Talk:Mercy Multiplied

Removing Ex-gay/Pro-life part of description
This is true as referenced further up in the discussion. Why is it being taken out? Can you explain?Victoria Lucas (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Undid Vandalism
The article has been reverted after a user appeared to delete some of the main information. I hope that's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletree80 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate new developments
Sadly, it turns out that DownRightMighty is a serial abuser of Wikipedia operating under dozens of names, who, we believe is being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of a large number of companies. While some corporate representatives and PR agents act in good faith, this person is not (given the amount of effort they're taking to remain hidden).

Unfortunately, this leaves the question of what to do from here. We still can't revert back to the June version, because that version is undeniably violating of Wikipedia policy by using unreliable sources and placing a likely undue evidence on the controversies.

So, I still think that we should build up from what's here. I think I'm going to have to give up being an admin on this page and act as editor. I'll first begin by stripping out the promotional info in the current version. Then, if other editors already familiar with the controversy would like, just (as I have been asking for a while), put up links to the reliable sources talking about the group. We can then figure out from them what to re-add to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WOW! Well I had suspicions as to his bias but WOW that is massive! Do you know what companies had paid/hired him to write for them? Was there any evidence that suggested MM was one of them?

I am wondering if we should continue with what we were already doing with the new wording suggestions, or if we should go about getting others on board. You mentioned there is a wikipedia approved way to do this. I am happy to continue what we were doing before, but if you think it would produce a better article, am happy to go with the latter.

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Oh, wow. I suspected DownRightMighty may have been paid by Mercy Ministries but I had no substantial proof.

I can work on finding reliable sources in the next few weeks but this may take me some time. I'll review some sources that I've gathered and pull quotes from them so we can build up from there. There are other various materials about the program that I can put together, too. Ollyoxen (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Ollyoxen
 * Go ahead and just start editing the article (either/both of you). The "getting other people involved" is generally for when current editors disagree about how the page should be written, and thus outside editors are brought in to help solve a dispute. Since there doesn't seem, at the moment, to be any significant disputes, you can proceed with editing. I don't know how much time I'll have to work on this either, but I will keep watching. Ultimately, it's better to have an unfairly "positive" article that slowly gets negative points added once they are well-sourced, than to have an article that contains highly negative claims that aren't verified by RS. We'll get there, eventually! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I deleted the personal information left on this page by Qworty pursuant to WP:OUTING as a personal attack. I will also tell you that I do not know who DownRightMighty is, but this person is NOT associated with the "serial abuser" as listed above. I know this as I am the one you are confusing them with. As I cannot vouch for DRM, I can tell you that you are missing some important information from that editor's talk page in that there seems to be an editor on this article (which I will refrain from editing so as not to be labeled as having a COI) who has more than one account. I will take that up since no one else did and also take up the recommendation of a topic ban as this same editor appears to have way too close of ties to be editing here, , , , . Looks like a series of WordPress websites being used to post negative information about the ministry. --UsedEdgesII (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I came into this as an admin about a month ago when some page protection was requested, though I'm pretty close to having become "involved" enough to not be able to act as an admin before. My opinion at the time, which I still hold, is that both sides have a clear bias and desire to make the page represent a specific POV. Ultimately, though, there's no real point in trying to worry about who the actual editors are; instead, let's all just focus on the article itself. The article should contain factual information about the group. This should include both their intentions and activities (which can include some information from their own sources), as well as criticisms of the group. However, the criticisms should only be included if they 1) come from reliable sources and 2) meet [{WP:UNDUE]]. THe article actually looks okay right now, but I think that people have said that there are a number of newspaper articles, particularly from Australia, that we should look at to find more information about controversies the group has allegedly been involved in. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I have responded to this topic on my talk page as well as that of UsedEdges. But just to add to that, am I not allowed to make further changes to this article for the time being? MissSherryBobbins (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins
 * Hi again. I noticed that UsedEdges deleted comments from Qorty.  Is there a way to restore those comments on here?  I feel they are another attempt at censorship, and are an important reference point discussing the influence of sock puppetry. I would do it but i'm not sure how... MissSherryBobbins (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins
 * The truth is, we don't actually need any of this discussion any more. The socks are blocked. User conduct issues should generally be discussed on user talk pages, not article talk pages. I'm actually tempted to collapse this discussion entirely. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I can't believe it... they have been busted twice before, with IP addresses being traced back to them (check out the talk page archives). What I can't believe is that this user was repeatedly accusing ME of having multiple accounts and of being another user that has made recent edits.  Just incredible...

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins

Program structure and content
Hi Q.

I replaced the heading "Programs" with "Program structure and content" to encapsulate all things relating to the program, and added some subheadings underneath that for specific aspects. Let me know if the content is okay or if any further references are needed.

Thanks

MissSherryBobbins (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)MissSherryBobbins