User talk:68.132.126.95

Seraphim Rose: where was the discussion?
Which section of Talk:Seraphim Rose demonstrates where consensus was reached for your edits? —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kindly remove yourself from an further editing of the Seraphim Rose page as you have a blatant COI through your association with a Catholic Fraternity, as noted on your user page and which I've screen-shotted.

It appears in "Matters up for discussion". In actuality the entire section regarding alleged homosexuality should be scrapped as it constitutes unverified scuttlebut which appears nowhere in the acknowledged major biography of his life, besides bearing no relevance whatsoever to the subject matter, since Fr. Seraphim Rose did not identify as homosexual and the basis for his inclusion in Wikipedia has nothing whatsoever to do with anything relating to homosexuality. While a final agreement could not be reached in talk a tentative compromise was struck wherein the claim would appear but would be tempered by the inclusion a short countervailing statement. But to be clear, and for the reasons enumerated above, I favor the removal of these spurious, novel, and unsubstantiated allegations in their entirety.

If you insist on removing the portion questioning the spurious and irrelevant claims regarding alleged sexual behavior, a compromise which has stood for five years, then the entire section alleging past homosexuality (which is sourced exclusively from an "expose" written by a notorious tabloid author) should be removed, for the reasons stated in talk.


 * Also, be advised that you have violated the three revert rule yourself in the article. I strongly suggest you self-revert. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (U

If the editor "Zaathras" who continues to vandalize the article in an attempt to overturn the previous compromise on this matter, tentatively reached in talk (and which has stood for five years), refuses to cease his edit warring by continuing to revert, then I would suggest it both necessary and appropriate to remove the entire section which has provoked the controversy in the first place, since it remains disputed and of dubious veracity and relevancy.


 * Zaathras is editing in good faith. They are not vandalizing the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I beg to differ. There is a clear rationale presented in talk on why the passage in question appears. Its inclusion came about only after pages upon pages of heated discussion and debate had transpired, all of which is available for review in talk. Zaathras appears to be pursuing an agenda-driven edit war in an attempt to suppress any hint of a dispute surrounding these claims. Moreover, I suspect that you may have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) yourself, in using your status and privileges as administrator to help enforce these recent changes, since your user page indicates you are a member of a fraternity that is directly associated with the Catholic Church, and Fr. Seraphim Rose is well known to have been a fierce and unrelenting critic of Roman Catholicism.


 * I ask again: Where are these "pages upon pages" of discussion? The section you linked to was one unopposed comment. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to see at least that you do not deny your obvious conflict of interest in attempting to moderate the recent editing conflict in connection with the the Seraphim Rose article. You can find the information you are seeking on the talk page of that article, beginning under the subheading "Homosexuality Revisited" and ending with "Matters Up For Discussion". The rationale presented therein for the proposed revision is straightforward and clear. There is an issue of veracity regarding the source of this claim, which appears no other source and contradicts the acknowledged major work on the subject's life. Let's not play games by continuing to pretend that the mere fact of some assertion (particularly one considered scandalous, out-of-character, or outre) having appeared in a book is sufficient to justify inclusion within within a work purporting to be an entirely neutral, objective enclyclopedic reference article. And if multi-editor consensus constituted an absolute necessary condition of revising or editing an article, then Wikipedia could never have successfully published any articles an any subject, as very few subjects appearing in Wikipedia articles ever receive multi-editor consensus or even involvement prior to publishing.

To give you some idea of what has already been said, here's a quote from the long debate preceding the most recent recrudescence of the conflict:

"It is a conflict over neutrality and the observance of proper norms in publishing information which adheres to the basic nature and intent of an Encyclopedic reference article. This means publishing only that material which can sufficiently meet critical standards of support, consisting of facts of a straightforward, independently verifiable, and clearly relevant nature. In this case, the alleged and unresolved character of his youthful sexual inclinations and behavior have arguably as much relevance to the life and work of Fr. Seraphim Rose the Eastern Orthodox monk and noted writer on religion and esoterica, as would a similarly reported profession at some earlier point in his life purporting to establish a one-time preference for peanut butter over ham and cheese. And what about Fr. Seraphim's notorious heavy drinking, smoking, and gourmandizing during the pre-Platina years? Should we also then include a precis of what I imagine were his many late night benders, his favorite night spots, or even choice of smokes as part of a reference article that purports to draw on his significance as an exponent of a particular religious tradition as a basis for inclusion as a topic of interest? How about his favorite brand of cereal and, wait...did he have a habit of washing his hands after using the toilet?--let's consult Cathy Scott, professional crime author and avid leading "East Coast-West Coast gangsta rap feud" conspiracy theorist. Needless to say, this simply cannot be sustained as an intelligent nor sound approach to producing Encyclopedic literature fit to meet professional standards of taste and scrutiny expected of any reputable public reference work. The point is that the passage in question does not entail straightforward facts about the subject's life, is of an obviously salacious and sensationalistic nature, is novel, lacks topical relevancy to all but those few readers who might favor its apparent propaganda value, and cannot be independently corroborated or supported by any other credible source, while being at odds with the acknowledged major biographical work on the subject, one which eminent religious scholar and Professor emeritus Houston Smith once called "one of the most important books of the last quarter century" ref:(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0938635522?ie=UTF8&isInIframe=1&n=283155&redirect=true&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#iframe-wrapper) Whatever the ultimate truth of the matter may be, and that clearly remains to be determined, unsubstantiated assertions regarding personal and private sexual history have no place in a Wikipedia article, and the repeated and unilateral insertion of the same by those pursuing a patently agenda-driven editing war, stands in flagrant violation of established rules outlined under WP:NPOV and WP:COI, and must therefore cease forthwith."

