User:Who123/Sandbox

Course Versions
There appears to be confusion regarding versions of ACIM. I believe the article should address this in a short topic. I suggest this as a starting point:

There are three primary versions of The Course. These are the Urtext, the HLC, and the FIP first edition. There are also multiple variations of these both written and "electronic". The Urtext is the earliest publicly known version. Within the Urtext Dr. William Thetford was the designated editor. The HLC is the version edited by Bill and completed in late 1972. He added the organization of the chapters and sections. Unfortunately, original material was removed. The FIP first edition was a further edit of the HLC by Ken Wapnick. Some material was changed and some was deleted. In addition, FIP released a second edition. This second edition includes additional material and an outline numbering system. The additional material and the outline numbering system remain under copyright.

There has been a long discussion here on sourcing. Sourcing for this addition includes the works themselves as well as the already referenced "Absence from Felicity".--Who123 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles
In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~ ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

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

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

A Course in Miracles
sought to delete every single article connected to A Course in Miracles, in some cases using incorrect reasons to support the nominations, using {db} tags, PRODs, and AfDs.

Speedy delete tags: (There may be others which were deleted and so are not evident.)
 * with the bizarre claim that the delete claim of "Empty".
 * , a best-selling author. (Subsequently she did a reasonably-good rewrite of the article, but strangely deleted the subject's official website, claiming that there is no way to be sure that it was really hers.)
 * 
 * , a best-selling author. (Subsequently she did a reasonably-good rewrite of the article, but strangely deleted the subject's official website, claiming that there is no way to be sure that it was really hers.)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

PRODs

AfDs
 * Articles for deletion/ACIM church movement
 * Articles for deletion/Pathways of Light center
 * Articles for deletion/Community Miracles Center
 * Articles for deletion/Foundation for Inner Peace
 * Articles for deletion/Foundation for A Course in Miracles
 * Articles for deletion/William Thetford
 * Articles for deletion/Kenneth Wapnick
 * Articles for deletion/Helen Schucman
 * Articles for deletion/Gary Renard
 * Articles for deletion/The Complete Story of the Course
 * Articles for deletion/A Return to Love
 * Articles for deletion/Christian Monism
 * Articles for deletion/Charles Buell Anderson (including Endeavor Academy

She has also listed images used in the articles as copyright violations (then, strangely enough, uploaded an ACIM-related photo using the same "fair use" claim that they others had ). She started an AfD at Wikiquotes for material related to ACIM.

Subsequently she wrote "My interest is not to delete all ACIM related articles."

Separately, she decided that the variations in the text of "A Course in Miracles" were sufficient that it was impossible to know which version was begin referred to. She created a disambiguation page among the verisons (only one of which has an article) and redirected many links to it. In other instances she stated that references to the book had to be deleted since it wasn't clear which version was meant, or that we were referring to the "wrong" version. In one case she implied that a subject might bring a lawsuit due to an internal link to the "wrong" version.[]

She insists that "ACIM" is a trademark or an "affiliated brand name" rather than a convenient abbreviation of "A Course in Miracles", and therefore any use of it is advertisement. Insted she insists that the book be referred to as the Course when a shorter version is desired. Though many editors have explained, with proof, that the trademark was cancelled by the Patent and Trademark Office and the matter is irrelevant, she remains convinced that she is right. Even while insisting that other editors should not get stuck on topics, she keep harping on this issue, and seems to have decided that her interpretation prevails.

In the case of Charles Buell Anderson and Endeavor Academy she nominated them for deletion together, which resulted in "no consensus". Then she promoted a merge with Endeavor Academy. Once the merger was completed she said she didn't think that Anderson had anything to do with the Academy, and therefore the material should be deleted. She even implied that it was libellous to mention Anderson. Similarly, she merged artices into A Course in Miracles, then deleted their contents from there.

Complains of an ACIM "advocacy group". 

