neither I, nor Xandar have mistreated other editors on the page (note zero diffs in initial complaint) but have persistently and patiently had to endure insulting attacks by others - now including this arbitration. Here's where Karanacs accused me of canvassing [23], here she accused me of plagiarism at a Catholic Church FAC [24], here another editor tried to comment about Karanacs behavior against me but their comment was deleted by SandyGeorgia [25]
My edits to the article in the past three months[edit]
I edited the article on Feb. 12, Jan 30, 17, 11, Dec 11, 9, and 7th. Most of my edits were minor copyedits, two restored the agreed note resolved at the above mentioned mediation that Septentrionalis/PMAnderson eliminated without any discussion on the talk page. The rest were per the talk page discussion agreements or to make a sentence match the source since I have most of the sources and some people change sentences by adding material that is not in the cited reference. These are all the edits I have made to the article in the past three months - a total of 24 [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]
I guess I was trying to say that since people came in and "outvoted" several editors, that they felt they could enter their changes despite obvious pov, or, etc. Would a clarification be in order? I suspect no one is reading my remarks BTW, but will be glad to revise them if that seems like a good idea. Student7 (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should clarify because I was not sure what you meant. Thanks for commenting. NancyHeisetalk 19:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw this while I was here for something else ... Will you all ever understand that wiki is not a "vote", the only part of Wiki that is a "vote" are things like RFA and ArbCom elections, and cease pinging people to "vote"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was uncivil, and worse, untrue and unkind. Further, admins have no "special powers" other than things like protecting articles from edit wars and vandalism and blocking editors who routinely vandalize, or are uncivil and fail to assume good faith about other editors. Please cease the poisoning of the atmospshere at Catholic Church, the relentless "us vs them" mentality, the ownership, and allow editors to work in peace. I highly suggest that you re-read the RFC on you, and take some of it on board. The article talk page will remain toxic until you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link you identify as incivility is a thank you note, telling Tom exactly the honest truth about the article. I never named names except the one admin (Richard) I noted as being exceptionally good. How does my omission of Karanacs constitute incivility? The purpose of having admins is ultimately to help Wikipedia. I have not experienced Karanacs being helpful but exactly the opposite. I have kindly told her why and should not be harrassed for doing so because telling her is meant to help her be a better admin. Karanacs is more than just an admin, she is also a FAC assistant and her input carries an unspoken weight with other editors. Septentrionalis has a post asking her when the arbcom will start so I can get banned - her efforts somehow communicated this to him and she should know that she just encourages editors like this who bring no sources to the page but just engage in venom spewing. This creates a "battleground mentality". NancyHeisetalk 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary makes it clear you were talking about Karanacs, and there have been precious few other admins weighing in there. Please read WP:AGF; your failure to AGF with Karanacs, and anyone else you consider "anti-Catholic" is nothing short of astounding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary for this edit is blank [50]. After Karanacs violated WP:assume good faith and accused me of personally attacking her - just for thanking Tom - I moved the comment to Tom's talk page out of respect for her. Sandy, you are really way out of line in all of this. This really was none of your business until you made it so. NancyHeisetalk 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. Those halibut are amazing! "Even your attitude is right in line with those who come here with a chip on their shoulder about the Church and rant that..." (somewhere on the talk page, 2 Mar 10) - We're going to need to move away from this kind of thing, so we can keep it about issues and avoid people and their motivations. Tom HarrisonTalk 00:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In her statement to the arbcom committee, Sandy says "I have watched through five FACs as dozens of editors who offered to help resolve issues at Catholic Church have been chased off by the ownership, battleground mentality, failure to understand consensus or NPOV, and failure to assume good faith" Sandy knows that two of our FAC's resulted in restarts so we have only put the article up for FAC 3 times, not 5 as she states. If you look at the involvment of editors on this article from the beginning through the last FAC you will see an increase in involvment, not less. If you compare the last FAC [51] with the one preceeding it[52], you will see that there was a substantial increase in support votes (25 up from 16 in the previous FAC) and substantial decrease in oppose votes (8 down from 12) the last FAC also produced the following interesting results that conflict with Sandy's statement:
A very experienced, long time Wikipedia editor and one who frequents the FAC pages wrote this about the last FAC [53] which called into question the FAC process itself with regard to the Catholic Church article.
This editor felt that many of the opposes were "non-actionable" [54]
This editor, user:Ling.Nut, said that "Wikipedia's best editors have crawled all over it like a dropped piece of candy" [55] and then supported the article.
Here, Karanacs is asking me to include information that is not in line with what scholarly sources say and I am explaining this to her here [56], she did not have any sources to offer to support the text she wanted me to include in the article.
Here Sandy expresses her personal point of view regarding this article and expresses her personal negative view of me [57] and says that Marskell put up good recommendations that she states "have so far been ignored" when that is proven to be untrue per my conversations with Marskell when we worked together to implement his comments as evidenced here.[58]. She also says that I have rebuffed other editors who have come to help with the page but I am sure no one can provide a diff for that, it is simply not true.
That last FAC [59] also produced these support votes which, as you can see, are not fly by night editors but very involved Wikipedians, many of whom have produced a lot of good articles and FAs:
Of all the opposers, I thought the discussion surrounding Geometry guy's were most representative of what happens most often on our article talk page. These are his comments[60] and my responses [61] yet Sandy states in her arbcom statement "According to Nancy and Xandar, just about anyone who challenges sourcing, neutrality, article naming, article structure, or anything that doesn't accord with their views is "anti-Catholic". I don't think that you will find anyone using the term "anti-Catholic" in describing other editors - I have used the term to describe when I think the article text slants either pro-catholic pov or anti-catholic pov as opposed to neutral pov.
Sandy accuses me of "They constantly ping other editors for "votes", and simply do not understand how consensus works." Well, here's evidence of other editors refuting Karanacs latest canvassing accusation against me [62], with one even providing evidence proving my innocence. I don't know of when I have ever tried to gather votes, if you see the last FAC you will find that I posted a note explaining that I had gathered editors together to vote on various forms of article text for a problem sentence in the article that we could not come to agreement on - that eventually went into mediation, the only mediation for the page and one that was successful. If you care to see my efforts to gather votes, it was to help find consensus, not push a POV because I tried agreeing with one side of the argument first, then the other. When it was obvious that it was a stalemate, that's when I put it up for mediation. Outcome is summarized by the mediator here [63]
Sandy accuses me of "NancyHeise relentlessly accuses Karanacs of abusing her admin or FAC delegate status, and doesn't understand the role of admins vs. editors, or accept that Karanacs' participation in the article is unrelated to her status as FAC delegate or an admin. " I have not "relentlessly" accused. I accused once and have had to repeat it at my RFC and at this arbcom. I did what a normal person does when they think someone is wrong - I told Karanacs.[64] Her response to my honest criticism was to open an RFC on me. (summarized with links here [65]) As you can see, this action served as encouragement to the most uncivil editors on the page [66] which were never told by Karanacs that their behaviour could be improved until she considered opening an arbcom. When Karanacs abused her position as a FAC delegate to gather consensus about a contentious issue on the Catholic Church page by posting a notice on the FAC talk page (where editors there are beholden to her decisions about their articles put of for FAC), I complained about this to the FAC director.[67] Sandy quickly came to Karanacs rescue and suggested that my complaint qualified me for arbcom [68]. I am now wondering, is a regular editor like myself, allowed to tell an admin when they are wrong without getting slapped with an RFC or an arbcom? Are we just supposed to sit quietly and get abused by other editors on the page while the admin and FAC director's assistant not only ignores but encourages this behavior?
Sandy says "notice that Nancy basically refused to participate in the RFC on her, and doesn't seem to have taken any of it on board)" - I thought I did participate. I posted my response [69] welcoming other's comments and participated in the discussion [70]- I virtually left the Catholic Church page in response to those criticisms for the next three months to ascertain if I was really the entire problem and when I found that my absence made no difference [71] in the "battleground" mentality - decided to come back and try again. I find it interesting that after I left the page, no RFC or any action whatsoever was ever taken against Septentrionalis/PMAnderson who persisted in his behavior for the entire time I was gone and then some.
Sandy's belligerance toward me is exemplified in this statement to Tom Harrison on the arbcom page [72]"We've seen large groups of well-intended advisors and admins unable to make any changes in behaviors as entrenched as these in the past". This is not true and I suggest she be asked to provide diffs to evidence where this has ever occured. I recently thanked Tom [73] for being the FIRST admin to come to the page and actually do something to halt the abusiveness. [74] Karanacs took offense [[75]] to my thank you comment that I had originally posted on the Catholic Church talk page as being directed at her when it wasn't so I told her on her talk page. [76] Sandy defended Karanacs further down in that post and threatened to post a comment at this arbcom unless I "ceased my attacks". I did not "attack" Karanacs, I responded to her statement accusing me of personally attacking her [77] and told her what she did wrong.NancyHeisetalk 07:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These responses are posted here instead of the original Arbcom case because of a size limitation requested by RyanPosthewaite [78]. I had moved these responses into my archives when the Arbcom case was denied. Recently, SandyGeorgia opened an ANI on me and listed the closed Arbcom case as one of her complaints.[79] Because the link to my responses to her allegations in that case go directly to my talk page instead of the archive, no one could see my responses by clicking on the link so I have moved them out of archives so they can be found. I will remove these back to archives once the ANI has closed or once Sandy removes her link to the closed Arbcom case. NancyHeisetalk 20:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Hesperian offers no links to support his assertions and that is because we have never supported using such a source or engaged in such a battle.
He is speaking about the section of the article entitled "Origin and Mission" where we discuss the various points of view held by scholars. We encountered Harmakheru last November who tried to make us eliminate all mention of scholars that supported the Church's view of its own history. He did not like our sources so we changed them (full story with links to discussions on article talk page here [80]). Karanacs suggested the present wording cited to our present sources which were supplied by me.[81].
That section of the article has been thoroughly discussed and reviewed and remained relatively unchanged through the last FAC, peer review and good article reassessment all of which saw many of Wikipedia's best editors involved.
Here is that section per the last FAC [82] Here are the FAC editors and their comments many by frequent and respected FAC editors and reviewers like Ealdgyth and LingNut who supported the page and sources for FA. [83]
Here is the same section after the last peer review [84] Here are the peer reviewers which included Karanacs, Ealdgyth and Dweller among others [85]
Here is that same section per the Good Article Reassment review [86] Here are the good article reassessors [87] - note that neither I nor Xandar voted in this reassessment.
As you can see the section never uses the source Hesperian alleges and to this day is in much the same form as its been for the past two years, here's the section as of this writing [88]
Hesperian provided a link to the article talk page where I provide an 1840's googlebooks source that I never proposed using as a source in the article. I posted it to prove a point that there were scholars in other centuries who agreed with the Church's position of its own origins.
After that post, I went on to provide many highly respected modern scholarly sources that were agreed to be used in the article to support the assertion that some scholars agree with the Church's position of its own origins. [89], [90], [91], [92] which led Karanacs to propose the suggested wording we eventually used [93] that included my newly supplied sources as well as some previously supplied ones.
Hesperian's accusation here is an example of what happens often on this article's talk page. Our efforts to make the article meet WP:NPOV are not always well received by those who are often astonished that scholars say what they say about the Church. Instead of noticing that these are expert historians telling the story, those of us who are trying to include solidly referenced facts cited to multiple WP:RS sources that meet the highest standards of WP:Reliable source examples get accused of POV pushing.