March 2020
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:C.Fred. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Seraphim Rose; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I was not attacking the editor. I was merely pointing out a conflict of interest in which this editor is involved by editing the content of this page. The subject of the article is well known as a severe critic of Catholicism and the editor indicates on his user page that he is a member of Phi Kappa Theta, a Catholic fraternity directly associated with the Catholic Church. His membership in this organization constitutes a prima facie violation of WP:COI in connection with the edits he's made to this page. This is something which needs to be pointed out, because it involves a violation of Wikipedia rules. Also, I have commented profusely on content in the talk section, where I have added page upon page of explanation in support of the current revision, and received no reasoned discussion from this warring editor in response, but only repeated, unilateral reverts with no real basis other than the fact that he does not agree and seeks to perpetuate an earlier revision which, as I have pointed out, is highly problematic. So why exactly am I being threatened with being blocked? The user C. Fred is the one who is disrupting consensus by ignoring the long discussion in talk and simply reverting anything he does not agree with without any explanation or discussion whatsoever. Please therefore provide clarification as to the suggested course of action in view of the dispute at hand.


 * You're making baseless attacks on other editors. Stop that, and stop edit-warring, or your block will be sitewide.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Sir, why do you say that what I have written is an "attack", and why do you say that it is baseless? Why is it that I am called out for "edit warring" and not C.Fred? I have posted thousands of words in the talk section, he has posted literally none in connection with his edits. I am trying to reach an agreement, right now he seems to be the only one forcefully insinuating himself into this matter without providing any rationale in support of his edits. Also, I did not provoke this. There was an earlier revision which was tentatively agreed upon in 2015 after much discussion failed to yield agreement of all parties involved, and in the recent weeks C. Fred and another editor suddenly began altering the wording of this revision in a way which undermines the earlier compromise. When the problematic nature of the sourcing was pointed out to me I suggested that in the absence of the current phrasing (added for balance) the entire passage should be removed and posted my intent to do so in the near future in the "Matters up for discussion" section of the talk page, before following up with the proposed edit two days later. So, according to you, what exactly is the problem with my actions and why am I the one being singled out for sanction? This is an honest question.
 * You've accused Zaatras of vandalism, and you're accusing CFred of a COI on the basis that they were in a Catholic fraternity, which is far from credible. People of a given faith are not precluded from editing on those subjects. In the meantime, you're edit-warring. If there was a consensus on the talkpage, please provide links to that consensus.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion, I don't think you understand. Seraphim Rose was virulently anti-Catholic. He was NOT a Catholic. It hardly strains plausibility to suggest that someone who advertises on his user page (as C. Fred does, openly) that he is a member of a well known Catholic fraternity like Phi Kappa Theta, might have some partiality toward Roman Catholicism, and that such partiality could bias their view of religious figures known to be highly critical of Catholicism, such as Seraphim Rose. As for consensus, I have been addressing the matter profusely in talk, while C.Fred has been totally ignoring the discussion, while unilaterally imposing his own view of the matter, which seems to fit the definition of edit-warring quite a bit more than publishing a revision after clearly stating one's intention to do so within the talk page (which you can clearly see in the section entitled "Matters Up For Discussion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seraphim_Rose#Matters_up_for_discussion ), and then waiting two days for potential objections prior to going ahead withe the revision. As for "needing consensus" to make the proposed change, where was C.Fred's of Zaathras's consensus for removing passages from the section in question which were specifically placed there as part of a compromise which had stood unchallenged for the last five years?


 * For at least the third time: please show where a consensus was developed among that wall of text and bickering. Your "profuse" commentary is part of the problem: concision is essential. And stop making assertions that CFred can't be neutral because he's Catholic - that's an explicit assumption of bad faith.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I don't take orders from a self-important little bug-man like yourself, so stop being rude and try being polite and maybe even kind for a change. Second of all, it's not an "assumption of bad faith", it's a prima facie demonstration of not only bad faith, but a blatant conflict of interest. An avowed Catholic adjudicating the selection and editing of controversial and/or disputed material of an obviously salacious character in connection with the biography an notoriously (and vociferously) anti-Catholic personage quite clearly presents a conflict. Res Ipsa Loquitur (The thing speaks for itself).

Given the partisan bickering which has been allowed to flourish in the talk page of the Seraphim Rose article, it would seem unsurprising that a profusion of commentary and discussion would be necessary to cut through all the agenda-driven muck in order to set forth a sound basis for the selection of material. As I've said, nothing in the way of countervailing information has thus far appeared in the talk page of this article which provides anything resembling a thoughtful and sincere interaction with the considerations which I have presented therein in support of exclusion of the disputed claims. Once again, I must ask you where you are able to discern the allegedly grand consensus which would justify the recent changes to the long-standing revision of this article by Zaathras and C:Fred which sparked this impasse in the first place? Or is it only I who must achieve consensus prior to making permissible changes?

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussion at ANI, I've altered the partial block to a full block and blocked the named account that is clearly associated.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Murder of Nicole duFresne, you may be blocked from editing. S0091 (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Murder of Tessa Majors, you may be blocked from editing. ''The race isn’t relevant, any more than the race of any number of other murderers. Don’t let your biases influence your editing.'' Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Actually, or, since you have experience with this user, maybe you can advise. They seem to be WP:NOTHERE, and mostly interested in impugning people of colour across various articles. They’ve also inserted as much just today into the two articles in which they were originally blocked for doing the same thing. I reverted one as “good faith”, before I saw the contributions. This user is clearly “not here”. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 01:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)