Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence

Long-term inappropriate personal conduct of Esoglou
Esoglou has a history of inappropriate behavior towards me, of a sexual and/or homophobic nature.


 * Responded to my presentation of evidence against him at arbitration enforcement by sexually harassing me.
 * Displayed said pornographic image at the top of his talk page from 7/2012 (, moved from down-page where he had earlier posted it immediately after being topic-banned) to the end of 2/2014, to which he later added another inappropriate remark about me.
 * Continued to make taunting reference to the pornographic image and maintain that I should be pleased with it directly after being asked again to stop this behavior.
 * Refuses to acknowledge that and why this action was unacceptable, and continues making inappropriate comments about me while discussing the issue with others.
 * Other parties have noted these actions as specifically homophobic, and given Esoglou's other conduct it wouldn't surprise me, but I'd also like to state unequivocally that I think sending me pornography would also have been inappropriate if I were straight. It's a sexual harassment issue into which sexual orientation may or may not enter.


 * Numerous snide or derogatory remarks about my sexual orientation, saying that it negatively affects my editing:
 * These remarks alone, regardless of article behavior, led to strong condemnation and support for a topic ban  from uninvolved users.


 * Describes his behavior toward me as motivated by "affection". A glance at the talk page or noticeboards will show a sample of the spamming and personal obsession that evidently results from this "affection", apart from the aforementioned sexual harassment.
 * Multiple users who are not party to this long-term dispute, including uninvolved users, have called out his fixation on me.


 * Describes my decision not to speak to him, a long-overdue one in response to his repeated homophobic remarks and other sleazy behavior, as "playing hard to get."

Socklike behavior of Padresfan94
Padresfan94 is probably a sockpuppet, although the inability to identify an obvious sockmaster among the many blocked for harassing me prevents the usual SPI process and leaves us with WP:DUCK and the disruptiveness of the behaviors themselves.


 * - first identifiable edit of the user now going by Padresfan94. (Padresfan confirms here that the 174 IPs are them) Obviously not a new user: jumps immediately into edit-warring in Esoglou's preferred version. Again: etc. etc.
 * At the same time, shows up at Courage UK, an article that hasn't been touched for almost a year, to revert me within 6 hours: Again:  etc.


 * Due to Padresfan's edit-warring as an IP, Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism was semi-protected. Padresfan registered an account and immediately (within three hours of page protection) began edit-warring at Salvatore J. Cordileone to support Esoglou and oppose Contaldo80, who had reverted their/Esoglou's POV edits at the other article.


 * Padresfan amassed the necessary 10 (minor) edits to become an autoconfirmed account and immediately (seven minutes after the 10th edit) returned to edit-warring in Esoglou's version at the now semi-protected Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. Continued: etc.


 * Continued hounding: ; at the latter, followed up by reporting me to 3RR for implementing wording approved by the user I had earlier disagreed with, suggesting that the pointless revert was, in this case, a setup. Also following me here, though not a revert.

Padresfan has made essentially no substantive edits, either as an account or as an identifiable IP, that were not reverts of me or otherwise direct results of whatever conflict they think they have with me. This, combined with the fact that they were clearly not a new user to start, suggests the actions of a sockpuppet, although it's possible that I and the admins who have observed this have different speculations on the sockmaster's identity.

Esoglou's disruptive editing
Esoglou's battleground mentality has led him to misrepresent sources, insert original research, push a POV, and otherwise edit disruptively. (In all sections, but here in particular, please understand that this list is not exhaustive, as the disruption has been going on for years.)