Another example of this is our attempt to include information on the condoms controversy. The Church has been widely criticized in the media for its stance on condoms - particularly where people in Africa are dying of AIDS. This is such a notable controversy that just googling Catholic Church, Africa and condoms will get many hits to the world's most reliable news organizations. The article included mention of the controversy but it does not mention that a leading AIDS researcher, scientist and professor at Harvard came out in defense of the Pope's statement regarding condoms. I brought several references to the talk page for discussion but was instantly accused of POV pushing - actual statement by Haldraper was "quick lets get some pro-Catholic apologia into the article". [94] Here's another example as well [95]
I have previously complained about Karanacs misuse of power as an admin and FAC assistant [96][97] and her tendency to use this power to disrupt the progress of the article's talk page[98],[99] in a way that bullies those who do not agree with her preferred point of view. I see this arbitration as another example of this misuse of power.
Evidence of our problems with Karanacs behaviour on the page[edit]
Karanacs has not exhauted all other forms of dispute resolution. She has not proposed a content RFC or user RFC's against the most vile contributors. Her suggestions for more sources and different approaches were welcomed by me and Xandar [100] She has not proposed anything new since this post. I am not sure why, all of a sudden there is a need for arbitration when she has not proposed any new text to go with her suggested new sources.
Neither I, nor Xandar have mistreated other editors on the page (note zero diffs in initial complaint) but have persistently and patiently had to endure insulting attacks by others - now including this arbitration. Here's where Karanacs accused me of canvassing [101], here she accused me of plagiarism at a Catholic Church FAC [102], here another editor tried to comment about Karanacs behavior against me but their comment was deleted by SandyGeorgia [103]
My edits to the article in the past three months[edit]
I edited the article on Feb. 12, Jan 30, 17, 11, Dec 11, 9, and 7th. Most of my edits were minor copyedits, two restored the agreed note resolved at the above mentioned mediation that Septentrionalis/PMAnderson eliminated without any discussion on the talk page. The rest were per the talk page discussion agreements or to make a sentence match the source since I have most of the sources and some people change sentences by adding material that is not in the cited reference. These are all the edits I have made to the article in the past three months - a total of 24 [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]
In her statement to the arbcom committee, Sandy says "I have watched through five FACs as dozens of editors who offered to help resolve issues at Catholic Church have been chased off by the ownership, battleground mentality, failure to understand consensus or NPOV, and failure to assume good faith" Sandy knows that two of our FAC's resulted in restarts so we have only put the article up for FAC 3 times, not 5 as she states. If you look at the involvment of editors on this article from the beginning through the last FAC you will see an increase in involvment, not less. If you compare the last FAC [128] with the one preceeding it[129], you will see that there was a substantial increase in support votes (25 up from 16 in the previous FAC) and substantial decrease in oppose votes (8 down from 12) the last FAC also produced the following interesting results that conflict with Sandy's statement:
A very experienced, long time Wikipedia editor and one who frequents the FAC pages wrote this about the last FAC [130] which called into question the FAC process itself with regard to the Catholic Church article.
This editor felt that many of the opposes were "non-actionable" [131]
This editor, user:Ling.Nut, said that "Wikipedia's best editors have crawled all over it like a dropped piece of candy" [132] and then supported the article.
Here, Karanacs is asking me to include information that is not in line with what scholarly sources say and I am explaining this to her here [133], she did not have any sources to offer to support the text she wanted me to include in the article.
Here Sandy expresses her personal point of view regarding this article and expresses her personal negative view of me [134] and says that Marskell put up good recommendations that she states "have so far been ignored" when that is proven to be untrue per my conversations with Marskell when we worked together to implement his comments as evidenced here.[135]. She also says that I have rebuffed other editors who have come to help with the page but I am sure no one can provide a diff for that, it is simply not true.
That last FAC [136] also produced these support votes which, as you can see, are not fly by night editors but very involved Wikipedians, many of whom have produced a lot of good articles and FAs:
Of all the opposers, I thought the discussion surrounding Geometry guy's were most representative of what happens most often on our article talk page. These are his comments[137] and my responses [138] yet Sandy states in her arbcom statement "According to Nancy and Xandar, just about anyone who challenges sourcing, neutrality, article naming, article structure, or anything that doesn't accord with their views is "anti-Catholic". I don't think that you will find anyone using the term "anti-Catholic" in describing other editors - I have used the term to describe when I think the article text slants either pro-catholic pov or anti-catholic pov as opposed to neutral pov.
Sandy accuses me of "They constantly ping other editors for "votes", and simply do not understand how consensus works." Well, here's evidence of other editors refuting Karanacs latest canvassing accusation against me [139], with one even providing evidence proving my innocence. I don't know of when I have ever tried to gather votes, if you see the last FAC you will find that I posted a note explaining that I had gathered editors together to vote on various forms of article text for a problem sentence in the article that we could not come to agreement on - that eventually went into mediation, the only mediation for the page and one that was successful. If you care to see my efforts to gather votes, it was to help find consensus, not push a POV because I tried agreeing with one side of the argument first, then the other. When it was obvious that it was a stalemate, that's when I put it up for mediation. Outcome is summarized by the mediator here [140]
Sandy accuses me of "NancyHeise relentlessly accuses Karanacs of abusing her admin or FAC delegate status, and doesn't understand the role of admins vs. editors, or accept that Karanacs' participation in the article is unrelated to her status as FAC delegate or an admin. " I have not "relentlessly" accused. I accused once and have had to repeat it at my RFC and at this arbcom. I did what a normal person does when they think someone is wrong - I told Karanacs.[141] Her response to my honest criticism was to open an RFC on me. (summarized with links here [142]) As you can see, this action served as encouragement to the most uncivil editors on the page [143] which were never told by Karanacs that their behaviour could be improved until she considered opening an arbcom. When Karanacs abused her position as a FAC delegate to gather consensus about a contentious issue on the Catholic Church page by posting a notice on the FAC talk page (where editors there are beholden to her decisions about their articles put of for FAC), I complained about this to the FAC director.[144] Sandy quickly came to Karanacs rescue and suggested that my complaint qualified me for arbcom [145]. I am now wondering, is a regular editor like myself, allowed to tell an admin when they are wrong without getting slapped with an RFC or an arbcom? Are we just supposed to sit quietly and get abused by other editors on the page while the admin and FAC director's assistant not only ignores but encourages this behavior?
Sandy says "notice that Nancy basically refused to participate in the RFC on her, and doesn't seem to have taken any of it on board)" - I thought I did participate. I posted my response [146] welcoming other's comments and participated in the discussion [147]- I virtually left the Catholic Church page in response to those criticisms for the next three months to ascertain if I was really the entire problem and when I found that my absence made no difference [148] in the "battleground" mentality - decided to come back and try again. I find it interesting that after I left the page, no RFC or any action whatsoever was ever taken against Septentrionalis/PMAnderson who persisted in his behavior for the entire time I was gone and then some.
Sandy's belligerance toward me is exemplified in this statement to Tom Harrison on the arbcom page [149]"We've seen large groups of well-intended advisors and admins unable to make any changes in behaviors as entrenched as these in the past". This is not true and I suggest she be asked to provide diffs to evidence where this has ever occured. I recently thanked Tom [150] for being the FIRST admin to come to the page and actually do something to halt the abusiveness. [151] Karanacs took offense [[152]] to my thank you comment that I had originally posted on the Catholic Church talk page as being directed at her when it wasn't so I told her on her talk page. [153] Sandy defended Karanacs further down in that post and threatened to post a comment at this arbcom unless I "ceased my attacks". I did not "attack" Karanacs, I responded to her statement accusing me of personally attacking her [154] and told her what she did wrong.NancyHeisetalk 07:
Sandy, can you please point out to me what you think is inappropriate about my post? I provided the appropriate information to the editors who can not tell what is happening in the poll section. There is no comparison for them to see what to support or not. I provided the two versions that are under consideration and I think that is a necessary part of the message that Karanacs strangely left out. NancyHeisetalk 01:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you can follow up at Xandar's page; there's no reason to make Tom chase his tail, since clearly neither you nor Xandar will read and understand canvassing. Perhaps someone else will be able to get through to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, what has gotten through to me about you and Karanacs is similar to what is explained on this fine wikipedia page: Bullying. NancyHeisetalk 01:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, you, too, can wear down the patience of a saint. Do you ever read anything anyone types? Please read the explanations of canvassing already given on xandar's page, or actually read the canvassing page. You should not post something to pre-influence opinions of uninvolved editors: you should let them come to the talk page, to the article, and see what is there. You clearly tried to influence opinions before they came to the talk page. You continue to be in ignorance of basic wiki policies and guidelines, and then to accuse other good faith editors of wrongdoing, simply because you won't apparently read and understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I was just trying to help the editors there see the two versions being considered since your post on the Catholic Church talk page does not give them a comparison and one has to read a very long dissertation to discover what is happening. Simplicity is what I was trying to acheive but somehow that got interpreted as Canvassing by SandyGeorgia. NancyHeisetalk 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what you were trying to do, but it's best left unsaid. If any editors are sincerely interested in the article, they will go through the talk page line by line just like I did when I first came. That's a pretty pathetic excuse you just gave me.UberCryxic(talk) 02:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what you were trying to do, but it's best left unsaid. If any editors are sincerely interested in the article, they will go through the talk page line by line just like I did when I first came. That's a pretty pathetic excuse you just gave me.UberCryxic(talk) 02:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I can be more clear, see below: NancyHeisetalk 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Straw poll being conducted on Catholic Church talk page[edit]
The Catholic Church talk page is conducting a straw poll here [155] to decide on a new version that will drastically eliminate about 50% of the information on the page including the Origin and Mission section and the Cultural Influence section and much of everything else.
The new, shorter version is here [156] and the older, more informative version is here [157] A support vote will make the page become the shorter version, an oppose vote will reject that proposition.
I attempted to convey the above information to the folks on Wikiproject Catholicism and Wikiproject Christianity so they could understand what was happening there and could see the two versions and come to the page and offer their comments. Karanacs had posted a note on that page already but did not provide any information at all in her post about the two differing versions, offering only a link that provided one version. I felt that this was not neutral so I attempted to correct the oversight. When I did so, SandyGeorgia reverted my edit. These are my edits [158][159] and this is the note posted by Karanacs.[160]. NancyHeisetalk 02:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
My edits have soley been on talk pages today. Strictly participating in discussions related to the Catholic Church page. I posted a notice on the Wikiproject Catholicism page that supplemented a non-neutral note posted by Karanacs by providing links to the appropriate pages for which a straw poll was being conducted. This was disputed by SandyGeorgia at ANI where I also complained about her abuse of power. [162]. I believe this block is another abuse of power by an admin who has a longstanding friendship with Karanacs and SandyGeorgia because it blocks me for simply trying to provide a neutral note where a non-neutral note was left by Karanacs.
