Talk:Online counseling/Archive 1

Subsequently added heading: EL
I had added this external link and it was removed. Please check out this site. It is very informative on this subject. I am NOT affiliated with this site. Leontaurus (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Online Therapy Institute mention
The creator of the article covering the Online Therapy Institute has twice inserted a mention of the institute with the text: "Additional studies, as well as instruction in online therapy, has been provided by institutes like the Online Therapy Institute." I reverted because the mention is gratuitous and does not add to one's understanding of online counseling. In addition, the cited source, a sixty second podcast, does not support the text making is apparently OR. There is no mention of studies or instruction aking that aspect of the text seem promotional/POV. Though the source does note that the podcast participant believes the Institute to be "a reputable think tank for clinician avatars." The insertion seems forced and per the first ES by the inserting editor, it was done "to avoid orphan tag" on the article the editor had recently created. The mention should stay out. if there is a more appropriate way or reason to mention the Institute, that would be ok, but this is not it. Novaseminary (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Original research
An IP keeps reinserting what I think is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. It is SYNTH because it notes there is a "debate", but doesn't cite to any third party source to put the debate in context. Instead it cites what the IP editor apparently thinks are the competing factions in this debate. To be included and to avoid SYNTH and WP:UNDUE problems, there would need to be a source that summarizes or analyses the "debate" with the Wikipedia text summarizing that source. As right as the IP might be, this is an encyclopedia, not as research paper. We don't report editors conclusions, we summarize the conclusions discussed in RSs. This is especially important in a topic like this for which there might be some level of controversy or disagreement. I will again revert. Novaseminary (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Novaseminry, as you will note, I did not write this section. If you don't agree with it, please contact the writter to let them know.  Also, before deleting please allow a conversation to take place on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk • contribs)


 * Whether I "agree" with the section or not is not the issue. I do not think it satisfies Wikipedia guidelines. There is no "writer" to contact personally as nobody owns this article (WP:OWN) or any section of it. If you or anybody else disagree with my opinion that this fails to satisfy Wikipedia policy, this is the place to discuss it. Please do not reinsert the material as it formerly appeared until consensus is reached here, or you have at least made some argument as to how I was wrong above based on guidelines. If you have sources and this is true and not POV, there is probably a way to include the substance here while satisfying the guidelines. Novaseminary (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please follow protocol, you seem to have it backwards. A discussion is to take place before blanking a section.   You have done the other.  Please  follow norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk • contribs)

Please show enough respect for the process to suggest why this material belongs (and to sign your posts). Nobody, including you (IP) has suggested how this text satisfies WP guidelines. This talk page is here at your disposal for that purpose. Please use it. Novaseminary (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IP refuses to discuss here, but did leave this ES in his last reversion: "please do not blank an entire section before a conversation can take place. As said on your talk page, you are free to re-word". This is the place to have such a conversation. In response, I note that I do not have any sources that support this proposition and, therefore, cannot "reword" the material to satisfy the guidelines. As it is, it does not belong. And anyone is free to "re-word", none of us owns this article. And I think the point seems to have been made in material that is still in the article, problematic as some of that text may be itself. Novaseminary (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am open to having this section removed if you can tell me why it should be. Currently I see no reason for it to be  deleted. This is a current issue with online counseling and should stay.  Please allow discussion to take place before deleting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In short, it should be deleted as it stands now because it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I have explained several times in this very section. Figure out how to make it meet the relevant guidelines, and such a new version should be included. Novaseminary (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As it stands, the author and myself agree that it should stay and meets guidelines. Could you please allow a discussion to take place before deleting?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

How is it not OR/SYNTH? Novaseminary (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read your edit history. It appears that most of your rv are section or part section deletions for what you don't agree with.  I ask you to please engage in conversation before deleting.  BTW you are to prove why it does not meet a given guideline, not why an editor thinks it does.  See how this is backward?   In any case, I will rv, and I ask that you stop section blanking, failing to follow will result in a 3rr warning.  Please be civil.  As I said before, I am open to changes, lets work together to make this a better article.  Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For example, the text you want inserted includes: "Over 30 years ago, when distance technology first made an appearance in the research literature, similar complaints were lodged against telephone therapy" with a cite to an article from thirty years ago. This is textbook SYNTH. A more recent source noting the first appearance might make it ok. Novaseminary (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a common understanding. Please don't delete an entire section because you don't agree with one line.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "entire section" is only five sentences. Each has problems. Do you think any of them are not redundant, or OR? The telephone counseling discussion is classic SYNTH to the extent it is not irrelevant POV. Novaseminary (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you explain 'problems'. BTW your edit history clearly indicates your pov and your conflict of interest on this topic.  While you're entilted to write anything about me, your actions have been less than civil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk • contribs)
 * The sentences equate telephone counseling with online counseling, though the supplied references don't make the connection. It goes on to give stats on telephone counseling, apparently to show the legitimacy/equivalence to online counseling. That is SYNTH. Novaseminary (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It speaks of the evelution of counseling. Clearly this belongs!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Then how have you kept this sentence and the entire section that it belongs? Some in the psychology community have argued that online therapy can never replace traditional face-to-face therapy.[7] Research from G.S. Stofle and J. suggests that online counseling would benefit people functioning at a moderately high level.[8][9] Severe situations such as suicidal ideation or a psychotic episode might be better served by traditional face-to-face methods.[10] Although further research may prove otherwise.[2]

Clearly cherrypicking and pov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I really am neither pro nor anti online counseling. I don't care about the subject, but do care that WP stay neutral and non-promotional. I noted other text has problems (and you removed the tag). Regardless, this sentence was slightly POV and not sourced to a traditional RS so I removed it. The others are well sourced and not synth, though they might raise WP:UNDUE problems. You've now made four reversions and I am at three. I'll leave the article for now, and remove the reinserted SYNTH (you've never rebutted) later. Or maybe others will agree with you, or just remove it themselves. And why did you remove wikilinks to academic journals in references and fact tags on unsourced facts? Novaseminary (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! We can leave the article as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

More Tricks from Novaseminary
Here is his wikicommons talk page. Same editor.... same problems...