 * Misrepresentation

Esoglou has repeatedly disclaimed any language or WP:COMPETENCE issue, so nothing remains but to conclude that these misrepresentations are deliberate. Similar edits were among the evidence leading to him being topic banned from abortion.
 * "Jewish writers Philo (d. AD 50) and Josephus (37 – c. 100) unambiguously considered homosexuality the most outrageous of the sinful excesses of Sodom" . What's in the sources? Greenberg, an RS, states that they were the first to "unambiguously" mention it. Hollinger, a poor source, quotes Gagnon's own interpretation of the act (Gagnon is also a poor source) as "outrageous". (Earlier added by Esoglou with the citation only to Hollinger and no "unambiguously".)
 * Sets up the interpretation of Rabbi Jehudah as a contrast to analyses of the sin of Sodom as socioeconomic rather than sexual, when the source states that of the "four types" of sin, the two socioeconomic ones are the most prominent. Further, claims modern scholar Hermann Strack states that the sin of Sodom was sexual immorality, when the mention of Strack is a parenthetical citation to the statement about Rabbi Jehudah.
 * "Stephen Voorwinde says that argument for interpreting the sick person as the centurion lover 'has already been soundly refuted in the scholarly literature'." - Voorwinde is not responding to that argument in the article, rather he and his source are talking about a different argument.
 * Changes a statement which, in the sources, is explicitly about sexual orientation to one about sexual activity
 * "The trustees said that, while in Catholic teaching sexual orientation is neither sinful nor evil..." No, they didn't, and the sources don't say they did. Rather, one source says, speaking for itself, that that is the latest church teaching.
 * Attributes a perspective to individual authors when both sources state explicitly that they are reporting a view held by many people, rather than expressing their own opinion
 * Attributes and cites a claim to biographer Mathias Ollivier; the link is a story with no byline in a lifestyle blog that appears to derive at least partly from fr.wikipedia
 * Cites French and German sources which talk about an individual's compagne (partner) and Lebensgefährtin (life partner) to make an edit that casts doubt on the fact that the two women were romantically involved
 * Cites a source which describes the person's female partner as the love of her life to demote sourced statements about their relationship to "reported"
 * Further relevant diffs in a section below, but here, takes a source that talks about how D and P had met in D ' s youth to state that they met when P was a child

This behavior likewise is part of why he was banned from abortion and, though I wasn't involved in the latter, from Eastern Orthodoxy
 * OR
 * Inserts his search results from Greek lexica and Greek-derived English words as a counterpoint to the analysis of reliable sources
 * Inserts convoluted wording about etymology, including scarequotes, which he explains here is a deliberate attempt to undermine a source which cites uncontested facts but draws a conclusion he dislikes
 * "According to Daniel A. Helminiak, it only 'sometimes' was given this meaning" - the source doesn't have "only", and its inclusion in this way effectively presents it as holding an opinion opposite to the one it holds
 * Repeatedly inserts the unsourced claim that a woman's female partner was a child when they first met, in an evident attempt to manufacture scandal etc.
 * Outrageous BLP violation that a) falsifies the content of b) a source that was irrelevant to the article anyway
 * I'll quote: "The Guardian newspaper's account, using the term 'gay marriages' for what the document calls 'homosexual unions', reported the document as saying that gay sex was 'inhuman', a word that does not appear in the document"
 * Inserts a bunch of official church documents in an attempt to counter a reliable source's report of a statement made by American university trustees
 * Pope's biography says one thing, but "in reality" things were different - eg., first inserted here, I think
 * Likewise, "In a book that he later described as unbalanced, ill-informed, and veering off into judgement ahead of sober analysis..." - this is both a factually false representation of the cited article and a synthetic attempt to poison the well
 * "This also leaves unexplained...the nickname of the Halloween Letter"; "Allen's statement...also leaves unexplained..." This is not the analysis of reliable secondary sources - and several more times


 * Attempts to have Wikipedia reflect, not discuss, the church's POV
 * Inserts the claim that homosexuality poses a "widespread threat to life and health" in WP's voice, reverting edits that properly attributed this view.
 * Inserts the claim that homosexuality "threatened the lives of many people" in WP's voice, reverting edits that properly attributed this view (repeatedly eg. etc. etc., ctrl+f the phrase if needed)
 * Inserts the claim that gay-affirming Catholic groups such as Dignity USA only "called themselves Catholic" in WP's voice, reverting edits that properly attributed this denial of their religion (repeatedly eg., ctrl+f the phrase)
 * "what some refer to as same-sex marriage" and several more times
 * Explains/demonstrates in this talk section that his disruptive editing wrt Notre Dame (some diffs above) stems from his refusal to accept that the trustees might have said something that contradicts church teachings, and that therefore secondary sources (Cornwell's Breaking faith) reporting the trustees' statements must be unreliable. "Cornwell doubtless knew that in more than one document the Church has declared that the intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law..."