Decline reason:
Your style of editing is overly aggressive (even tendentious, and you fail to see that the notice you put on the page (in addition to your accusations of conspiracy and abuse, etc.) was wrong. If you can recognize these things and declare that you will make a conscious effort to correct them in the future, I think you would stand a better chance of being unblocked. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|An administrator at ANI has expressed her reasons why my block was inappropriate here [163] Please take a minute to see that I was unjustly blocked for doing something Wikipedia allows me to do. My post was reverted by SandyGeorgia whose continued unchecked belligerence toward me is exemplified in the following section of that post. She makes constant accusations against me without providing any proof, no diffs, no examples - how is this not considered disruptive? How is her reversal of my edit on Wikiproject Catholicism not considered disruptive?}}
Oh, good, everyone's a friend of Sandy. I believe this block is another abuse of power by an admin who has a longstanding friendship with Karanacs and SandyGeorgia ... Sarek, have we met? You might want to strike the false allegation if you want to get unblocked, Nancy. I am so sick of reading these kinds of allegations. Apparently Karanacs and I run the entire Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize to SarekofVulcan for my unfounded accusation. I should not have made such an accusation without backing it up with a link to evidence supporting such an accusation. I apologize. NancyHeisetalk 05:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed your unblock request so that the decline doesn't have to stay visible on the page. Please read WP:NOTTHEM before refiling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
An administrator at ANI has expressed her reasons why my block was inappropriate here [164] Please take a minute to see that I was unjustly blocked for doing something Wikipedia allows me to do.
Decline reason:
There is significant history and discussion here, but it pretty much boils down to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. I recognize that you are a valuable long-term contributor to this project, and that caring deeply for content can be a very good thing. Still, your recent edits have crossed the line into disruptive editing. Please be more careful in future to recognize and respect the consensus-building process. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thanks for fixing that -- you can remove the first version if you want. I still have to take issue with it, though -- the non-neutral notice on the project talkpage was only part of the reason you were blocked. The resulting AN/I discussion showed some very tendentious editing from you, verging on harassment, and that was the primary reason for the block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek, thank you for considering and for your comments. It amazes me that when I defend myself against Sandy's accusations I am labeled disruptive but her unfounded accusations and actions against me are not. Please see her comments here [165] and in the linked arbcom case that was denied.[166] She rants about me and makes the most awful accusations but nowhere will you find a link to examples of my behavior or the "dozens of editors" who she says I have "driven away". On the contrary, I provide links to support my edits complaining about her behaviour toward me or to prove her accusations are wrong (example [167]) She goes on an on about how awful the Catholic Church FACs are but if you read the 25 support votes (9 opposes) they are all of Wikipedia's finest editors, the page incresingly gets more supports each time we go to FAC but you would never know that from reading her posts. NancyHeisetalk 06:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, FAC is not a vote. Even if it were, 9 opposes is a record for an FAC nomination, and this particular article consistently draws that type of opposition. Karanacs (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be very interested to hear how the comment I left on the WikiProject talk pages was non-neutral. It simply stated that there was a proposal to make a change and imput was welcome. Karanacs (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She has said on ANI that it was not neutral because it didn't include links to both versions. I question the usefulness of continuing this discussion here. Tom HarrisonTalk 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I hadn't read through ANI yet when I left this message (lot to catch up on this morning) - my apologies, Nancy, for asking for information that you had already provided. I should have done my research better. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make accusations like this lightly, but I noticed this "vote" at the Catholic Church straw poll from an anonymous editor who has never edited Wikipedia before. The IP is located in Florida, which is where you live. IF, and I remind you again I don't know for sure, you are encouraging friends and relatives to pay a visit to the talk page of the Catholic Church article, I would stop coming to Wikipedia from now on because you are clearly pursuing the wrong path.UberCryxic(talk) 19:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been accused of so many things by you Sandy and always without proof. I request that someone please use checkuser to see that I am not meatpuppeting or sockpuppeting. I also request SandyGeorgia to please provide diffs to support her accusations against me whenever and wherever she makes them. NancyHeisetalk 21:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know for a fact that you're not sockpuppeting here, so I have no need for CU. What can never be known is whether you're meat puppeting (ie. telling your buddies to go and participate in the straw poll) because that you could do through phone, email, AIM, and a million other communication channels. No one can prove absolutely that you're meat puppeting, true, but it just looks that way. Looks can be deceptive and I'm not reporting you to the proper authorities, so relax. I just wanted to give you a warning in the event that you did this.UberCryxic(talk) 21:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't accuse me if you don't have proof. NancyHeisetalk 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You also might want to consider that with 3000-4000 people viewing the page daily, there might be some people wondering why the page is protected. 25% of all the people who live in Florida are Catholic. Maybe some of those people will become active Wikipedians as a result of our efforts to rebuild the page. That's usually how the page attracts newcomers anyway, someone either likes or doesn't like what is happening and finally decides to jump in. I certainly hope that is what is happening. Whoever the anon was, perhaps someone could have left a message for him/her inviting them to join Wikipedia and offer to help them learn. That would have been more welcoming than an instant revert I think. NancyHeisetalk 21:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just for the record, in front of God, whom I love and try to his commandments - I don't know anyone who lives in Indialantic, Florida. I did not even know there was a town named Indialantic in Florida and I thought I had been all over the State. NancyHeisetalk 21:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's so much distrust within wikpedia right now. FWIW I don't agree with the one week blocks, far too Draconian, but something has to change with the approach to the RCC article. --MalleusFatuorum 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I don't know if you've seen Geometry's Guy's question at Talk:Catholic_Church#GAR_Advice. Since you were responsible for bringing this article to GA before, you deserve a voice in this discussion. If you have a comment to that question, I'll proxy it for you on the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fairness of asking for my input. I read the thread and I agree with Johnbod. Because of Geometry Guy's involvement in the FAC process, particularly his non-neutrally worded and lengthy oppose vote, I think that he would not be viewed as a neutral candidate. There must be other editors who have not been involved with CC who can do this. NancyHeisetalk 21:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful also for your input. Times have changed since then, but I will try to find other editors to comment. Geometry guy 21:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, its not just for me you know. If you delist the article you will be accused of bias and people will be able to point to your oppose vote. Do we have a Wikipedia page on CYA? NancyHeisetalk 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do it seems :) Don't worry about me, though. I'm no stranger to being challenged. A big difference between GA status and FA status is that the former is much more malleable, so mistakes can be rectified more easily. Many individual reviews and reassessments are imperfect: the aim is to achieve consensus through multiple reviews and reassessments. I hope we can find a comfortable consensus here. Geometry guy 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for transparency, here's the diff where I pasted the comments [169]. Karanacs (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just for the record, I will support delisting the article if Uber's version is inserted. Johnbod said it best on the talk page but I will reiterate here that his version has serious factual and sourcing errors that will need many hours to correct. If anyone were asking for my opinion, which they aren't, I would use the existing article and come to a consensus agreement about what to trim on the talk page. NancyHeisetalk 22:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tom has unprotected the page and declared the straw poll essentially invalid. Both my standards, as well as Xandar's (see his talk page in a request to be unblocked), called for a majority vote, and the majority has spoken. I look forward to working with you when the block expires. See my detailed suggestions about how to further improve the article in the talk page. Obviously I advise that you do not go back to the previous version.UberCryxic(talk) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I'm sorry Uber but I do not believe I have the time to devote that it will take to correct your version both in factual errors and sourcing errors. I think a better solution would have been to allow the previous version to stand and then come to consensus on the talk page about what to delete. I don't have a lot of respect for the way you have handled the situation. NancyHeisetalk 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yorkshirian and I have struck a new compromise leaving everything from my version intact except History, which regains its former content. However, it still remains the first section. I wanted to bring this to your attention because this is the new working consensus.
If my behavior has been in any way aggressive or corrosive to the spirit of Wikipedia, then I apologize profusely. I hold no grudges against you and I actually want to work with you to improve the article further.UberCryxic(talk) 01:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uber, I am blocked until sometime next week. There are a lot of other editors who participated in the straw poll with support votes I'm sure they will be wanting to spend their time improving the article with you. In addition, a concerted effort was made to get me out of the article with lengthy dissertations by SandyGeorgia attesting to my inabilities so I think it may be best to let others have at it for a while. I am interested to see what turns out to be their preferred version of article. NancyHeisetalk 01:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering opening a mediation regarding page size, content and page layout concerns since the straw poll was essentially a deadlock. I have watched the changes being made to the page since then and none of them reflects the concerns of the other approximately 50% of pollsters who opposed. We were able to achieve positive results with the last mediation, I am hopeful we can do it again. NancyHeisetalk 16:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I didn't see "a concerted effort...to get [you] out of the article]", although it is in your perogative to step back if you choose (lots of other needy Catholicism-related articles that could definitely use improvement). When I looked at the straw poll, it seemed much of the opposition was related to deficits in Uber's version of the history section. As a compromise, the history section was restored from the previous version, which should have addressed many of the concerns. Since that compromise was reached, 7 editors - from various positions - have edited the article harmoniously, and it will be interesting, as you say, to see how the article develops. I think mediation would be premature at this point; we need to first identify and see if we can resolve the deficiencies with this version of the article. If we can't, then mediation might be necessary. Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs, without a solid consensus and against roughly half of the pollsters who voted in a poll open for only a day where the Wikiproject Catholicism and Christianity people were not properly notified in a way that they would understand what was happening - You, Uber and Haldraper have unilaterally decided to change the article and toss significant amounts of key, scholarly referenced information. You have created some serious factual inaccuracies and reworded sentences that now do not conform to the cited sources. The article that was once a GA, is now being demoted because of this intransigence and what could arguably be seen as POV pushing. I think the article needs a POV tag at the top since all of the information about its contribution to human society has been eliminated. However, Ling Nut made a proposition that I thought was a good idea. He commented on the GA review [170] and suggested that the article be reverted to the last stable form which he says was after the last FAC and begin from there. I concur with that because I can attest to the accuracy of the article at that point. All of the cited sentences at that point matched the references. NancyHeisetalk 16:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giant reverts at this point would be a very Bad Idea, IMHO. Work with what we have going forward.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek, I am not reverting, I am presently blocked by you. Although this block has been contested by several admins [171][172] at the ANI opened by SandyGeorgia and by other editors contesting its length like Malleus Fatuorum [173], I have not requested to be unblocked again because I think that it is best to let these others have their way and their say with the article for now. I want to see what they will do with it, really there's no hurry. Because Uber indicated he was finished, I have expressed here that what has been done so far is inadequate and that a way forward could be to take the issue to mediation - as we have done before - successfully. Ling Nut is the person who has suggested a revert, I am passing that information along and agreeing with him because of the errors created by the rewrite, reorganization and editing wars that have gone on these past few months since the Harmakheru/Karanacs/Nancy's RFC event last October. The article had been very stable before then. NancyHeisetalk 18:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather suprised to find you blocked. I hope this doesn;t sound rude of me, but may I inquire as to the reason for the block? - an unlogged in TomStar81 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.230.54.146 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that Sandy would stalk Nancy so often and feel compelled to comment and add such a sarcastic comment. Even after she has been warned to stop. What does it take before this editor stops stalking and attacking Nancy? --StormRider 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom and Storm Rider, there are several admins who have expressed their opposition to the block at the ANI here [174] and here[175] as well as another editor here on my talk page [176]. Sandy's behavior is also being questioned at that ANI [177][178]. Both StormRider and user:Richardshusr[179] have asked her to stop. Not long ago, she participated in an Arbcom opened by Karanacs that listed myself and Xandar as troublesome editors.[180] I responded to the arbs by listing her complaints and provided diffs to prove they were unfounded, see [181]The arbs dismissed the case. Since then she has complained about the arbs on her very activly watched talk page [182] and continues to complain about me at the ANI even though I am blocked and only responding to people's questions on my own talk page. NancyHeisetalk 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly at lost over this one; I consider myself a good judge of character on account of the moving that my family has done over the year, and you and Sandy both strike me as responsible, upstanding, and trustworthy people. While I can see both sides of the matter, I think this has quickly ballooned beyond what both you were trying in good faith to do and what Sandy in good faith was cautioning you against. I do not think that any blame can rightly be assigned here, but I am concerned over the situation, and feel that the two of you owe it to each other to work this out. I would hate for Wikipedia to loose either one of you over something of this nature. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I am a bit stunned at you and Xandar being blocked. Relgious topics are some of the most difficult articles to edit because of the strong emotions they engender. It appears at present that another group has the upper hand. In a more positive light, they have put themselves in a position where they must perform. It will be interesting to see what they produce and how well they support their edits with references. It is almost comical how now you have Sandy complaining that there are too many references, quotes, etc. and that they need to be deleted. Delete references and all you get opinion.