Please STOP now You've been here for 2 years, yet you've only got 60 edits, only 25 of which are to images. You clearly don't understand what you're doing, so I suggest you STOP now, before I have to bring your actions to the attention of an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Nice use of contribution history and bold and italics. The Buck buck photo you are so worked up about makes a claim of PD, but not of being the photographer, as I noted on your talk. Novaseminary (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Well, Ken is obviously not interested in any posts to his talk page... Here was my question (cut and pasted from what Ken deleted unread from his talk), maybe if he is monitoring here, he will help. Or maybe not. I didn't mean to irritate you or get into it with you on the three photos I tagged. One of them seemed to have been pulled from a student server and the PD status seemed unclear to me. You just reverted what I thought to be good tags without explaining why or pointing to a policy that allows for it. I had tagged several similar files ages ago and they were deleted, with a few coming through with OYTRS and staying. Anyway, of the few files I tagged just now, you did not revert my tag on this logo. Do you agree with the tag? This seems to me to be precisely the type of thing we need OTRS persmission for - a file from a commercial website now claimed by an uploader to be released. I don't mean to be a pain, and maybe you are not interested in helping others out, but if you disagree with this one, maybe you could briefly explain why? Novaseminary (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 14 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Reversions
With this edit, an IP deleted some fact tags I added to facts that need citations to an RS. I tagged them to give editors a chance to add cites rather than deleting the sentences outright. WP:BURDEN requires a citation be supplied (or a reason given why one is not needed there, e.g, it is a summary of later cited material).

The IP also reinserted three sentences I removed for the reasons noted in my edit summaries. The first sentence analogizes online counseling with telephone therapy. That might be a valid or widely accepted analogy, but the cited source does state the analogy. The source appears to be the "proof" of the analogy. That is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, though, since the source pre-dates online therapy. The other two sentences might be relevant if the analogy is proper, but as it is, they relate only to telephone therapy. Until a link is established as noted in RSs, these facts, true and cited as they may be, are at best of unclear or un-established relevance on this article about online counseling. At worst they are POV.

Inexplicably, the IP also removed various wikilinks I added to link to some of the journals referenced. I think these edits (which I made as a separate edit when I initially added them to make clear what I was doing and it non-objectionable nature) were probably reverted in a baby with the bath water situation, but if the IP does not want wikilinks to The Counseling Psychologist, Rehabilitation Psychology (journal), and Journal of Counseling Psychology I cannot imagine why.

I am going to revert the reversion. If the IP or anyone else adds appropriate citations or even attempts to make a policy argument in their favor, I would welcome the engagement.

Novaseminary (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP did it again with this edit, asking to discuss, but not doing so here despite my linking here in an edit summary. So then User:Darkness Shines reverted the IP's reversion with this edit. Unfortunately, the IP reverted again with this edit erroneously saying the section was "blanked", though only three sentences were removed for very clear reasons, and to see talk, yet did not explain at talk. That means two editors with accounts and substantial edit histories agree with my position above. The IP has not here or in previous sections even attempted to rebut my argument. I reverted again with this edit. I would hope the IP will achieve consensus here before reinserting the material discussed above. Novaseminary (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And the IP again, no discussion or consensus, so I reverted again. Novaseminary (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * novaseminary pov pushing,and section blanking. So everyone is aware of his pov editing, I have copied some of his history here.  I ask other editors not to restore his versions as they are pov and section blanking.