 * Misc. POV editing
 * Disregard for source quality when contrasting views; sees no difference between a book from Harvard UP and ones from ministry/apologetics publishers (eg. )
 * Habitually adds frivolous citation tags for already reliably cited facts that he personally dislikes
 * Changes "gay and lesbian children" to "children of homosexual orientation" with the summary that as they might not be having gay sex, we shouldn't call them gay
 * Attempts to sink an edit request for text developed through discussion and compromise because it's not his text, despite acknowledging that it's better than current version

Productive, collegial editing of Roscelese
As above, this is certainly not meant to be an exhaustive list :) Rather, I thought it might be best to show a tiny selection of times when I sought discussion and compromise, applied WP policy standards to sources and edits that people think are "on my side", and so on.


 * I seek to improve the topic in ways that seem unlikely to be controversial, eg. beginning a section on notable gay/bisexual Catholics (starting with writers whose orientation and religion are both relevant to their work and/or relevant to each other )
 * I remove LGBT-positive sources that don't meet WP:RS, and unsourced edits holding an LGBT-positive view:
 * In this section, I respond to a new user who argues that the translation they're using of some early Christian writings shows it to be less condemnatory of homosexuality. Here, I ping a user whose LGBT-positive edits I reverted to explain that they need sources and suggest the kind of sources they could look for. similar:
 * Following a dispute about which translation of the Bible to use quotations from, I take the initiative of beginning an RFC and abide by the result, although I disagree with it.
 * Some samples of me engaging in discussion with users I disagree with:
 * Comparatively recent talk page discussions where I have taken an active role in working out consensus wording with other users: how to talk about civil marriage, how to discuss the possibility that a source was written in English and aimed at the US, how to source and word content on Jeanine Deckers, how to summarize a passage in a Vatican document.

Pro-Catholic versus pro-LGBT
The article on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism has been polarized for over a year. I must admit that I've reached the point at which I no longer want to get involved in editing. The problems started when a couple of editors (myself included) tried to add new material to develop better coverage of the various Vatican documents, pronouncements, personalities dealing with homosexuality. The problem arises because a number of editors insist on taking a very careful pro-Vatican position. For whatever reason they are reluctant to permit any edits that can be regarded as critical of the Roman Catholic Church (or at least they will only permit it after a very, very thorough challenge). None of their own edits are ever anti-Church. Esoglou is one of these editors. But he is not the only one. And I have to admit that I appreciate his passion for the subject and for making me thinking carefully about what I add, and how it is sourced. But sometimes this is harder than it needs to be. And there are others with this similar pro-Catholic zealotry. I'm not against presenting the conservative Catholic position - and I have done so. But I also want the article to include a balance reflecting the fact that the matter of homosexuality within the Catholic Church remains extremely contentious, and the official Church line is increasingly being challenged by a very large number of Catholics. I have to admit my own contributions are not always the best, and appreciate when I am challenged to think again - but only when done with an open-minded and good humour. This has been lacking to date. I also suspect that at least one, and maybe more, editors may have a professional association with the Catholic Church - either as priests or in religious orders. If not declared then this has o be a conflict of interest. Finally I want to flag some spillover from this article to a number of other articles - some of them about homosexuality, but not all. I have been "stalked" to these pages by a couple of editors (Padresfan94 and Salvatore Cordileone for one) where an editor has not previously edited the article, but will revert or specifically amend just my edits. Some of the article topics have been so obscure that it cannot have been accidental. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Long-term conflict between two editors
I don't know what has been going on between Esoglou and Roscelese. However, when I talked to Esoglou, he seemed to make Roscelese look bad and biased. Same goes for Roscelese the other way around. Look at his edits of Catholics for Choice, which were reverted by following users:
 * Roscelese:
 * Binksternet:
 * Simultaneously Binksternet and Roscelese:

Also, his edits was gone unnoticed, so I reverted one of his edits (probably).

At his talk page, I could not understand his reciting Catholic statements and his attempts to either appease the Church or make homosexuality look bad.

At Roscelese's page, she says that she has felt harassed when she declared to avoid him a lot. I don't know, but I have taken Roscelese's side, so don't deem me "inaccurate" yet.