When you come back I suggest that you do not revert the article, but use their edits. Demand that edits be supported by the references. If not, then the edit is changed or deleted. There a many ways to skin a cat and their work can now be put under the microscope.
As far as Sandy goes, I have warned her once for attacking you. As you know I do not have a great deal of time to monitor Wikipedia and in particular Sandy's constant barrage of rude, impolite edits that focus on you rather than content. Her behavior must change or she will be blocked. I am confident that this degree of flagrant abuse is not acceptable to Wikipedia. --StormRider 18:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Storm Rider. I find you, Nancy, being blocked quite surprising. Of course admins should consider blocking ubiquitous commentators like SandyGeorgia. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Sandy is still compiling complaints against me at the ANI even though I am blocked and simply responding to people's questions to me on my talk page. If you want to add your voice to the ANI see [183] her continuing complaints are listed at the bottom. NancyHeisetalk 19:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had archived my responses to the Arbcom when the case was closed recently. However, because SandyGeorgia has listed the closed Arbcom in her complaints about me at the ongoing ANI [184], I am replacing these responses on the top of my talk page. I have to do this because if you link to my response on the arbcom, it just goes to my talk page, not to the actual archived response. I will remove these when the ANI is closed or when Sandy decides to delist the closed Arbcom case. NancyHeisetalk 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, I commented a few times yesterday on the Catholic Church dispute as an uninvolved admin. I know this is an article you've put a lot of work into, but I'm here to ask you to consider stepping back from it and its talk page for a period—I would suggest three months. The article has been a troubled one, and you've made 4,412 edits to it in just over two years, and 2,644 to the talk page. I think this is the highest concentration of edits I've seen from one editor to one article. I don't see this as healthy, either for yourself or for the article, and that's especially true when it's an issue you have a strong POV about, in an area you edit in almost exclusively, and where the article's the subject of a lot of dispute.
This isn't a formal topic ban; it's just a request that you're free to ignore. But I think if you continue to edit that page in the same way, at some point a topic ban is likely to be formalized. If you can find it within yourself to step back voluntarily, there's a good chance you'll be able to continue editing it in the future. I know stepping back isn't easy because I've had to do it myself a few times from articles I cared about. But the fact is that the page has lots of issues (it's difficult even to get it to load), and they have to be sorted out. Perhaps you could let me know how you feel about taking a break from it. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 21:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain it's altogether reasonable to expect someone to just walk away from an article they have such an investment in, but I'd agree a little time away from it might be refreshing at this point. If I were Nancy I'd think about working up some of the daughter articles; there's such a lot of work needed on lots of Catholic articles. That might make it easier to see what needs to be kept in the main article and what can be farmed out. Nancy, feel free to ignore this suggestion as well if you like.
PS. Don't worry about your block Nancy, "battle scars is all", as someone once said to me. I don't trust anyone who hasn't got a good-sized block log, and you've got a way to go to catch me up. --MalleusFatuorum 21:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to force myself to step back from articles a few times that I'd invested a lot in. It's upsetting, but it can also be liberating, because when you've written a lot for one page you start to feel it's your own responsibility to keep it decent. But for how long are you meant to do that? The rest of your life? :) So it can actually be quite a good feeling to take it off your watchlist for a bit and say, "okay, over to the community now, I'm done." And pay no need to Malleus about your block log, Nancy. He's just a bad boy who's trying to get you into trouble. :) SlimVirginTALKcontribs 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I think you know how much I respect your work. The effort that you have exerted on the Catholic Church article is monumental in scope. I know that your one desire has been to make this article the best that it can be. I also have worked with Slim in the past (albeit some time ago) and I trust her implicitly to be objective. I do not favor the block, but I do favor the recommendation to voluntarily step back for a period of time. The period may and may not be three months, but at least allow for the current round of editing to settle. There is no such thing as a final article on Wikipedia and no data will be lost. Allow these editors to put forth their best efforts. I know this request will be very difficult for you, but consider the pros and cons of it. You will find that the cons are temporary and insignificant. They are very close to turning the other cheek. Please consider it. --StormRider 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind advice which I am taking seriously to heart. I have others who have encouraged me otherwise so I will do what I always do when I don't know what to do - I'll ask God what he would prefer. I have a nice long week to pray about it. I would appreciate your prayers for me to know that answer. Thanks. NancyHeisetalk 02:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one can ask more of you. I have learned that it does not matter what happens in life; we have no control over it. However, it does matter greatly how we react to what happens to us. When contention is at its peak we are left to choose to be peace makers. Some times being a peace maker means stepping back and at other times it means listening to those we perceive to be against us. To emulate the example of our Master in all that we do and to seek to do His will fulfills the role of a true disciple. I will respect your decision. His peace be yours, --StormRider 00:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked by Slim Virgin to voluntarily step away from the Catholic Church article for a suggested period of three months. I took this suggestion seriously to heart and have made a decision on how to decide whether I should do this or not. The result will be decided as per below:
A Violation of Due Process Has Occurred at the Catholic Church page[edit]
The Catholic Church article was stable as of the last FAC, per Ling Nut (and myself) [185], I was in the process of incorporating Marskell's FAC comments into the article [186] when it was drawn into a long dispute about the name by two editors who would not agree with a large majority of editors that Catholic Church is the official name of the Church. This was cleared up after a year long mediation which produced a successful agreement[187].
The article continued to be stable for many months thereafter until this past Fall when Harmakheru came to the page insisting that there were no scholars who agreed with the Church's version of its own origins.[188][189] During this debate, Karanacs opened an RFC against me [190] which I felt was improper as it encouraged further incivility on the page since it was directed only at me and did not include PMAnderson or Harmakheru or any of the others who were in need of instruction in WP:civil. [191][192][193][194][195][196]
The RFC produced mixed opinions and was closed. I stepped away from the article for a period of three months [197] just to see if perhaps Karanacs was correct, that maybe I was really the cause of everyone's problems. My time away revealed that I was not [198][199][200][201][202][203]. During this time, no effort was made by any admin on the page to correct the worst behaviors being exhibited by PMAnderson and others. It appeared to me that I could sneeze and get hit with an RFC by Karanacs but others could punch people in the face over and over and never be reprimanded by her at all. This did not seem to me to be the proper conduct for an admin/editor to a Wikipedia page and I complained about this and other infractions I saw in Karanacs behaviour that involved her position as a FAC assistant [[204]- particularly an instance where she took a dispute that was going on at the Catholic Church talk page [205] over to the FAC talk page.[206]to garner support for her position. That would be OK except that she is the FAC assistant and the editors at the FAC talk page are beholden to her decisions to get their FAC's passed. I saw this as an abuse of power and I complained - rightfully I think.
My complaint drew SandyGeorgia into the fray, she vociferously defended Karanacs and increasingly grew more an more belligerant towards me.[207]
When I returned to the CC page after my stint away, Karanacs opened an arbcom case against myself and Xandar. [208]
SandyGeorgia participated in that arbcom and soon after she did, the case was completely denied and closed. [209] She complained on her talk page about the arbs decisions.[210]
Through all of the RFC and arbcom events, the most uncivil elements of the CC page were increasingly encouraged by what they were seeing as steps being taken against me and Xandar so they never changed their tone or attempted to work in a constructive manner on the page - it became impossible to work together.
Ubercycix entered the fray in a most uncivil manner [211] and changed the article completely, invoking WP:Ignore all rules[212], eliminating whole sections and making many undiscussed changes.[213][214] He opened a straw poll, without adequate notification, that was only open for a day,[215] a day in which Xandar and I were blocked for then trying to properly notify interested editors -my block was ultimately deemed inappropriate by several admins and other editors.[216] and here[217][218]. The poll was closed by our uninvolved admin Tom Harrison who left the page in disgust essentially calling the events a ruse to "get Xandar and Nancy" [219]. Since then other editors walked off the page in disgust as well. Since the one day poll, closed prematurely and without appropriate discussion or notification at the appropriate Wikiprojects, produced a slight majority of many previously uninvolved editors, Uber believed that this was a victory and replaced the old page with his version.
Sandy is claiming that all is quiet and nice now that Xandar and I are blocked and these other interested editors are gone. [220] I have been asked not to return.
I have decided that since the old, stable article was replaced with a new version, in what I (and others [221][222][223][224]) agree was a violation of proper procedure; that a new poll should be taken to compare Uber's new article and the old stable version. This poll should be left in place for 7 days (as Tom Harrison originally suggested) and proper notification should be placed on the appropriate Wikiprojects that allows for discussion to be made about the proposed changes without editors getting blocked for holding a discussion as I was. [225][226] To be fair, the new poll should be introduced, conducted and any notifications posted by Tom Harrison. If pollsters prefer Uber's version by a majority vote of over 70%, I will agree to step away from the page. NancyHeisetalk 11:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This summary shows the problems very well: you're still referring to an RFC against you, still don't seem to understand dispute resolution, still don't seem to understand that admin, FAC delegate or admin tools have nothing to do with any of the matters on that page, still don't understand that RFC/Us are on one individual, and still don't understand consensus or that Wiki is not a "vote" nor are supermajorities required (consensus already exists on the article, and you're asking for 80% while editors are busy working collaboratively on improving the clear issues present in all versions of the article?). You also seem to be selectively reading opinions and noticing those only in favor of the position you take, while overlooking the serious issues raised in the RFC/U and arb case. You also don't seem to realize that if you don't take some version of Slim's advice, it is likely that the outcome will be imposed upon you. You also don't seem to understand that Tom harrison took non-neutral positions and is no longer involved, or that you were not blocked for "holding a discussion". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like the best solution to me. I don't know if a poll or an RFC would be more appropriate. I think it would be better for all parties to agree in advance that consensus is to be determined by named, uninvolved individual(s) rather than by a pre-determined percentage. I also think that Nancy and Xandar should have their blocks amended so that they can take part in the discussion.--MoreThings (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that I didn't mean to suggest anything regarding whether or not you continue to participate in editing the article, Nancy. That's completely up to you, of course, and I hope you find a decision you're comfortable with. My comments were just about which version of the article should be used going forward, and for that my own 2p is that it would be better to go with mutually agreeable adjudicators to determine consensus. --MoreThings (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your proposal as entirely reasonable, Nancy. Harmonious editing currently continues on the article, so it would be wrong-headed to do anything to interrupt that. Looking around at the discussions at FAC, GA, and elsewhere, many good editors have said there are serious problems with the version you support.
In addition, while occasional polls are fine, articles can't be written that way, especially not where the discussions are being explicitly used as votes. Here's a poll you organized last October. You called it a vote, and your description of it poisoned the well: "Because Karanacs and Richard are eliminating our consensus text in favor of hiding these important facts, I would like to have a vote here to see what true consensus decides. Please vote Support if you favor our consensus version of text or Oppose if you would like to eliminate these facts altogether." [227] This sounds more like a rallying cry than a poll to establish consensus.