Sculpture of Ancient Greece
The articles Greek statue and Sculpture of Ancient Greece had been marked for a merge for almost a year, but the merge templates did not describe which way the merge was required and. then carried out the merge on the 14th July and removed double redirects, carrying the merge out properly. Then, reverted the merge on Sculpture of Ancient Greece, disputing the merge in his edit summary. At this stage, should have taken her dispute to the talk page, but a slow-running revert war ensued:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

The edit war stopped, leaving the article in its pre-merge form, and a discussion which had been started on the talk page by in response to the merges (and which had been ignored by Ste4k) was continued by  following a WP:3O request by Nscheffey. Talk page here. Ste4k then responded, claiming that the merge was not disputed and accusing Nscheffey of distrupting WP work flow and harrassing her. Clearly, the fact that the merge was reverted even once by Nscheffey should have indicated to Ste4k that it was disputed and the edit war should not have ensued. Ste4k also accused Nscheffey of making a POV fork in reverting her merge, but when a function itself is disputed (ie the merge), then a split to revert that merge is not a POV fork.

Comments were then left by, and  (,  and  who unanimously agreed that the article be merged at Sculpture of Ancient Greece.  Ste4k then responded, describing that the direction of the merge didn't concern her - but she didn't want the article to be orphaned following the revert of her merge .  Following this consensus, Martinp23 completed the merge from Greek statue to Sculpture of Ancient Greece ( and ). He then left a message on Ste4k's talk page and on the article discussion page informing that the merge had been completed. ( and ). Following this, Ste4k left a comment on Martinp23's talk page informing him that he had omitted some information from the original article. When Martinp23 asked Ste4k what he had missed, he was told to look more carefully( and ). In the intervening period, Steak reverted the merge on Greek statue but not on Sculpture of Ancient Greece (orphaning Greek statue), leaving dispued merge templates on both ( and ), prompting to ask what the problem was on the article talk page. Martinp23 then looked for what he had omitted and put a missed picture in the article and left a message on the talk page awaiting a response from Ste4K. When a response was left, it said that a sentence had been missed from the first paragraph and comlained that Martinp23 had used overly harsh words in describing her actions (the use of "accused"). . In response to this, Nscheffey, in a further attempt to defuse Ste4k's arguement, left a question on the talk page to clarify her position on the merge. Martinp23, in anticipation of a response from Ste4k, added the information he had omitted and posted an apology on the article talk page ( and ). Then he removed the disputed tags and reverted Greek statue to his previous redirect version. ( and ). No further dispute was raised by Ste4k.

The users involved felt that Ste4k's behaviour in the circumstances had been inappropriate:
 * She held an edit war with Nscheffey, refusing to go to the talk page for discussion.
 * She commenced an edit war with Nscheffey on her talk page in response to the reverts of the article merge, instead of discussing on the article talk page.
 * She put disputed tags on the articles without explaining why on the talk page
 * She over-reacted to comments left

User talk page

 * Edit warred over talk page comments.
 * Imposed a "new messages at top" posting requirement.
 * Formatted her talk page with unreadable small maroon text on a black backrogund. Complaints about it:
 * Edit warred over that formatting.
 * Moved talk page to User:Ste4k/Prepolicy Discussion without linking from the new talk page.
 * Deleted criticism and warnings as personal attacks or taunts.
 * Called apparently personal messages "spam."
 * Added dismissive headers.
 * Set conditions before another user can post to the page.
 * Stated that she will ignore users.
 * Placed a notice that only admins could post messages.

General problems

 * Doing massive edits on material she knows nothing about. See "Start with what you know" Contributing_to_Wikipedia
 * Edits articles that by self-admission she knows nothing about.
 * "I haven't read any of these versions [of A Course in Miracles]. ... The first time I had ever heard of the Course was about three weeks ago.


 * Edits for the destruction of WP articles.
 * Overly compulsive and anal.
 * Raising the same issues over and over again.
 * Removing sources then complaining about lack of sources.
 * Removes long standing external links arbitrarily.
 * Seems impossible to reason with.
 * Refuses to work by consensus.
 * Ignores administrative requests.
 * Hostile personality.
 * Engages in personal attacks.
 * Although the user appears new to WP she is very knowledable about WP policies and procedures and is becoming worse with time.