[EDIT] In response to Esoglou's presentation of evidence, he and I discussed the source Homosexualitatis problema in his talk page. I pointed out that the sources implicitly compares homosexuality to kleptomania. I should have told him that the title itself is some kind of a dog Latin.

Christianity and sexuality no longer limited to just one article
I haven't checked except its log. Currently, the article is fully protected for one month. Somehow, the dispute is no longer limited to "Homosexuality and Catholicism". I still don't know the details; extending the deadline would have been nice though. --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at its talk page, there have been disputes. I'm unsure about user conduct, but I guess we'll find out next time after final decisions are made. --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing the article
After the September-October 2014 protection, which preserved "the wrong version", I decided to abandon my previous attempts to restore "the right version" as a whole, and to discuss and correct instead only a few individual parts at a time. I don't intend to return to general reverting.

I reinserted the explicit grounds on which John Paul II deplored scheduling a WorldPride event for Rome in coincidence with its 2000 Holy Year celebration. This passed unobserved, though previously opposed.

The first opposed correction was to the claim, based on one book (which I didn't remove, although, some years after writing it, its author called it insufficiently balanced and informed, and said it veered off into judgement ahead of sober analysis), that Homosexualitatis problema was released (on 1 October 1986) "in English rather than Italian". To this I added a book (later four books) and many newspapers that said publication was on 31 October simultaneously in Italian, English and other languages. Roscelese reverted merely on grounds of lack of consensus, "ludicrous POV original research", lack of consensus, lack of consensus, although others restored it in view of talk-page discussion and because there was no consensus for Roscelese's version. Finally, Bromley86 engaged Roscelese in a discussion that led to agreement on a text that removed the claim of prior publication in English. Earlier discussion would have reached earlier agreement. But better late than never.

A second problem arose after Contaldo80's edit that, "after leaving the order, (Jeannine Deckers) began a lesbian relationship with Annie Pécher". I accepted his linkless source (later found to say nothing of a lesbian relationship) but added some sources according to which Deckers denied the relationship was sexual. Roscelese immediately reverted, accusing me of "outright misrepresentation" (bad faith), and posting on my personal talk page an accusation of vandalism. ( Contaldo80 didn't intervene at any point of the dispute.) A week later, I added a book and a newspaper that also reported Deckers's statement (a source found later, based on Deckers's diaries, confirmed what Deckers said of the 14 years after leaving the convent). Roscelese immediately deleted them as part of a blanket revert on grounds of disruption, OR and POV. Citing comment on WP:NORN, I reinserted them 12 days later. Roscelese blanket-reverted them again with the same motivation. Fortunately, Bromley86 engaged Roscelese in a discussion that led to agreement.

Agreement hasn't yet been reached on interpretation of a statement in Homosexualitatis problema, 11 that Roscelese long claimed states that "any culpability that pertains to (homosexual sexual activiy) isn't mitigated by natural orientation". This was the third of the opposed corrections that I tried to make on the basis of discussion. Homosexualitatis problema in fact states that "circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable" For her claim that Homosexualitatis problema says homosexuality doesn't mitigate culpability for homosexual behaviour Roscelese somehow saw support also in a secondary source that says of the primary source: "The Congregation's point can perhaps be illustrated by a simple analogy: kleptomania is a persistent psychological impulse to steal even in the absence of economic need. Now, no one makes himself a kleptomaniac, and no one really wants to be one. Also, the more compulsive the disorder, the more reduced is the moral culpability for one's actions." I repeatedly asked Roscelese to quote the words in these sources – both of which say reduction of culpability is possible,the secondary one explicitly saying reduction is proportionate to the force of what it calls the disorder – that, to her mind, declared culpability in no way mitigated by homosexual orientation.  She refused to answer, and responded to the different wordings proposed by simply reverting to her identical personal interpretation, undoing also edits by others who again referred to the talk page discussion or said Roscelese's version lacked consensus and hadn't been adequately defended on the talk page.

Gaijin42 has engaged Roscelese in intermittent discussion about her claim. The discussion is continuing, and has already produced some advance.