The problem is that you have a strong personal POV in this area, which you're unable or unwilling to put to one side when editing; and you've made 4,600 edits to the article in around 26 months. I urge you again to consider stepping back. If you feel three months is too long, then reduce it by all means, but I believe a period of abstention would be good for you and for the article. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 00:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to asking that Nancy step back for a period, it might also be a good idea to hold an RfC for community input—and to open an RfC page, not simply a straw poll on the talk page. But I'd suggest first allowing the editors who are currently cooperating on the article to continue writing their draft so that the community has two versions to compare. Nancy, one thing you could do is draw up on a user subpage a list of the significant differences between the two, so that people know what to look out for. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 01:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV, I agree with this suggestion.
There should be no problems in finding out what the wider Wikipedia community wants from the Catholic Church article. An RFC offering two different versions would allow us to move forward - with or without me - with a version that has been thoroughly vetted by the multitude of interested parties and put to rest the injustice that was imposed by the last straw poll.
No one is disrupting the current editor's work. They will be allowed to put forth their best effort.
I will put up the version of the article that followed the last FAC with the addition of the agreements reached at the subsequent mediation regarding the name. This version would be representative of the most invovlment of the Wikipedia community to date that has had the most agreement of Wikipedia's best editors.
I will also put up a list of the differences between the two articles as you suggested. Good suggestion by the way. However, I will not be able to do this until my block expires later in the week.
Regarding your comment about my POV straw poll. Yes, I agree, my wording in that straw poll was not neutral. If we hold a straw poll to find out which version of the article is desired by the wider Wikipedia community, we need to have a neutral, uninvolved administrator, perhaps user:Sunray to frame the poll and post appropriate notices. I would hope that a notice would be posted at the appropriate Wikiprojects as well as inform all editors who voted in the last FAC. NancyHeisetalk 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more appropriate to leave notifications at the FAC talk page than on the talk pages of individual editors. Please note also that FAC is not a vote. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, note please that they are called "Requests for Comment; they are not polls or votes. No part of Wiki is a "vote", except maybe ArbCom elections and RFA, to some extent. Also, "This version would be representative of the most invovlment of the Wikipedia community to date that has had the most agreement of Wikipedia's best editors", the failed FACs do not mean these versions had "involvement of the Wiki community"; they mean the community rejected those versions as meeting FA criteria. In those FACs the rejection was quite strong-- perhaps unprecedented at FAC-- both in terms of numbers of opposing editors and in terms of issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, this user, user:Ling.Nut, stated "Wikipedia's best editors have crawled all over it like a dropped piece of candy" [228] and then became one of the 25 experienced Wikipedia editors who supported the article for FA.
There were 9 opposes.
Some editors expressed their concern that many of the opposes were not actionable[229] and another called into question the FAC process itself for this article [230]. I did not express agreement with either position but left with the assumption that I would be given the chance to implement the concerns of the opposers and bring the article back.
I believe that the version I prefer has had more eyes looking at it for a much longer period of time than the version you are offering up. I'm not sure if I agree with Karanacs suggestion above. I think it would be best to leave the decision about who and how to contact the wider Wikipedia community to the independent admin chosen to conduct the poll (my personal opinion is that more notification is better).
I will not be able to make my personal decision to leave for three months if there is no poll - so please hold one even if you also hold an RFC. Thanks. NancyHeisetalk 20:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One editor's opinion does not a fact make; I care greatly for the Nutty Ling, but he is prone to hyperbole.
Nine opposes is extraordinarly high; further, the only reason the FACs ran so long is that canvassing brought in a high number of Supports. I cannot locate the diffs now, but I hope there will be a discussion of any off-Wiki relationships you or your daughter may have. If I recall, my concerns were about someone named Benjamin-something and Student7.
All of the opposes were actionable, or I wouldn't have considered them. I gave detailed writeups on most of the closings. I did not mention canvassing in all of those writeups, wanting to spare embarrassment.
I suggest you put up whatever you think is the best version, regardless of FACs.
They are not polls; they are requests for comments. Wiki is not a vote, and consensus is not based on numbers or percentages. At the root of this ongoing misunderstanding lies my frustration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone wants to see you leave Wiki or the article; you have added value there, and editors in huge numbers want to see you succeed and see the article featured, and most of them will honor you if/when that happens. But I also am not sure that you are understanding that the decision is likely to be made for you, not by you, if the battleground on the article continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, a straw poll and and an RfC boil down to the same thing, namely asking the community for input, so there's no point in holding two, and also no point in holding it prematurely. The current editing needs to be allowed to continue so people can judge its output. If you don't pull back from the article voluntarily, and if you can't find a way to edit it constructively and neutrally, there's a risk you'll face a formal topic ban in future, and perhaps other blocks, but it's up to you. In the meantime, I suggest you work in your user space on producing a version you'd like to see, and a list of the differences between that one and the current one. Then once the current crop of editors feel they have a rough draft of the version they prefer, people can think about whether to open an RfC, either on its own page or on the article talk page. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 07:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin, yes, I will provide a version of the article after my block expires. I think it is best to let the current crop of editors come up with their own version without my input and then hold a straw poll. I would like to have as much community input as possible - to the extent of even advertising it on the mainpage, FAC talk, Wikiproject Catholicism, Wikiproject Christianity, individual notification of all editors who have worked on the article over the past two years and notification of all those who voted in the last FAC if possible. The more eyes the better. Our only purpose is to find that version of the article that most meets the needs of people coming to Wikipedia to find something out about the Church. We can only know that if we have more rather than less input from the Wikipedia community. I am considering opening an Arbcom on the situation that has occured here with regard to my block, your comments above and the way that the current article has emerged through the questionable process described above [231]. Perhaps the arbs can topic ban me or they can address the injustice that I believe has occured here and seems to be continuing. NancyHeisetalk 21:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a wiki-wide RfC might be the way forward. One thing I would urge is that you not get involved in informing editors that it's taking place, because this is one of the areas that's caused you problems in the past, so it would make sense to let others post the notices on the various project pages. Thank you for agreeing to step back for a bit. I know that must have cost you. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 05:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This thing continues to spiral like a hurricane gathering strength. (sort of an apt analogy considering Nancy lives in Florida)
I'm truly sorry that Xandar and Nancy were blocked. I always think that blocks are nasty slaps that no one takes kindly. That said, the effect of the block has been good for the article so as regrettable as they are, I guess they are working out for the ultimate good.
I would not like to see Nancy leave the article even for a "temporary" period of three months. I think three months is too long but perhaps 2 weeks to a month would be healthy for her and for the article.
I'm sorry to see that Nancy continues to disagree with the sentiments expressed on the Talk Page regarding article length and NPOV. I am disappointed that she thinks an RFC will vindicate her and Xandar. (What part of "it's too darn long", does she not understand?) However, it's her right to ask for an RFC and it would probably be wise to get an uninvolved admin to set it up and publicize it. (But, puhleez, not on the Main Page! It takes quite a bit of hubris to even imagine that such an action would be remotely appropriate.)
Nancy, we love you and admire you and we want you back. But, please, get a clue already.
Richard, "get a clue already" is not really a very nice post. I would like to hold an RFC to determine which version of the article is most desired by the Wikipedia community. Since the current article looks nothing like anything I have ever seen in any encyclopedia on the topic of the Catholic Church, I don't think it is me who needs to get a clue. However, since I am an imperfect person, I suspect that there is a chance that the preferred article might possibly be the stub that exists there now but I think that asking the entire Wikipedia community is really the only way to know. I would like to post on the mainpage. Why do we fear what the community thinks? Let's find out what they think of the two versions. Whatever happens though, we need to eliminate phrases like "get a clue" - Richard - you of all people - don't sink so low please, Wikipedia already has too much incivility. NancyHeisetalk 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I'm afraid there aren't many diplomatic or polite ways to phrase it: when you think that an RFC about one Wiki article would ever be posted on the mainpage, well, Richard may be right that you may need to "get a clue", because it has never happened and is unlikely to ever happen. It demonstrates somewhat of the perspective that you may have lost. Having a look at WP:SELF (regarding self references to Wiki in article space) may help; the main page would simply never be used for dispute resolution; it's for our readers. For that, we have normal dispute resolution procedures, which you frequently refer to as being "against" an individual, instead of utilizing the normal and routine procedures on Wiki. I understand Richard is well respected by all, so when he suggests that a cluestick is needed, it seems that he may be worthy of listening to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Nancy that what is currently on the Catholic Church page is not an improvement. Cuttting the article length is one thing, but that cannot be used as an excuse for the non-consensus hacking out swathes of core sourced material - especially without discussion. That flies in the face of all the principles of Wikipedia. I'm not so sure what effect or purpose a simple "poll" would have. An RfC at some point might help establish whether or not anything resembling a consensus exists for the controversial changes. From responses so far, I think it is clear such a consensus does not, and never has existed. However if people climbed out of their trenches and actually co-operated, this could be sorted out quite quickly. I think a desire to "win" and to support "our version" at all costs, has overtaken many people. On wider issues, I've several times offered to go to mediation, where all concerns could be discussed in a calm focusssed atmosphere, but the offer has always been spurned. Xandar 10:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, I came by to wish my favorite Irish editors, Malleus Fatuorum and Ceoil, a Happy St. Patrick's Day! (If I weren't blocked today I would have posted this on your talk pages.) Thank you Malleus for your very sweet note a little further up on my page here - you Irish guys always seem get into trouble and laugh about it later. Maybe Wikipedia just needs a little bigger dose of you - and a bit of green beer : ) Cheers! NancyHeisetalk 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, do you actually mean post on the main page, or are you talking about a watchlist notice? A watchlist notice is the little message that pops up at the top of the page that says something like "Big discussion about X here...". A watchlist notice makes more sense (we don't put dispute resolution on the Main page per se), but generally these types of notices are not made for content disputes, and are instead reserved for more community-wide processes, like guideline or policy discussions. Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have better ideas on how to expose this poll to the wider Wikipedia community, I am certainly open to those ideas. I suggested the main page because part of the fun on Wikipedia is getting people involved and doing something together. We do not have to frame the invitation as a dispute resolution on the main page, we can just simply invite others to come help us make a decision on which type of article is most desirable to the wider Wikipedia community. I would like to do a watch list notice, as well as a main page invitation and also post on the appropriate Wikiprojects. More is better. NancyHeisetalk 01:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here's the info on watchlist notices. I follow MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details, where proposals are made to include various notices, and it seems unlikely that an article-specific RfC would be selected (feel free to read the archives of that page and see past discussion on what has and has not been approved). As several have said above, there is no way to put an editing request or notice on the Main page for something like this. The Main Page is based on templates that are very specific as to what content can be placed there. The article or its RFC won't qualify for In the News, Today's Featured Article, Today's Featurecd Picture, On this Day, or DYK. The bottom sections are reserved for Wikipedia-wide links. There is no place on that page where any type of link could be given to this article. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's very hard to get a message out across wikipedia. The closest thing I've seen is that for some big issues banners have been put across the talk pages of all related projects and articles. Xandar 12:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy. I'm not sure how much you've been following Talk:Catholic Church in the last week. Just in case you havne't been following closely, I wanted to let you know that I've archived a lot of the discussions to Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 46 and Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 45 because the talk page has been very busy and slow to load. Feel free to reinstate any of those discussions on the article talk page if you think it necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have commuted the length of your block to time served. Recent comments on this page suggest that you are willing to work cooperatively now. However, do not take this as an endorsement of your previous actions; I am only doing this because I have a good faith belief that you will not cause further disruption. In dealing with other editors, please remember to keep a civil tongue and try not to cross the boundary of canvassing. In fact, I would strongly suggest that you stay away from the boundary entirely. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wordsmith. I have to tell you that it really amazes me that such strict enforcement is directed towards me but nothing seems to ever be said or done about others who persistently provoke with uncivil comments like PMAnderson's, Harmakheru, Sayerselle, and SandyGeorgia's latest just above. Bad behavior usually only gets worse if it goes unchecked and the lack of enforcement has caused real disruption on the Catholic Church page these past few months. Article builders can not do it alone, especially on a controversial page, without help from admins who are willing to check people's uncivil behaviour and edit warring. Tom Harrison was the first admin to come to the page and actually do something to help. NancyHeisetalk 01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy. On the subject of RFCs, I was just invited to one on Elizabeth II, having expressed an interest in the dispute some months ago. The layout (while not perfect) shows one way of setting out such an issue, and provides prominent room for position statements and comments as well as "voting", which I think is important in forming consensus. You can click to it at... Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article titleXandar 12:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I'm disappointed to see that as soon as you were unblocked you jumped back into the discussion at Talk:Catholic Church by asking for a straw poll, thereby holding up article development. You wrote there, "I am unwilling to work on it until we know the results of a simple straw poll ..." whereas a few days ago you wrote you were unwilling to step back from the article unless there was a poll.