Here is a little histoy on novaseminry. More can easily be found. I include it here to show the type of editor he is. Request topic ban of User:Novaseminary for persistent disruptive editing at Douglas Tait (stuntman) User:Novaseminary has tried unsuccessfully to get the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP deleted twice before. Here, and here. But having failed at deletion twice, for two years now, Novaseminary has also failed at WP:LETITGO. He persistently challenges the BLP's notability and threatens to start a 3rd deletion attempt. He also regularly violates WP:DE. He edit wars and disruptively edits almost on a daily basis, pushes POV, attacks other articles because they are mentioned in the BLP, creates suspect disambig stubs, insists on irrelevant or dated edits, violates OR, uses citation tags to edit war, like here, here, here and here, removes sourced quotes and attacks and fights to include and spreads unflattering and irrelevant material about the BLP's subject over several editor's objections. But Novaseminary is also knowledgeable of WP rules. So knowledgeable that he uses WP to argue & defend his indefensible actions, even as he ignores all the WP rules & policies that his tendentious editing violates. He cites the rules that give him cover, and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive. Recommend an immediate topic ban. Not just for the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP, but for all the articles sourced in the BLP. Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC) This looks like a content dispute. Have you taken this to WP:DRN as a first port of call? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately, it's more than a content issue. It's a persistent, long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. So per WP:DDE, ANI "may be the best first step." 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC) The article would probably benefit from both these editors leaving it alone. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Fact is, unless admins enforce it, don't count on it. Otherwise I wouldn't have had to come here. I've suggested several times that Novaseminary just take a Wikibreak from the article. He refused. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I found this at WP:RFPP and have spent more time than I'm willing to admit looking through it all. 3RR violations from dynampic IPs are really disruptive, but similarly I think we can do without Noveseminary's bizarre obsession with this person. I'm going to give Novaseminary time to respond, but I strongly lean towards a topic ban for both users. – Steel 00:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC) You know what? I'll accept that. If Novaseminary is topic banned, I'll voluntarily self-ban. My only request is that the last edit before the ban is monitored/reviewed by uninvolved 3rd party/parties to insure no Novaseminary POV. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:3533:DED5:47AA:B44 (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC) I've never violated a single guideline or policy at this article. The IP seems to care more about how this person is presented favorably than about the nietrality of WP, but it tough to know what else if anything this IP has edited. This article was one of several resume-like PR/POV articles i've come across over the years. I, and others, tried to make it neutral and then kept it on my watchlist. Almost everything i've done i've discussed at talk. I have only even edited this over the last few weeks because an IP came along and removed well sourced text without discussion until posted at a NB. Novaseminary (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC) I would also point out, I only nominated this article for deletion once, with no consensus. I actually came across it at the first successful AfD nom made, not by me, but another editor. The IP seems to think I have had it out for this person, but I have been only one of several editors to do things the IP apparently disapproves of, but that I think comply with policy. (At one point the article cited several non-RS articles written by a single publicist, for instance.) Novaseminary (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Our IP user has agreed to a self-ban from this article providing you do the same. From your comments above that the IP's edits are the only reason you've even been editing the page recently, this should be an acceptable resolution for you too. Right? – Steel 15:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Yes. Novaseminary? I do agree that you have an all-too strong interest in that article. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that I haven't touched the article since Drmies came along and restored some sanity to it. Even though we still disagree on an issue, and even after the temp-protect was denied. But even as a dynamic IP, I've respected all these dispute resolution processes. I should also point out the same can't be said for Novaseminary. Just today: 1, 2 and 3. Drmies has already attacked my intentions and falsely accused me of COI - after working on the article for just a few weeks. By the way, I found nothing that supports Novaseminary's "single publicist" theory. But what I did find, is that Novaseminary has been at this article for almost 2 years, much of it for months at a time as it's as the sole editor! Just look at the period from March to May of this year, folks. And please let's not forget Novaseminary's "Douglas Tait obsession" goes well beyond just the article. The creation of his weird disambiguation. The fact that he slapped up a Douglas Tait (illustrator) stub that was so non-notable, that months later, it's still just a stub. He also slaps up citation tags on any article even mentioned in the BLP, as I noted originally. And just today, his obsession with 1 article on Tait about him getting kicked off his HS basketball team was revealed again! (Which by the way, a subsequent article that he never includes noted was a 1 day suspension!) But for your convenience, and possibly entertainment, I pulled just how many times and places I could find where he (or his meatpuppet who did it twice), have fought to include that one article - over the objection of far more editors than just me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and just TODAY - you guessed it: 32! But that tally also excludes these, found on the article on Tait's high school, Bishop Alemany High School : 33, 34, 35, and 36! By the way, he has also attacked that article, presumably because the school and/or team dared to admit Tait: 1, and 2. So it should be clear by now folks, that the problem isn't me. But is exactly as Steel said: Novaseminary has some "bizarre obsession with this person." Geez, Novaseminary can't even stay off an article when he's being ANI'd over it! Now I know, to Drmies, I'm just some lowly SPA with a dynamic IP and some as alleged, yet unexplained, COI. But I just happened upon this deal a few weeks ago, and you've got a real problem on your hands that's been persistent long before me. So you can either do something about it, or you can continue to let Novaseminary's wackadoodle freak flag fly. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:CC27:F942:1C73:3E49 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC) I do not think that is true that the IP has left the article alone since Drmies restored sanity to it. IP seems to have edit warred with the Dr since the Dr made his edits. That is why the Dr asked for the article to be partially protected. In fact, the Dr reverted IP most recently. And I just restored to the version IP said he agreed with (and others did, too) on talk, but then s/he changed. Novaseminary (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The only reason I have edited the page at all since this iteration was created is because it was recreated after deletion at AfD and, at that time, was quite promotional. To be clear, I do not think this individual satisfies N (the only indepth coverage were several articles since disclaimed by the newspaper and removed from the article and one more article that striked me as a non-RS). But if there is to be an article, it should not be a promo piece, or even a non-promotional piece that neglects widely covered aspects of this individual because somebody doesn't want that covered. And it is not just the current variable IPv6. Various other IPs at other times have inserted unsourced or promotional material. So has at least one regular editor who was blocked, X4n6 (whose arguments and edit history seem to me quite similar to our IPv6 editor). I have always tried to achieve consensus at talk and adide by it, and except for disagreements from IP or other editors who have actually broken WP guidelines and policies and been blocked for it (X4n6 and one of the recent IPv6 identities blocked here), I and the other editors have succeeded in reaching consensus (including the current version of this article). We did so despite being up against at least one individual who, in my opinion, did not have WP's best interests at heart or even any stated or apparent interest in WP for WP's sake at all. I think it would be strange and detrimental to WP to topic ban an editor who has never been blocked, has followed all guielines and policies on the article in question, seeks and abides by consensus at the article in question, and has only had run-ins at the article with tenacious editors who have been blocked for their violations of various guidelines and policies (including the IP requesting this action who certainly has before and does even in the post above with the "wackadoodle freak flag fly" comment and unsupported claim I have a meatpuppet). I hope we don't allow editors whose edits indicate that they are more interested in positive coverage of a particular subject have veto power of a good faith editor who edits to keep WP from being misused for the sake of WP. Novaseminary (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I don't think anyone disagrees that 2602.304 is a disruptive presence on the page. But it takes two, and the edit history for September and October is just crazy. There is more than one person here who thinks that both of you should just chill and give it a rest for a little while. The Wiki is bigger than this one article, and if it's true that you've only been editing the article because of 2602.304, then this will have zero effect on your editing. There are still other users who can look after the page. So unless any other uninvolved users want to chime in, I think we can consider the dual article ban done. – Steel 14:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC) On second thoughts, instead of an article ban let's make it a topic ban on anything related to Tait, that way Bishop Alemany High School, and any other page that this might spill over to, is included as well. – Steel 14:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC) It's been a very long time since I've read such a steaming pile of desperate, self-serving, "everybody did bad but me, daddy!" fiction that it was actually embarrassing to read. Novaseminary's "defense?" Everyone ganged up on poor him, while all he did was wear angel wings - while he alone protected the very existence of WP from the mortal threat posed by this one minor article with limited traffic. Ridiculous, and not a string of truth anywhere! 1) Here, his edit-warring with Drmies: Here and here and of course, his all-time favorite, here. 2) To Novaseminary's claim that the restored article was the same as the deleted one, was originally made back on March 3. Here's the response. But that wasn't good enough for him. Obviously. So much for collaborative editing. Equally obvious, Novaseminary's 2nd AfD also failed. In fact, while he says there was no consensus, there originally was consensus - to keep. Once again, Novaseminary fought it and an admin changed it, despite an !vote itself of 4 to 2 to Keep, to no consensus. 3) To his claim that the article was promotional? Here's the first entry. Remarkable how it contains much of the same material and sources, even after Novaseminary had months of editing it, several alone, to supposedly scrub it of anything "promotional." 4) Novaseminary also routinely challenges the notability of anything remotely related to Tait's N. Like here, here and here. The apparent offense of these festivals? They screened Tait's film. But this isn't the first time he's been called out for going after sources simply because they establish Tait's notability. 5) Novaseminary also attempted to make hay over the fact that an editor who challenged his edits, (pretty vocally too), was blocked. Well here's a portion of Novaseminary's own record. He misrepresented his own history on Noticeboards. Seems this isn't his first rodeo. There may have been more incidents in his history, but this was so well-detailed, I didn't see the need to look for any more. 6) Just as he misrepresented the current version of the article. Which I have now restored to reflect the actual consensus. 7) By the way, this is meatpuppetry: 1, 2, 3, 4. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I resent the claims of the IP (by that, I mean the person who has been posting using IP v6 Addresses in the range 2602:3FF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF) that my actions have been meatpuppetry (and consequently that I am a meatpuppet). The IP should have brought this section to my attention, and neglected to do so. I have warned the IP for making a personal attack in this edit. The IP has never answered my question "What are your goals in editing this talk page?" about Talk:Douglas Tait (stuntman) in this edit. The IP has consistently refused to login or to create an account, to "tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using" (asked in the same edit), and to "Kindly provide a single user talk page on which to discuss your conduct"[1], and has instead deflected such queries as "inappropriate".[2] Given WP:BOOMERANG, I wish to discuss the IP's conduct here. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC) The complete extent of Jeff G. ツ's contributions here, here, here, and here, was: "Yes per Novaseminary.", "I agree wholeheartedly with Novaseminary's position on this issue." and to twice repost a link that Novaseminary reposted over 35 times on a least 2 articles. A link that has been rejected by more than a dozen other editors. So he's free to resent the meatpuppetry conclusion. The log is the log. Although there was also his repeated attacks aimed at me while complaining of my attack on Novaseminary. As he himself, illustrated, 3 times I had to ask him to focus on the RfC topic instead of me. Three times he was unable to do so. Regarding his other issues, not surprisingly - again all focused on me and not the topic: a) I'm not required to create an acct, nor do I choose to do so. "Wikipedia is for everyone". b) Nor do I need to "tell us which other IP Addresses you have been using", mein Herr. c) My dynamic IP meant that I never saw his IP talk page post, but I called his attack on me "inappropriate" in an RfC forum, because I actually took a line from Novaseminary, who had said earlier: "Okay, but this is not the place to discuss blocking me or to dicsuss me at all." Interesting that he only found it troublesome when I said it, but not when Novaseminary did. Ironic, huh? 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:4191:1232:48D4:51E3 (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Not to speak for him, but you never had discussed at talk why you continued to remove the Los Angeles Times article about Tait when he reverted you. You only discussed after I requested page protection. And what more than dozen editors is IP talkign about? IP removing without discussion over a dozen times, against the only discussion at talk, is not the same as over a dozen editors removing it. IP has seen fit to document and complain of my 35 edits here at ANI (miscontrueing and including among them POV edits such as (31 above, as of this edit, and the very offensive 13 above). Where are the more than dozen editors that have removed anything I have added at that article? And if this is not the place to discuss IP, it is also not the place to discuss me. Novaseminary (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC) There was no reason to rehash his question, since I had already thoroughly discussed it at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Douglas Tait (stuntman) - 2nd Review Request where he had participated. By the way, the full extent of his utility there was this to you: "That's a great compromise, thanks!" Obviously, I also should have included that as well. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:4191:1232:48D4:51E3 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC) But his emotional appeal was also instructive for what it didn't defend or explain. Like: a) His bizarre disambiguation. b) His abandoned and non-notable Douglas Tait (illustrator) stub. c) His wikistalking & original research of Talk's personal cell number. d) His attacks on other articles mentioned in Tait's article: 1, and 2. e) His attacks-by-citation tags on other articles because they were mentioned in Tait's article. Like here, here and here. f) His recent redlinking of the article, which he only withdrew when I showed him the notes against excessive redlinking, esp. if he never planned on writing those articles. g) His obsession with 1 article about Tait's high school basketball suspension. He posted it over 35 times, on two articles! I've also removed it from here - where it's also not only irrelevant, but inconsistent with all the other notable alumns. NONE of whom need citations - and many of whom also have their own BLPs. h) His insistence in renaming the article "Douglas Tait (stuntman). Tait's infobox mentions actor twice, stuntman and filmmaker. If it weren't for his orphaned stub of [Douglas Tait (illustrator)], which should probably be deleted for N, Tait wouldn't need to be listed as a "stuntman", since that ignores the entire body of his acting credits and other work as a filmmaker. i) And finally why, if Novaseminary's only interest in the article was to keep it from becoming promotional, couldn't/didn't he accomplish that in the 2 months when only he was regularly editing the article, from March to May of this year. Either that was not his intention at all, as he's claimed. Or he's just a really incompetent (CIR) editor. Something else is going on with his obsession over Tait. That much is obvious. Finally, in response to his admittedly well-crafted rhetorical appeal - which he always seems to display whenever he needs it on Noticeboards - but is rarely in evidence in his contentious edits and stubborn failure to edit collaboratively. I say, save the rhetoric. His duplicitous and conniving edit pattern, contrived speechifying and transparent agenda, speak for him. A review of his edit log clearly shows he forfeited any AGF a long time ago. It also makes a strong argument that he has damaged the very WP, and regularly violating the very WP rules & guidelines, that he now claims he protected. His last disciplinary action, just a few months ago, proves the Tait article isn't just a lone exception in the way he operates here. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Steel, I'd like it noted, that I must have posted my last response at the same time that you did. And while we disagree that I have been disruptive - esp. given the time it obviously takes to research and craft responses that I hope have been useful, I understand your need to be Solomonic here and split the baby to protect your own. Fine. But yes, the topic ban was my original request, so enormous thanks for that. I also see you've protected the page as well. Again, no problem. I'll keep my part of the bargain. But, and I really hope this won't be misconstrued as "disruptive", but I'll look it over in a day or so and leave any final thoughts/comments/requests on your talk page. Thanks. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:48A6:D443:F2D6:231F (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I do not agree to a topic ban. The IP continues to insure his/her POV remains with edits, of course, right before the lock. This is a content dispute with a disruptive IP, nothing more. This is not the appropriate DR location for this discussion anyway. On the other hand, if the article is reverted to the pre-IP state, I would happily stand down. Or even if the non-RSs (and corresponding facts) were removed and the discussion of his basketball career that notes he didn't play much in the season before he was supposedly casted as a basketball player because of his play. Either way, if others (other than disruptive IP) want to discuss that version and change it, I bet there would be little to no disagreement in the future. A partial protection would probably take care of everthing. Novaseminary (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC) That Novaseminary disagrees with the topic ban shouldn't surprise anyone. Nor should his argument that only his POV should remain there. It's also all everyone needs to read before they argue that any voluntary ban would ever work. It wouldn't. He could never be trusted to follow it. He still points blame at everyone else, but himself. Especially the "disruptive IP". He has never once accepted any responsibility for his own actions or ever even acknowledged that he did anything wrong. So if we're being honest, call that what it is: textbook psychopathy. Cavarrone nailed it below: "I see him too involved in the topic, and some of his edits (see the relevant talk page, with - often original, and in somewhat manner weird - researches about Tout's private life, cellular number, activity as wedding videographer, a basketball team suspension during school years and so on) seems to reveal a little (negative) obsession about the subject." So let's all stop the "blame the disruptive IP game" once and for all, and see Novaseminary's transparent playing of the "Help me, it's us members of the community vs. the disruptive IP" card, for what it is. Novaseminary - and Novaseminary alone - brought all of this on himself. By himself. The End. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:71D1:9226:27E0:22AA (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OMG, I've never seen such.....er...passion regarding such a non-noteworthy individual before. I remember when this page was first created and there was a lot of disagreemen over whether he was even notable (I was not one that thought he was). I do NOT think that there should be a topic ban for either, as then we'd have no one even editing this page. LOL. In all seriousness, I think a temporary topic ban would be acceptable. For instance, just keep the page fully protected for say 1 or 2 weeks and let everyone cool down. There is nothing on the page that is negative or requires immediate removal at the moment and the time away from the topic could do everyone good. I think there are a lot of egos on both sides being tested here and time apart is appropriate, IMO. I am NOT for any permanent bans or blocks. I think this has to do with editors that want the best but are going at it from 2 different sides of the equation. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I'm not knowledgeable on this particular situation, but I have had an IMMENSE amount of interaction with Novaseminary which started with this: [3] and thankfully 98% ended with this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior I certain that I'm the Wikipedian that knows them best. They do launch into obsessive battling behavior against individuals, including following them around and even creepier privacy related stuff that I don't care to get into. And they have "skated" by being expert at mis-using and mis-quoting policies and guidelines and clever wording that disguises such warfare as not being such. If you really want to do something really huge for Wikipedia, take a close look at what has happened at this article with this framework in mind, and 1 or preferably more folks should warn them to reduce the type of behavior exhibited. I believe that they would be very influence-able by that type of input, and with that course correction would be a good editor, as they also do much good work, aside from the above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I think Novaseminary's response - and reaction - finally exposed the real him. This is about policies that his tendentious editing violates. He cites the rules that give him cover, and just ignores those that expose his tactics as disruptive. Recommend an immediate topic ban. Not just for the Douglas Tait (stuntman) BLP, but for all the articles sourced in the BLP. Otherwise he will just retaliate by continuing to disrupt them. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:A449:F5CE:8339:FCA2 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC) This looks like a content dispute. Have you taken this to WP:DRN as a first port of call? --[[User:Ritchie333|out what's best for the Tait article, or even what's best for WP. It's about Novaseminary getting his way and getting the last word. It was amusing that he can't even let the current version stand for a second because it doesn't have his edits on it. Edits that, by consensus, had to go. And again it's also telling that he didn't even try to refute my report card on his record. Because he can't. So instead, he's called in the cavalry and asked other editors to help. Which is his right. But he's also cherry-picked editors who have worked on the article before and whom he believes he can reliably trust to agree with him. Where are all the requests for comment from editors who have worked on it and like me, also complained about his edits? He sure didn't send them "Hail Mary" invites. So I think contributions from NON-INVOLVED editors with no history on the BLP should be weighted more. I especially appreciate the comments of North, who has zero axe to grind on this article having never touched it, but who's own experience with Novaseminary makes him uniquely positioned to comment on this user's disruptive and yes, disturbing behavior. At this point it should be clear to everyone that nothing "temporary" regarding Novaseminary will/would ever work. Unless he is stopped, he won't stop. He'll say what he must say on Noticeboards to escape censure and restrictions, and then just wait until the heat dies. And then he'll resume as if nothing happened. And he'll be free to do it on the Tait article because it's not well-traveled, so it'll go on for months again until some "horrible IP" like me happens along and risks being called "disruptive", just by showing the WP community what it failed to catch or monitor itself: That he has an absolutely clear pattern and agenda, at least on the Tait article and probably on his other SPA edits elsewhere. Someone should review and request feedback from editors there to see. Because it would be incredibly foolish to let him escape responsibility again, just months after North's Noticeboard complaint. As he's demonstrated, it would also be foolish to expect/assume any voluntary, unmonitored change. People are who they are and they consistently do what they do. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:9577:E52E:CA24:3B6D (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Just clarifying one point, it's my guess that they would be influenced by well-written on-target warnings. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC) I still think it's best if Novaseminary simply stays away from the article. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I didn't respond to IP's "report card" because it is not worthy of a response. My only concern at this article is that WP not be used for promotional purposes or be exploited to only show the good about a particular subject leaving out articles in national newspapers covering the subject in a less flattering way. That is my true color. You might disagree with how I have tried to do that, but seeing as I would prefer the article not exist (not that it highlight unflattering material about Tait, and certainly not that it be a resume, linked, as it was, from his facebook page), what else would have caused my alleged POV? If we allow an IP to inhibit strict reliance on RS and V and NPOV, especially in a BLP, the project will be worse off. I would love to tone it down. IP does not seem to have the same interest. And going straight to a ban, even though no other blocks have been made (against, me, of course; the requestor has been blocked before), and no earlier steps in editor-related DR has been undertaken, seems to violate WP:BAN. I would also note and agree with JeffG's interspersed edit above (under IP's #7 above). No meatpuppetry. This also weighs against a topic ban (for me) at least. I tried to use DR and talk. Novaseminary (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC) You didn't respond, because after having your own disruptive edit log laid bare in front of you, even you have no response. Frankly, your responses only remind people why no temporary or voluntary solution requiring your compliance would ever work. I'm not entirely convinced that you shouldn't be banned altogether for abusing this project and distorting it to make it your own personal plaything. But that's for others to eventually decide. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:4191:1232:48D4:51E3 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC) I support the topic ban for both the editors, and, as the IP appears to accept this solution, I would be glad to see Novaseminary voluntarily accepting it. I see him too involved in the topic, and some of his edits (see the relevant talk page, with - often original, and in somewhat manner weird - researches about Tout's private life, cellular number, activity as wedding videographer, a basketball team suspension during school years and so on) seems to reveal a little (negative) obsession about the subject. At any rate, this endless war is of no use to the project. Cavarrone (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC) A topic ban for both editors might be a good idea, I feel that the amount of time both editors have wasted on what seems like an insignificant article is becoming excessive, not to mention RFCs and BLP/N discussions that didn't really go anywhere. At this point, both editors seem to be too involved to be dispassionate and balanced in their actions on article. Also, given some of the personal attacks that have gone down on Talk:Douglas Tait (stuntman), I think an interaction ban between the two might be helpful as well, though I don't know how that would work with a variable IP editor like 2602.304. Jonathanfu (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC) I disagree to some extent with a topic ban for NovaSeminary. I don't know that it would matter to the IP since I don't think WikiPedia can effectively ban an entire internet provider, but if something can be done, maybe. I'm not sure being "too involved" is grounds for a ban, else much of WP would be banned. I might be more inclined to agree if the IP seemed to be editing in good faith and not breaking the rules. I think all of this is foolishness, though. As I (non)voted at the original AfD the second AfD after the deleted article was recreated (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Tait), this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. I don't see many/any editors disagreeing with that here, and in one productive thing NovaSeminary did by noting a few of the in-depth sources are disavowed, the article is less notable than it appeared during the AfD. Why not delete the article and be done with the dispute? Hoppingalong (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Mmmmm I don't think your personal view about the subject's notability is so much related with the problem we are discussing. I'm pretty sure that NovaSeminary is convinced, in absolute good faith, that the subject is unnotable, but this could not be a justification to engage in an endless war with other users who wish to improve the article after that the deletion request NovaSeminary promoted has not been approved. Side Note: NovaSeminary shows some research skills, it's a shame that they are wasted, for months, in a similar article and in a few others related to this subject. Cavarrone (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC) The only editor I have more than passingly disagreed with since the spring on this article was the IPv6 who unabashedly violated 3RR repeatedly. I never violated 3RR, in letter or spirit. I repeatedly engaged at Talk (and RfC and elsehwere) and tried to incorporate elements of what the IP seemed to want to do so far as policies and guidelines allowed (even if I thought it was not good, a la the overwrought discussion of Tait's scoring). I tried to arrive at consensus, and did several times with editors who did not put their view of this particular article above the goals of the project as a whole. I compromised many times. It is a fair point that this unnotable article was not worth those efforts on its own, but I do think that the principle that WP not devolve into a series of promotional articles, especially on minor articles that don't get much traffic, is worth considerable effort. There are still facts in the article sourced only to non-RSs and which don't seem to be supported by any RS. Regardless, I was not the only editor who repeatedly reverted the IP. The IP was the only editor who was battling for the positions s/he took, by and large. But Hoppingalong and Cavarrone are correct. I certainly do not think this subject meets N and that the article should be deleted. Hoppingalong makes a good point: There would be no reason to consider topic banning me or the IP if the article is deleted (though the IP's repeated violations of 3RR and other policies might justify a another block, but the first and only had no effect, so it wouldn't be worth the trouble with no evidence this IP is editing elsewhere). Novaseminary (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Lol, it was already clear that the deletion of the article would be a greatly appreciated outcome for you, but again this is not the point. For what I can see from edit history, you didn't accepted the outcome of the AfD and from then you focused your activity on WP in this article and in a few others related to it, and considering your skills this is a waste (of time, of abilities, of everything). Part of your actions on this article was useful, but (sadly) a great part of them was just vain fuss. And both you and the ip you have developed an idea of ​​property of this article, and this is always a damage to the project. Please accept a wikibreak on this article, there are thousands of other less-involved editors that could patrol it, especially now that the problem was rised at ANI, and they could make your own work, probably from a more neutral point of view. And spend more time on other articles, so that your skills are used in a more useful way. Cavarrone (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Cavarrone: Novaseminary always forgets there is an edit history. That history doesn't lie and it doesn't engage in self-serving puffery. This is how unnotable Tait is to Novaseminary: From March 3, his first contribution to "improving" the article - which was a speedy tag -, to his last effort before the block, an October 13 nitpick about Tait's high school basketball years: the Tait article is so unnotable to Novaseminary, that he logged over two hundred and fifty edits there. Tait is so unnotable to Novaseminary that he also logged over one hundred posts on the article's talk page: where he also felt it was important to share with editors what he had found about: "The phone listed on Tait's resume", or asking "Is it worth mentioning Tait's CINE Award?", or "I removed the "Fan following section.", or where he fought to include the number he had counted of the stuntmen who shared Tait's SAG Award nomination for Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture claiming that without including his actual count of the number of stuntmen: "One would not know Tait was part of an ensemble.". Because presumably, the word "Ensemble" in the title of the award isn't clear enough. Just this week, Novaseminary complained on the talk page about: "one sentence ("He played the role of "Jason" in the final scene of Freddy vs. Jason.") was left in the "Creature character roles" section with a reference to this website. In light of the the source and fact having been removed elsewhere (along with other non-RSs), was this left in inadvertently? I don't think this website is an RS and that the fact and source should be removed."' Of course, had he read the source, he would have discovered it was actually an indie film production company's official website. This company had hired Tait for a role in their film and were so pleased they announced: "Vigilance Films signs Douglas Tait to play 'Simon' in The Season. Mr. Tait, a working stuntman and actor, got his break playing “Jason” in the ending scenes of Freddy Vs. Jason. Since then, he has worked a lot behind prosthetic fx makeup and creature suits.". But yet to Novaseminary, an official announcement from an employer, who acknowledges an important point on an actor's resume isn't a RS. The list goes on and on. If Tait appears so unnotable, perhaps it's just because Novaseminary has worked so hard to try to make the article appear so. Those totals of Novaseminary's edit contributions also don't include his long list of edits on abandoned disambiguations, WP forums and related links that I've already covered, that Novaseminary has easily spent hundreds if not thousands of man-hours populating. All for such an unnotable. Then what does that say about Novaseminary and the time he's spend cyber-obsessing over Tait. Tait - an "unnotable": whose bio appears in the New York Times; has been mentioned as being pivotal to the work of an Academy Award winner's award-winning work - also published in no less a RS as the Los Angeles Times, been nominated for a major industry award, produced a film that won major film festival awards, and is one of the performers who played an iconic role in an iconic film series and has the fan-base, cult following and professional credits to prove it.[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. No doubt if Novaseminary were so unnotable, he'd have a BLP too. While Novaseminary claims he's only edit warred with me - or correction: "The only editor I have more than passingly disagreed with since the spring on this article was the IPv6 who unabashedly violated 3RR repeatedly. I never violated 3RR, in letter or spirit." Again, the edit logs tell a different story. Just some of the editors who have complained about or had run-ins with Novaseminary on this article: Trekkieman, who had to tell him: "You have been trying to delete this page for some time sir, and now you are trying whittle it down to nothing. You have already added the (stuntman) next to his name to further discredit the "ACTOR". Now you are adding negative articles to his page, and pass them off as needed articles to prove he went to Alemany. C'mon, back off." or x4n6' who had to post: "A pattern of unsourced edits and removing sourced edits on this BLP has emerged in blatant violation of WP:TE. If the disruptive editing continues, the editor will be reported. Suggest: if you will not/cannot contribute constructively to this BLP, see WP:JDI and WP:LETITGO. Otherwise, pursuing this course will result in action." Novaseminary edit warred with that person for months. Then there was Kuru, who after denying Novaseminary's speedy, saying: "decline CSD; does not appear to be "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" - has been improved and expanded)" was met with Novaseminary's response: "(tag for notability - unclear anything has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas tait)". There was also MichaelQSchmidt, who had to remove several of Novaseminary's RS tags by saying "Dread Central and Cinefantastique and Fangoria are considered reliable sources for film related articles)". There were IP users, probably Tait fans more than WP fans, because many had never contributed to WP before. I should also probably point out that this Tait article was created on April 5, 2011. And before Novaseminary's March 3, 2012 first contribution - which was that speedy tag, without one word of editing, the article enjoyed contributions from 9 editors. None of whom found it unnotable, or tagged it for speedy. In fact as the edit history makes very clear, there were exactly zero problems with the newly rewritten BLP - until Novaseminary created the problems. Lastly, this obviously isn't about Tait's clear N which the links prove he easily meets on all three levels of WP:NACTOR, but it's about Novaseminary's unashamed attempt to dominate: see WP:OWN, the content of the article, and to do so in a decidedly negative, NPOV way. His latest claim that another AfD would solve the problem is just more proof that he doesn't have this project's best interests in mind, just his own. And remember, as North8000 has repeatedly tried to remind everyone, this ain't Novaseminary's first rodeo here, but it is consistent with how he operates. And Hoppingalong's delete comments would have carried more weight if s/he weren't the user who reverted the Keep decision on the last failed AfD. He should have revealed that here. Having not, his own bias is also self-evident. But finally, it's interesting that in all Novaseminary's concern about Douglas Tait (stuntman)'s notability, he doesn't question Douglas Tait (illustrator)'s notability, which he clearly supports. The Douglas Tait (illustrator) that he created. Then abandoned. Seems that if he were really interested in deleting unnotable BLPs, that would be an excellent place to start. 2602:304:5EA1:1429:DC5D:7BA6:DC0:5316 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Speaking of wasting time... Suffice it to say, I ever so repectfully disagree with IP's analysis, or whatever somebody would call this last post. Novaseminary (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Folks may not be understanding a major component of this, and how something significantly good may come out of this. You might want to re-read my post above. I think that a little advice to Novaseminary would go a long way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2012 (U

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 April 2013‎ (UTC)

NPOV
There may be a POV issue with this article. Some sources are being misquoted as supporting the efficacy of online counseling and information is sometimes written (or periodically inserted) in ways that appear promotional. ParticipantObserver (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)