Conclusion: agreement is possible through discussion, but getting discussion going is quite difficult. i disagree with the view below that one or two editors can declare discussion closed when they wish.

Contaldo80 says "The problems started when a couple of editors (myself included) tried to add new material to develop better coverage of the various Vatican documents". That didn't call for deleting that material, but it did call for balancing it on the basis of what the documents actually said, and it doesn't call for deleting the balancing material by constant reverting.

What has been seen as "focusing on contributor rather than content" was my appealing to discuss, not just revert.

Personal conduct
For a detailed bulleted response to Roscelese's detailed bulleted attack on me, see this. Here I stay within the 1000-word limit.

I found the image of making a phone call while tied up amusing, as did others. I accept that posting a link to it was ill-judged. Not just because of the subsequent punishment of a six-month "tying up" from editing an area. In my naïveté, I don't see the image as pornographic. Nor as suggesting lesbianism. I certainly didn't intend it as sexual harassment.

Binksternet's links show my "talking down" was a humorous [marked :-)] response to "being talked down" in deadly earnest as ignorant.

I regret that MastCell declares me insincere.

Evidence presented by Callanecc
The edit war in Jan 15 is still including same content from Aug 14 indicating that these users are not discussing when full protection expires, but are just returning to revert.

Note: My evidence primarily focuses on the Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article (and mostly on Padresfan94 and Roscelese). All diffs (etc) refer there unless otherwise stated. For each diff (and sections of page histories) check the edit summary (it's likely that's what I'm referring to).

Padresfan94

 * Padresfan94 has edit warred
 * Jan 15 - history offset
 * Nov 15 - history offset
 * Sep 14 - history offset

Including without good explanation of the reason:
 * Jan 15 -


 * Padresfan94 continued same edit warring after protection
 * Dec 14 > Jan 15 - history offset
 * Nov 14 - history offset
 * Sep 14 - history offset


 * Padresfan94 edits with pro-Catholic POV
 * eg


 * Padresfan94 has engaged in incivility, casting aspersions and personalised disputes
 * Jan 15 - why do you hate John Allen? And please stop abusing Twinkle
 * Jan 15 - Not convinced that you have read the sources (as a reason for reverting)


 * Padresfan94 used maintenance tags disruptively
 * Jul 14 -

Roscelese

 * Roscelese has edit warred
 * Nov 14 - history offset
 * Sep 14 - history offset


 * Roscelese continued same edit warring after protection
 * Dec 14 > Jan 15 - history offset
 * Nov 14 - history offset
 * Sep 14 - history offset


 * Roscelese has engaged in incivility, casting aspersions and personalised disputes
 * Jan 15 - Don't frivolously tag-bomb because you're sulking about not getting consensus for your proposal
 * Jan 15 - rv tendentious editing; ... tag-bombing because you're sulking about failing to gain consensus for your proposal is not acceptable
 * Jul 14 - Rmv frivolous, disruptive tags. Again, your personal failure or unwillingness to access the source doesn't mean it has failed verification. It's not all about you


 * Roscelese has incorrectly used rollback
 * Nov 14 - history offset use of rollback in an edit war]


 * Roscelese has demonstrated ownership
 * Demanded a number of times (see below) that their preferred version of the article remain and that editors wishing to change it get a consensus first per WP:BRD. BRD says in the first line "is an optional method", in §What BRD is, and is not "is not an excuse to revert any change more than once". WP:OWN §Actions states "An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not".
 * Jan 15 - You must gain consensus for proposed changes, rather than nonsensically insisting that people seek consensus for the status quo.
 * Jan 15 - I have to again ask that people who don't like the text pre-Esoglou's edit war propose, and gain consensus for, a change to the text. (emphasis original)
 * Dec 14 - Rv. You must gain consensus for this new change - does not address the reason for the revert other than that it requires consensus.
 * Dec 14 - If you cannot gain consensus for a change, the old version will have to be restored (on talk page)
 * Sep 14 - history offset - reverts to their "base version" (the related edit war began 18 Aug 14 & 19 Aug 14)
 * Jul 14 - Rv to previous version, and I'll see what it is appropriate to restore

Dominus Vobisdu

 * Dominus Vobisdu has edit warred
 * Jan 15 - history offset
 * Sep 14 - history offset


 * Dominus Vobisdu has tried to compromise
 * Jan 15 - (part of this war)

Esoglou
Esoglou's conduct has been covered by other editors so I haven't put too much in here.