You seem to be under the impression that an army of supporters might arrive if only you can hold a poll, and you might be right, but WP doesn't work that way. Again, I urge you to rethink your approach and to allow work on the article to continue. If you want to organize an RfC, wait until there are two viable articles to choose between, then you can ask people for their informed opinion, but thinking you can rely on numbers alone is a non-starter. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 12:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I am appalled that you seem to be supporting the direct FLOUTING of Wikipedia policies on consensus that has recently taken place on the article. Massive sections of the article were ripped out in direct defiance of consensus through a process of edit-warring! Have you seen this? "Work" on this travesty of an article is of ZERO validity until a consensus version is restored. It is like asking us to pause for rearranging Deckchairs on the Titanic!
You then say "WP doesn't work that way". What way? Consensus. respecting other editors? Following WP policy? I am shocked. There is no right given to a group of editors to destroy an article on their own say so in the face of consensus - and then demand "more time" to continue. Consensus is a BASIC WP policy. The work of dozens of editors of several years has been ripped out without discussion or agreement by people with little knowledge and apparently less interest in the topic. This is NOT ON! And I do not know how you can defend it. The CORE of the article in its beliefs, practices and organisation, and membership sections has been destroyed, with no reason provided. Yet you ignore this, and harp on to Nancy about "allowing the "work" to continue"!!!! FIRST defend Wikipedia policy that changes are by CONSENSUS gained by discussion of the substantive issues. Do you defend this or not? I'd like an answer. Xandar 02:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Xandar, I think you need to let Nancy respond for herself. And no, I haven't looked at the content issues, except that I see the page now loads more easily and (when I last checked) the history section was no longer at the end. Otherwise I'm oblivious to it and would prefer to stay that way. My aim as an admin is purely to help the collaboration continue, and that means editors should try to work with each other on the current text. Once some kind of draft is ready that those editors are satisfied with, it would be entirely reasonable for Nancy to hold an RfC to ask for fresh eyes, so long as it's held correctly, closed by a neutral, experienced editor, and isn't going to be rule-by-numbers. But the only effect of a premature straw poll would be to interrupt the current editing.
The problem with polls in an area like this is that people have strong feelings, so it might attract a lot of "me too" comments from people who agree with Nancy politically, or in terms of their religious beliefs. I hope that wouldn't happen, but when you're dealing with topics like this it's an obvious concern. Any RfC that's going to produce a considered result would have to be held in an atmosphere of calm disinterest, with two decent versions of the article to compare, lots of experienced editors invited to comment, and "me too" posts discounted. Now is not a good time to hold such a thing, while people are still upset. In my experience of having edited WP for five years, the very best thing to do when there's a lot of upset about an article is to step away from it. I don't always take my own advice, mind you, but it's still good advice. A break of a few months can mean you see things through very different eyes. Sometimes it means an article you thought was great suddenly looks very flawed. And sometimes you're able to see the good sides of an article you previously didn't like. That's why my advice to Nancy continues to be that she consider stepping back for a period. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 10:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question about the improper procedure and non-consensus slashing of the article. I'm still waiting. Nor is "calm disinterest" produced by such disruptive actions. Admins should be insisting that this rule breaking be reversed. Yet instead we see the victims being pressured to leave! Not on. If certain people have another vision for the article that they want to develop, they need to do it in their own user space until it is ready, NOT illegally edit-war a half-cocked version onto the page and demand it stays there in spite of consensus. Any new version REMAINS in user space until there is a consensus to replace the longstanding version with it. That's the way to proceed and the ONLY way to proceed. I am very sad to see you not defending that. As I have said, I am simply amazed by your repeated claim that we shouldn't "interrupt current editing," by insisting on key WP policy being adhered to. It's like some form of alternate reality - akin watching someone being mugged, and then when people intervene, stepping forward to say "don't interrupt", they haven't finished yet!" Xandar 11:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which WP policies do you see as being violated? Please be explicit.
As for Nancy, I don't see her as a victim in this situation. I could be wrong, and I'm willing to be persuaded, but as things stand I see an advocate for the Catholic Church having made 4,400 edits to the article in 26 months, all from the same POV. That's not good for the article. The highest concentration I've seen apart from that is 3336 from Realist2 at Michael Jackson since June 2007, but a lot of those edits were triggered by Jackson's death which attracted a lot of silly editing that Realist had to cope with. But at FAC I typically see one editor having made 300 to 1500 edits. Once you start heading toward several thousand in 26 months, it signals a problem if it also involves a strong POV, and an article that people are having trouble loading. That's not to mention the straw poll issues, the canvassing, and the alleged personal attacks. Xandar, what would be more helfpul than saying this isn't really a problem would be to suggest another approach, if you disagree with my suggestion that she step back. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 12:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You see this is a POV position - seeing Nancy as "an advocate for the Catholic Church" as you say above, is making a judgement on her motivation which is against WP good practice. This seems to be sharing the mindset of one set of editors on the page, who cannot Assume good Faith, but filter all of nancy's actions through their perception of Nancy. However when someone is called "Anti-Catholic" this is seen as abuse. The number of edits one makes is not limited by Wp as far as I know, and varies between whether one is reverting vandalism on a busy article, or not. Nancy has also gone through the article several times reorganising and applying references and different formats. Some editors make one big edit, changing whole sections with one click, others make lots of little edits. Nancy is one of the latter.
Wow, this is really troubling - I go away for a couple of days and come back to find accusations by Slim Virgin that I am being disruptive? I am not even editing anything, I have been away. Where does it say that someone like me can not ask a neutral admin to consider an RFC and put the question up on the article talk page? SV, there has been a violation of core Wikipedia policy on the Catholic Church page. Many respected editors have agreed with this - Tom Harrison, MoreThings, AVI, myself, Xandar and others. An RFC and/or poll is an easy way to put these concerns to rest and move forward. I thought I was being a peacemaker, not a disrupter. NancyHeisetalk 15:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, you're going too far with this. You're a self-confessed advocate on behalf of the church. You've posted here that you've asked God for advice about how to proceed. You've said you want an RfC to be posted not only on watchlists, but on the main page too. You've said the article is being watched by universities as part of an experiment. You've said that Wikipedia is making money from some articles, which may include Catholic Church. Several experienced editors and admins advised you to step back, but you now say you had no idea your refusal to listen might be seen as disruptive. I can only repeat: please take some time off from this. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 15:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the point you're making by including "You've posted here that you've asked God for advice about how to proceed." in that list, Slim? Nancy is a Christian. Christians pray.--MoreThings (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get involved in protracted argument about this, but to answer just that one point, it's not any single thing, it's the combination of the above—including the high concentration of edits—that suggests a lack of perspective has crept in, as it often does when people edit in one area too intensely. I've experienced similar things myself over articles I've started to care about too much—never in a religious way, but there have been times I've started to see an article as more important than it was, simply because I'd put a lot of work into it. We get attached to things we've poured ourselves into. It's human nature. But it isn't healthy to do that on WP and the only solution is to step away for a period until a sense of perspective returns. Wikipedia articles, especially contentious ones, are often best served by people who don't care too deeply about them, because that's what allows the editors to remain disinterested. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 16:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you're saying, but put yourself in Nancy's shoes. Suppose someone popped up with a poll to change one of your Animal Rights articles in a way that you considered to be a travesty, and even though it didn't achieve consensus the change went through. If someone subsequently offered you the advice that you're now offering Nancy, would you accept it or would you insist on an RfC? I think you'd insist on an RfC, and you would be right to do so.--MoreThings (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right in a sense; in the situation I'm in at the moment, I'd post an RfC. But if I were an animal rights activist in real life, if I had made 4,400 edits to the article in 26 months, if it was so large and over-referenced that people couldn't load it, if it had failed three FACs, if I'd been blocked for a week for canvassing, if there had been mediation and an RfAr, if admins were asking me to back away, and if I had started to think it was so important an RfC needed to be posted on the main page—I would take it off my watchlist for several weeks or months, at least. And, indeed, I've done precisely that several times, at that article and at others I cared about, in considerably less contentious circumstances.
Nothing good comes of people losing perspective, and it's worst of all for the person at the centre of it, because s/he's the one suffering emotionally. The version Nancy wants is in the history. She can at any point return to the article after a break, with fresh eyes and hopefully less of an emotional investment, and post a calm and considered RfC asking people to compare it to the version that's on the page. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 17:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's fine to offer advice as one editor to another, but you're doing it as an admin, and much of what you're posting to Nancy's page looks to me like thinly veiled threats. If Nancy wants to set up an RfC she should be allowed to do so; she shouldn't have an admin making ominous noises about what might happen if she doesn't back off. If you want to give Nancy sincere, personal advice, recommending that she take break, that's fine, but that isn't what this looks like from outside. Well-meaning friends can occasionally lose perspective, too. --MoreThings (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here as an admin, MT, and you're right that there's a possibility of admin action, or perhaps a formal topic-ban proposal, if problems continue. That's not intended as a threat (veiled or otherwise), just a statement of the position. But as things stand, I'm hopeful that persuasion might work better, and I also hope that some more of Nancy's wikifriends might join me in that, in her own interests. And I don't mean in her own interests in the sense of avoiding admin action. I mean in the interests of her peace of mind. Storm Rider supported a short break [232] even though he otherwise strongly agrees with Nancy. I'd prefer to say no more about it for now, MT, because she needs some time and space to think about it and these posts may not be helping. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 18:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be rude to carry on rattling on like this on Nancy's own page--sorry Nancy. I don't agree, SV, that trying to set up an RfC should ever be classed as a "problem" on WP.--MoreThings (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MoreThings, that last sentence is an overreach. I could easily construct a bunch of scenarios where setting up an RFC would be disruptive. That said, I don't think Nancy's proposed RFC would be considered unacceptably disruptive except for the proposed Wiki-wide publicization. I say "unacceptably disruptive" because I personally disagree that an RFC would change anything and so I think it would be counterproductive and disruptive but not unacceptably so. It is the right of every editor to issue an RFC if they feel that the current consensus of editors does not reflect what the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community would be if they were consulted. --Richard S (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up, Richard. --MoreThings (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Slim Virgin. I've asked you several times now. IS THE ACTION TAKEN BY UBER ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PAGE WRONG OR NOT? You have avoided answering this question, avoided admonishing or taking any action against those who have openly flouted Wikipedia policy - and insist on making continual threats - not against those who took the illegal actions - but against Nancy - if your "advice" to "step back from the page", and presumably ignore the flouting of Wikipedia rules is not followed. And where do you get the idea that Nancy is an "Advocate of the Church"? As I said above, this seems to be failing to Assume Good Faith, and trying to judge an editors motivatiuons. Are you going to list those who are anti- the Catholic Church? So now can you please answer my questions. Why has NO action been taken against those who have massively disrupted the Catholic Church article against wikipedia rulas and consensus? If you're going to be an admin on this page, you have to neutrally enforce WP policies. So far I see no sign of this. Xandar 22:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Xandar and MoreThings for your responses to SlimVirgin. I should not be threatened with a topic ban for asking a neutral admin to help with an RFC, especially when such violations of Wikipedia policy have taken place on the Catholic Church page. I should not be called a "self professed advocate" when I am simply a Catholic who does not hide that fact and last time I checked, Wikipedia does not have a policy that tosses editors if they are people who pray. NancyHeisetalk 00:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADMINAdministrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
Xandar asks a fair question, Slim. You've made it clear that you're adminning the page. You've watched events unfold. Do you feel that Uber has contravened any policy? This is not one to throw back with "Which policies do you feel he has violated?". It's one for you to give your opinion as the admin, and therefore as the policy expert. You've given generously of your opinions regarding Nancy. Share the love! --MoreThings (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the most telling aspect of your involvement here, Slim, is the questions you've refused to answer. I asked you if you thought the change had consensus, and Xandar asked you if you think Uber has violated policy. Those should be simple yes or no answers.