 * Appears to be driving people away from WP:
 * Andrew Parodi
 * User:Scottperry
 * User:Who123 (?)
 * Inappropriate 3RR reports:
 * User:Bhouston reported by User:Ste4k (Result:No block)]]
 * User:JD_UK reported by User:Ste4k
 * Claimed to never revert. "I am 0RR. (religiously)"
 * Implied that a subject will sue if we include a link.
 * Disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
 * Took offense easily:
 * Used templates in a condescending, uncommunicative manner.
 * Discounted sources for flimsy reasons: "seven years old", "there is no book cited yet", "will need to have been written in the public by other professional editors",
 * Denigrated external links to official websites "self-serving websites", "the self-advertising link, as well as the unsourced anti-advertising link", "Spam", questioned their "relevence", "WP cannot ever determine whom is official"
 * Made unusual interpretations of policies.
 * Plastered tags on articles and then had edit wars over them:
 * Baseless report of personal attacks made at Administrators noticeboard.

Negative personal comments

 * "I'm not originally from the U.S. I was born in Kharkov. In our country, we beat liars, and if one wants to eat, they work. The only POV in that article I wrote was that I wanted to find out the truth, did research, marked it with citations for verifiability, refused to consider any source that came from some primary provider, and all I found out for my trouble was that this encyclopedia isn't even worth quoting. You should be ashamed to have your familiy member's name on this medium. "
 * "You still haven't apologized for pretending to be a n00b then turning around to slap a POV "delete" on the article. Do you think I am stupid, too? I already told you that insults don't make enemies, but if you want an enemy, then you should reconsider your choice, imho."
 * "the environment here is not conducive for editors like me to put any effort on this. Happy editing."
 * Calls another editor "less than a troll".
 * "I am very tired of his bickering, and trolling. He is uncooperative and anti-productive."
 * "I recently had a "bout" with a "owner" of a group of pages. By actually reading the citations on the page, I could see that the person or persons who owned the page were basically lying. This was even to the extent that they had a trademarked brand name that they insist on using as an acronym. "

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:DICK
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:OWN

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * "I suggest, if you're new, you apply WP:1RR until you're settled in."
 * "I strongly agree with William's suggestion that you try adopting WP:1RR as your personal policy until you are settled in."
 * "Please try to remain civil with your comments." "...you seem to be telling me that you are much more interested in rehashing past grievances and personal vendettas than you are in actually improving the article."
 * "Ste4k chill." "I've told you this before and I'll tell you again: chill out"
 * "...let's use common sense. "
 * "Ste4k, chill out."
 * "Hey, just chill." "Avoid baiting, or being baited by, Andrew or anyone else."
 * "Why are you so hostile to everything?"
 * "I'd just like to remind you to stay cool when the editing gets hot"
 * "Ste4k, for an editor with less than a month editing this project, you may want to slow it down a bit and learn the ropes before teaching them. Some friendly advise: You could be an excellent editor, but you need to learn to work with others."
 * "A quick evaluation of the situation quickly tells me that the main problem isn't one person or the other, and you both need to cool down a little bit so we can talk rationally."
 * "Ste4k's AfD noms (which were the first time I ever heard of ACIM) helped WP by cleaning out a walled garden of preachy, POV articles, but now it is time to stop being so adversarial and work together on improving the articles that were kept."
 * "Even when you're right, don't edit war."
 * "In short, an admin is telling you not to troll. Knock off the trolling."

Other comments from editors

 * "Now I wake up and I find that you've spent hours during the night sarcastically mutilating your own article. It appears that one word, "cult", and my good faith editing of its usage may have been your tipping point to go into a frenzy. "
 * "...my point is that "you" should realise that there are some places where you are just not qualified - or, it appears, able - to judge notability."
 * "If you are capable of bringing this article to AfD, you should be capable of the basic research that everyone else put in. If not, dont bring articles to AfD and waste our time and energy."
 * "So, is that basically all you do on Wikipedia, memorize the rules and then try to remind others that they are not following them? If you have any personal friends, they most likely think you're very anal."

Input requests involving Ste4k

 * Requests for adminship/Mboverload
 * Requests for mediation/Authorship of A Course in Miracles
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive121
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive51
 * Requests for adminship/Mboverload
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive50
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive119
 * Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/07
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-18 Cursed Newsgroup - self-published source?
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive114
 * Requests for comment/JD UK and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/JD UK

Suggested remedy
Considering that the user is very familiar with WP, her behavior continues to worsen despite advice, her destructive effect on WP, this user should have their editing privileges permanently revoked, or, at least, be banned from editing ACIM articles which she knows nothing about.--Who123 15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}



Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.