 * Esoglou has edit warred
 * Nov 14 - history offset
 * Sep 14 - history offset


 * Esoglou edits with a pro-Catholic POV
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism&diff=622356313&oldid=622354996]


 * Esoglou has tried to compromise
 * eg Nov 14 -


 * Esoglou's talk page posts focus on contributor (Roscelese) rather than content
 * Three sections in a row on the talk page:
 * 18 Nov 14 - §Unexplained deletion of other editors' work
 * 26 Nov Nov 14 - §Edit-warring without discussion
 * 26 Nov 14§Anti-consensus deletion of disliked but sourced information
 * And another one on 10 Jan 15: §Frivolous edit

Evidence presented by Binksternet
I am involved in this case tangentially, because I respect Roscelese as an editor and I have seen her getting harassed by Esoglou and Padresfan94. She doesn't need a white knight to charge in and save her but from time to time I try and check in to the conflict and weigh in with some research on citations, or to offer my opinion, or to simply reset things to the consensus wording after a bout of edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Esoglou has engaged in hounding
[//tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?user1=Esoglou&user2=Roscelese&user3=&startdate=&enddate=&ns= Here is the interaction tool] comparing Esoglou and Roscelese. Esoglou followed Roscelese to List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church&diff=next&oldid=561475500 removed a section] Roscelese had been working on. Then he went to the talk page and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church&diff=565318318&oldid=565301299 added a passive/aggressive comment about Roscelese's response], not naming her openly but linking to her revert. Another hounding instance has [//tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?user1=Esoglou&user2=Roscelese&page=2009_Brazilian_girl_abortion_case Esoglou following Roscelese to the article about a 2009 Brazilian girl abortion case]. He then followed her to the same article's talk page, replying to her just a few hours after her first comment there.[//tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?user1=Esoglou&user2=Roscelese&page=Talk%3A2009_Brazilian_girl_abortion_case] And Esoglou followed Roscelese to the Religion and abortion article, just two days after her first contact there. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Padresfan94 has engaged in hounding
From the beginning, when Padresfan94 started editing by 174.x IPs on August 1, Roscelese recognized that someone was hounding her, saying in her edit summary, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism&diff=619511130&oldid=619475774 "rv stalking IP".]

On November 28, administrator Black Kite warned Padresfan94 against hounding Roscelese, saying [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APadresfan94&diff=635715831&oldid=633575793 "Of the 111 edits you have made, 84 are to articles that she has edited"]. Black Kite pointed to the interaction tool results[//tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?user1=Padresfan94&user2=Roscelese&user3=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=] which showed that Padresfan94 followed Roscelese, within a few minutes in some cases, to six articles and two article talk pages. The timelines linked in the interaction tool are revealing; for instance, the one for the Noel Treanor biography [//tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/timeline.py?user2=Padresfan94&user1=Roscelese&page=Noel_Treanor shows Padresfan94 following Roscelese to revert] her last edit, the only interaction by Padresfan, who did not use the talk page. There was no noticeboard discussion about this biography to bring in outside editors. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Esoglou has harassed Roscelese
As I said at the Request page, the rope bondage image used by Esoglou to insult Roscelese was deleted at Commons under one name, but uploaded again under another name. I saw the first version in Roscelese's talk page history after noticing her angry edit summary [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&diff=next&oldid=496419820 "get the fuck off my talk page"] on my watchlist, so I can attest that is the same photograph; the model's name, Dani, has been taken out of the file name, but it's still Dani that is shown bound in ropes.

Esoglou is often countered by strong opposition from users such as Contaldo80, Dominus Vobisdu and Roscelese. However, Esoglou treats the male opposition with respect. Toward Roscelese he has been insulting, dismissive and disrespectful. Examples:
 * "...your kindly (?) admonition..." (Talking down to Roscelese)
 * "...begging your loftiness for kind enlightenment..." (Sarcasm, talking down to Roscelese)
 * "Sorry for letting my amusement get in the way." (Amusement at the expense of Roscelese.)
 * "Would your loftiness please explain..." (Sarcasm, talking down to Roscelese). Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Padresfan94 has been seen as a disruptive sockpuppet
Padresfan94 demonstrates in many ways that she is a returning editor or a sockpuppet.