I really admire all the work you do on the policy pages but I can't help but think this kind of adminning undermines those very policies. There are only two explanations for what you're doing here. The first is that you're using your mop to put your preferred version of content live. I don't think you're doing that. (Do you think Sarek is uninvolved and neutral btw?). The second is that you think it would be better for the project if Uber's changes were allowed to clear a long-standing log-jam at CC, and so you are mopping things in that direction. I think that's probably what you're doing, but I don't think you should be doing it. As far as I know, the policy doesn't give you that kind of lattitude. And where does that kind of adminning leave those don't have a mop, don't want one, and would rather look to the policy pages than to the whim of whichever schoolboy, Vulcan or Wiki luminary happens to amble by?
Either admins are in place because they're all wise old Solomonic owls or they're in place to uphold policy. --MoreThings (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How come you you won't condescend to address the hoi polloi on this one, O Pure and Willowy One? I'm sure brother Uber is honoured to have you going in to bat for him, OPAWO, but it is a little like the umpire buckling on the pads. --MoreThings (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you didn't suggest to Uber that he post to the RfC to say "this RfC is a complete waste of time" . And I see that Uber didn't take the advice that you didn't give. Shame really. If he had accepted the neutral advice that you didn't give, you could have been responsible for changing the entire outcome of the RfC. --MoreThings (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're a great editor, Slim, and you've done an unbelievable amount of work for the project. A couple of weeks ago I'd have said that you're a good admin, too. I have to say, though, I'd now oppose if you were at RfA.
Xandar has also given a heck of a lot of time to the project. Over the last couple of weeks he's seen much of that work disappear, and he's been blocked on some very dubious grounds. For an admin simply to refuse point blank to discuss any of that with him, in direct contravention of WP-ADMIN, is inexcusable. And the way you've come down so heavily on Nancy compounds the inequity. Admins are editors with mops. They're not a decision-taking elite.
Anyhoo, time to quit talking to myself and move on. --MoreThings (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear More Things and Xandar, Sunray has agreed to oversee the discussion of an RFC on the Catholic Church page issue if I will initiate it. I will be proposing wording for that initiation on his talk page this evening. Of concern is the acheivement of neutral wording for that initiation and he has offered to help. I am open to considering proposals for the wording if you like. NancyHeisetalk 19:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aloha, Nancy. Thanks for inviting me to the discussion and for commenting on my proposed changes. I will address your points on the talk page as time permits, but I wanted to drop you a line about a few things: First, we all need more good faith on the talk page. I realize that past and present disputes have soured the discussion, but can we start fresh? My understanding is that everyone wants to improve the article, so let's work with that assumption. Second, I notice you are offering a choice between two versions. Have you considered the possibility of a third choice that incorporates changes related to concerns you have raised with the second version, and a compromise between the two versions on points you have a fundamental disagreement about? This would go a long way towards helping resolve any dispute and moving things forward. Wikipedians as a whole generally don't respond well to a false dilemma. Ask yourself on the points of contention, is there a middle ground where we can all meet? If there is, describe it in your own words, and ask other editors for help in getting to that place. I think you will find yourself surprised at how many people will come out of the woodwork to agree with you if you take this route. So, let's meet somewhere in the middle, rather than at the two extremes; We all want to improve the article to featured status, right? Be well. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On this, I have already made three suggestions for compromise which I hoped might be taken up.
Was to completely remove the contentious History Section, (bar Origins and the Church Today), from the Longstanding version, effectively splitting the article between History and the Rest, and achieving the desired length reduction without damaging other sections.
Was to reduce the History section drastically by using Summary Style - again leaving the rest of the article intact.
Was to agree to make 25%-30% reductions across the entire longstanding article by consensus trimming. With each trimmed section agreed before installing in the article. Such a process would take perhaps 3-6 weeks if no major problems arose.
However there has been no form of positive response to these suggestions - all of which would address the ostensible main concern of article legnth without destroying the core of the article. Xandar 21:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Xandar. It's more effective to deal with specific requests for improvement rather than speaking in generalities. If you make a list of general problems by section and then break them down to a list, the rest of the editors on the talk page can go over them and help fix them. Viriditas (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is what these editors did NOT do when they made their massive non-consensus evisceration of the page. The list of all the subject-matter, references, explanation, theological points, works of the Church, organisational structures, beliefs, and practices and related material that were ripped out without discussion by certain individuals on the nights of 9th-11th March, would be too long to set up anywhere - let alone to discuss on the talk page. That is why the improper actions of those editors were so damaging to the project. The referenced material needs to be restored so discussion can take place on what objections to it there were. Generally no objections had ever been raised to 90% of this material. Acceptance of any of my compromise alternatives above, would undo the Vandalism while addressing the issue of article size claimed by some as justification for their actions. Rejection of such offers of compromise would seem inexplicable and would point to a situation where only dispute resolution measures can help. Xandar 12:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, as you know, I think you should wait before initiating an RfC, but if you're determined to do it now, I think you should focus on that rather than posting about it on the talk page, because it's not helping the discussion about the article to flow freely. My suggestion is that you consider opening an independent page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. This would allow more space for different views and might attract more eyes than a talk-page RfC. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 13:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin, Thanks for your advice. I was following the advice given at WP:Requests for comment that says "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved." [233] I am just trying to follow the established rules. I am sorry if you think that my doing so is not helping the discussion about the article but I and others think that this discussion is very important as well. I am not sure how to conduct the RFC which is why I asked for help from user:Sunray who has agreed to oversee the RFC. I will point him to your comment here. Thanks.NancyHeisetalk 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, belated reply: Not really. I would like something added to the effect that "there is a clear understanding that both versions have serious flaws, and whichever version is proceeded with as the basis for improvement, nothing in that version should be regarded as established "by consensus""." In effect we need to reset the "established by consensus" clock to zero, painful though it may be. That is the only way your RFC can poossibly suceeed, & even then I think it is very long shot. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sunray and I have agreed to oversee the RfC together, Nancy, insofar as it needs anyone to do that. You're right that issues should be discussed on talk first, but that's been done. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I agree with you. SlimVirgin, thank you for your advice. I was just explaining to you my position in response to your question above. Thank you for taking the time to help us with our situation. I am not sure I am able to view you as a neutral admin the way I am able to view Sunray because of your accusations againt me and requests for me to leave the page. In no way do I mean to offend you with this personal view of mine, I am just trying to be honest with you. I was very surprised that you did nothing to help curb SandyGeorgia's behaviour at the ANI but seemed to immediately come to her aid even after many others had made significant note of the injustices commited. Sunray is a completely uninvolved admin, unlike yourself. I think that he should be overseeing the RFC alone. NancyHeisetalk 15:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, we'll be overseeing it together. What matters now is that you decide whether you want to do it, and if you do, then go for it. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 16:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, we have already decided to do it. We are coming to agreement about certain aspects of the RFC on Sunray's talk page. I don't want to open it without agreement with others on wording and form - I really do want it to be fair and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I would like to ask you if you feel that you can be a fair and neutral admin towards me after what you have asserted about me being an advocate etc. I did not feel that those were very neutral assertions and I am wondering if anyone is making these types of assertions toward the admitted atheists on the Catholic Church talk page whose edits are not neutral. Why is there an admin like you all over me yet no one all over the opposing viewpoints? This is not a neutral administration of the Catholic Church talk page and is one of the reasons why I have considered going to arbcom. I may still go ahead with that if I perceive the same type of imbalance that existed a week or so ago. The only reason why I didn't go to arbcom yet was because I thought this imbalance may have died down. I will not hesitate to open an arbcom if I continue to collect evidence to support one. NancyHeisetalk 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, have you ever seen Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED? This may help to clear up some of the misconceptions you have about admins and who is and is not involved. For example, I am an involved editor at the Catholic Church page, so I do not use my admin tools there. Doing otherwise would be naughty of me. SlimVirgin has never been involved in the discussions on that page, has never edited the page, and has no previous involvement, to my knowledge, with any of the editors on the page (other than the fact that she occasionally participates at FAC, as do many of the rest of us). That makes her an uninvolved administrator in this dispute. Uninvolved administrators are supposed to make up their own minds as to what has been going on and to act accordingly - this may seem unfair to some of the parties, but taking administrative action in a dispute does not make one involved in that dispute. Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an entire position of editors is unfairly targeted and harrassed on a controversial topic by admins who appear to be taking a certain side in the dispute by one sided administration of their admin tools, I think that is a question for admins to tackle. I am not the only person and certainly not the first person to feel that is what has happened at Catholic Church. Several admins at the ANI and various editors on many people's talk pages have said the same thing. I have many diffs to create an arbcom on this very issue if I feel that it has not subsided and I am just asking admins to please be fair and alert to the situtation that just occured. I do not want to exacerbate or inflame the situation but I will not be pushed over and allow someone to create an unfair sitution either. NancyHeisetalk 16:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a suggested format for you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. If it's a format you'd like to follow, you should fill in the section called "statement of the dispute," and sign it, and if you can think of any other pages to add under "previous discussion or attempts at dispute resolution," do that too. We can then decide where to post it so people know it's happening. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 16:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that format and I want to use it as soon as we come to agreement on Sunray's talk page as to opening sentence and formal notification. I have responded to people's comments on that page and am awaiting their and Sunray's responses. You are asking me to move forward without their input. Please be patient, this is intended to be a fair RFC. NancyHeisetalk 16:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, you have a habit of putting words in my mouth. :) My position is that you should not hold an RfC at this time. But if you're determined to do it, then I feel you should press ahead with it, rather than continuing to discuss it. You should not notify anyone about it, because other parties have complained that you have a tendency to canvass, and not to express the issues neutrally. Sunray and I can let people know about it. What you should concentrate on now is writing up a statement of the dispute. SlimVirginTALKcontribs 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, because these decisions involve more editors than just myself and we are all on Sunray's talk page discussing it, I would prefer that you not use my talk page to discuss anything about the RFC anymore. I will be watching Sunray's talk page to see the responses. I think we are almost ready to go ahead but it would be premature to do so until certain issues have been resolved, such as notifications and opening wording. NancyHeisetalk 17:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is a good idea if we had not already accomplished 98% of the conversation. All we need to do now is get resonses to two questions and then move forward. Why move the conversation now when its almost all over with? NancyHeisetalk 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin set up the Requests for comment/Catholic Church page and I've moved the discussion from my talk page to the RfC talk page. The only remaining thing to discuss is who gets notified and how. Sunray (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sunray, as I stated on your talkpage, I will respect your decisions on these types of matters. Thank you for stepping in. NancyHeisetalk 18:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fairness and neutrality of admins - your recourse[edit]
Hi Nancy,
I think it's a difficult question regarding whether admins have treated you fairly or not. I think you are not wholly innocent but I'm not convinced that you have been treated with an even hand either.
As you may know, I was surprised at and somewhat nonplussed that you and Xandar were blocked. Heck, the whole straw poll/IAR/block incident is questionable in my book. However, it all happened so quickly and during a period when I was less active at Wikipedia so I chose not to raise a ruckus about it as it seemed to be a fait accompli by the time I learned about it.
I gather you were rather strident at WP:ANI which is what triggered your block. This all seems to be "water under the bridge" by now so, rather than reopen old wounds, I would counsel that you learn from the experience and tone down your emotions even if you are being treated unfairly.
That said, it's clear to me that there has been a bit of admin myopia seeing incivility on your part while ignoring the same or worse on the part of other editors such as PManderson and others. I have remarked on this a number of times at Talk:Catholic Church but did not act on it at the time because I was an involved admin. (I'm not an admin anymore so I couldn't act on it now if I wanted to.)
As much as I think the current Catholic Church RFC over versions is ill-advised and likely to be inconclusive, it is now underway so I think we should let it run its course. Once it's done, you might wish to consider a user conduct RFC to raise the fairness issues. Note that user conduct RFCs are required to be restricted to one specific user. Thus, you may wish to raise user conduct RFCs on different users such as UberCryxic, PManderson and even SlimVirgin.
I'm not saying that such user conduct RFCs will get you the satisfaction that you seem to wish. However, I'm just pointing out what recourse you have if you choose to go down that road. I reserve the right to decide my response to any such RFCs based upon the facts presented at the time. (How's that for being a weasel? Sorry.)
If there seems to be a consensus that you were treated unfairly, the results of the user RFC could be brought up in various forums such as WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM. Based on the history to date, however, you should take into account the fact that it is not a clear-cut case of unfair treatment so the user conduct RFCs could get quite contentious. You have to decide for yourself whether or not issuing them would be worth it.
Hi Richard, thanks for your comments. I think the RFC was the only way to amend the injustice created by the straw poll. I am not doing it just for myself, it will restore the primacy of Wikipedia's rules over a previously lawless article. As for the user RFC's you have suggested, I am just not that kind of person you know. I believe that praying for a person to be a better person, after you have told them their fault, is the only way that the person will be prompted to do better next time. The user RFC's seem to be more of an attempt at character assassination rather than a true effort to help someone. It is my most heartfelt and frequent wish to not be a mean person. Launching user RFC's seems to me to be a contradiction of that effort. NancyHeisetalk 15:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nancy, I think Richard's comments are apt. I would like to add to them. You chose to initiate an RfC. However, before that was completed, you have initiated a report at ANI, added a POV tag to the article, and engaged in various other actions unrelated to constructive article editing. I don't want to imply that I necessarily agree with actions taken by other users in this matter, but I am concerned that you seem to be taking an increasingly combative stance. I see that as counterproductive to collaborative editing of the article.
Your passion for the article is palpable. However, continuing dispute will not likely result in article improvements. ANI reports, ArbCom cases, and so forth, are tremendously demanding of time and energy. All that energy will be directed away from article improvement. How about shifting towards a win-win approach rather than win-lose? Would that not be more consistent with the way Jesus taught? Would you be willing to try a more collaborative approach? Sunray (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sunray, you know I respect your opinions and I have taken them to heart. You should know that my edits to the Catholic Church page do not affect the RFC in any way because that page is not linked in the dispute. The "short version" listed in the Statement of Dispute is linked to an old version of the current page. I came to the article today to implement some of the changes that I think will make the article meet NPOV and correct the factual accuracy errors that I have listed on the talk page so other editors could see what that might look like. I do not see this as combative but part of the Wikipedia process. Do you feel that I should wait to implement these changes? I will certainly wait if you feel I should. Let me know. Thanks. NancyHeisetalk 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a collaborative approach, by all means you should edit the article. I think that Bold Revert, Discuss is a good way to go. Sunray (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have offered some guidance for Beliefs section sources on the talk page. I am interested to see if any of the new editors there are interested in using the appropriate sources or if my suggestion is ignored. NancyHeisetalk 15:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From past discussions, I know that you have been very unhappy with the state of relations on the CC article. I have called for a more collaborative approach. It seems to be a case of "well I would but the other side won't stop." It seems to me that there is a desire on the part of some editors to try to work more collaboratively if others did.
If you want to move in that direction, now might be a good time to give a sign of good faith. One thing I do not think we should do though is get into any postmortems. The current discussion has turned toward what we could do to establish a new approach. My question for you is: would you be ready to work collaboratively with others on the CC article? Please don't feel compelled to reply if you are not ready to. Sunray (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you are talking about other editors in what you said in response to me. Sandy responded in kind. I've removed both statements as being unnecessarily personal.
Would it be safe to assume that just as you do not like other people talking about you, they probably feel the same? If we don't stop this, we will never get to a better way of working on the article. Would you be willing to commit to dealing with content, not other individuals? Sunray (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sunray, I have been working on this page on and off for about two years. I have never seen anyone attempt to require other editors to treat each other humanely, in fact, it has been my experience that uncivil behaviour is encouraged by admins. Tom Harrison, who recently left Wikipedia because of what he saw happening on the Catholic Church page, was the first admin to try to help me with the situation. Whenever I have expressed impatience over the constant abuse, it is me, never the others who are reprimanded. I have had enough. I do not wish to participate on Wikipedia anymore. It is an uncivil place where POV pushers are coddled and article builders with sources are stomped on if we don't kiss the appropriate hands among Wikipedia's elite. Thanks for trying to help but I think it is too little too late for me. NancyHeisetalk 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a trying time for you, Nancy, but it is also a good test of your character and fortitude in the face of adversity. Please consider staying. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our beliefs influence the way we treat each other. I recently watched the movie "Expelled" by Ben Stein. He made the point that Hitler's obsession with Darwinian theories influenced his "final solution" efforts. Muslims who believe that their religion encourages killing non-believers do not hesitate to do so. Christians are led by Jesus' teachings which require us to love our neighbor. Part of love, according to Jesus' Gospel requires us to tell our neighbor when they have done something wrong to us so they can have the chance to apologize and mend the breach. Even if they never apologize and the breach is not mended, we are supposed to love them by praying for them and wishing them well instead of wishing them ill. NancyHeisetalk 00:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree; Our beliefs influence the way we treat each other (and think about ourselves). Most often, we're conditioned to accept them (whatever they may be) without question from birth. You raise some very interesting points, Nancy, and I want to thank you for sharing your experience and insight. I wish we could all do that. I'm curious, have you had a chance to watch the controversial presentation Sam Harris gave at TED recently? It's called "Science can answer moral questions". The issues you raise above are also discussed in this talk, but from a POV that may differ from your own. Based on what you've said, I think you would find it very interesting, even if you strongly disagree with it. Be well. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am well educated on Atheist beliefs and arguments being raised by a non-believing mother. I have read one of Sam Harris' books, "Letter to a Christian Nation". I have difficulty finding fault with Jesus (or the Catholic Church) just because many of his followers fail to keep his words. I think that's not very logical. I am Catholic because of a religious experience that led me to this Church. It would be very unscientific of me to ignore this since it is part of my own personal body of evidence. I often pray for others like Sam Harris who sound like me before I had my conversion experience. There are quite a lot of former atheists in the Church pews. The people who leave the Church are usually cradle Catholics who come back after they have kids and life starts to kick them around a little to the point where they really start to pray and discover that God does take notice if asked.
Regarding your comment in the section above, I don't think that I can be of much use on the Catholic Church page for a while. I am very hurt by the events of the past six months and I do not want to get emotional over what ultimately amounts to a sandcastle! (You build it and then it gets washed away when the tide rolls in) Wikipedia is supposed to be my fun hobby but lately it has not been much fun. I may get involved in the future but for now, I have committed to two new writing assignments on which I need to spend my former Wikipedia time. NancyHeisetalk 23:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia friends, I am taking a break from my fun hobby for a while. If anyone needs to reach me, you may email me through the link on my userpage. God bless you all and have a happy Spring! NancyHeisetalk 23:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with the new projects, Nancy. I hope that WP will soon feel like fun again, and we'll see you back around the place. --MoreThings (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MoreThings! I have a new camera that practically requires a degree to understand how to use it and I am writing an article for submission to a travel magazine about our adventures on the Kodiak archipelago. I am hoping to be able to take some decent pictures to add to my hopefully amazing article. I will probably upload some of those to Wikipedia when I'm done. NancyHeisetalk 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. After the line about the camera, I read that as "Kodak Archipelago" the first time... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, Nancy. Cameras are cool. As soon as you pick one up everyone mysteriously starts to obey your every command: stand up, sit down, say cheese, smile, kiss, take your cl. I believe travel writers do quite well with freebies. If you can get to the point where you can go to a travel company and tell them that a magazine has agreed to publish an article by you about, say, a trip to the Vatican, most will be only too happy offer you complementary travel and accommodation in return for a name check and perhaps a few lines in the article. That wouldn't be as much fun as editing WP, of course, but still :) --MoreThings (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MoreThings. I will let you know if anyone shows any interest in my article. Coming from Florida, we did not initially know much about Alaska but were brought there by a friend of my husband who is a respected guide and lodge owner. My article will be from our unique perspective as amateurs and our fun adventures in the company of our friend and his family. He has already been published in a magazine and hosted Nat Geo writers/photographers as well as appeared one of their documentaries. I was not sure my article would be Nat Geo worthy but perhaps one of the many smaller travel mags might be interested. I am not sure I will write any more travel articles after this one, I'm just doing it because I have a worthwhile story to tell. NancyHeisetalk 16:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I just want to thank you for all you have done. It is maddening to be a person of conviction amid a skeptical world. I know it sounds so Protestant to say this, but I have two verses for you: Matt 5:11 and Matt 25:23. Enjoy this freedom from WP and come back if the Spirit moves you to do so. GB EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EastMW, thank you for your kindness. Maybe if I were a more skillful Christian, I would have been able to make it all work out for Wikipedia to have a decent article on the Church. I think that article will need the help of an organized group of knowledgeable editors as well as admins like Sunray who would be willing to check any incivility or POV pushers. Now I have a Bible verse for you, Matthew 10:42. My favorite priest always says "God is never outdone in generosity", neither is he ever outdone in kindess. God bless you! NancyHeisetalk 16:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