The earliest action by the person who would become Padresfan94 was at the beginning of August 2014 by way of 174.x IPs geolocated near Washington D.C., including the neighboring states of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania.[//whatismyipaddress.com/ip/174.236.197.173][//whatismyipaddress.com/ip/174.236.225.183][//whatismyipaddress.com/ip/174.255.208.253] When Padresfan94 registered an account on August 7, the actions taken were pointedly aimed at achieving autoconfirmed status so that she could edit through protection.

In mid-November, when Padresfan94 took Roscelese to ANEW, administrator said the account [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=633589377 "is an obvious sockpuppet, and a combative agenda-driven single-purpose account on top of that"], pointing to  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Padresfan94&diff=prev&oldid=628398400 this edit] as an example. MastCell continued: "As such, I'm inclined to block the account indefinitely, but first would like additional administrator input." In a parallel discussion, administrator agreed with Roscelese that Padresfan94 appeared to be a sock.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=next&oldid=633591220]

At the end of November, administrator said to Padresfan94 that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APadresfan94&diff=635715831&oldid=633575793 "it is very clear that you are (a) not a new editor..."]

In December,, an editor blocked indefinitely in August 2014 for multiple violations of an interaction ban with Roscelese, felt the need to make this user talk page pronouncement: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABadmintonhist&diff=636900131&oldid=630717509 "...I state unequivocally that I am not Padresfan94."] The timing is interesting, though, since Badmintonhist was inactive from August 1 to August 10 when the 174 IPs started reverting Roscelese, and when Padresfan94 registered the account on August 7. The intertwined edit report of these two accounts [//tools.wmflabs.org/ptools/intertwined.php?project=enwiki&user1=Padresfan94&user2=Badmintonhist shows none of the quickly alternating edits] which would convince me they are not the same person; instead, there is ample time between editing sessions for a person to log out as one of them. Even if Badmintonhist is being truthful in the statement, it is interesting that one more experienced editor thinks that Padresfan94 is enough of a sock to merit a denial. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Esoglou is not here to build the encyclopedia
Esoglou is here to push the official position of the Catholic Church hierarchy, meeting the WP:NOTHERE standard. Of course the official church position should be stated, but not in an unbalanced fashion. Esoglou pushes the official position too hard and he fights against expressions of heterodoxy, such as opinions and activities by Catholic persons that contradict the official stance.

Esoglou has affirmed above by word that he intends to outlast other editors. Over the course of months and years he has demonstrated by action that his strategy includes the wearing down of opponents by repeated argument. He re-opens unfruitful talk page discussions to frustrate others and drive them away. An example can be seen in the progression of talk page discussion through July–August 2013 when Esoglou first arrived at Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. He started a new section on July 24, July 26, two on July 30, August 2, August 3, and another on August 3. Having failed to get his way, on August 21 he made this talk page entry rehashing old arguments, accompanied by this rollback of the article. The pattern continues ad nauseum for weeks and months. The larger pattern shows he is a combative editor, not collegial. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Esoglou

 * Prior history of tendentious, agenda-driven editing and POV-pushing on Christianity and sexuality:
 * Indefinitely topic-banned from Eastern Orthodox Church due to persistently tendentious and agenda-driven editing in February 2011 (see WP:RESTRICT, search for "esoglou")
 * WP:AE, December 2011: Evidence of tendentious editing on the topic of abortion, but not sanctioned because of lack of prior warning
 * January 2012: Banned from abortion-related articles for 3 months for battleground behavior and repeated insertion of unreliable sources
 * WP:AE, June 2012: Banned again from abortion-related articles, for 6 months this time, for tendentious, agenda-driven editing


 * Inappropriately sexualized commentary
 * Following a conflict with Roscelese (who identifies as a gay woman), posts a link on Roscelese's talkpage to an image of two women in a bondage-themed sexual context: "Is this how you want to tie me up? ...I kid, I kid..." (The image in question currently resides here, if you're curious as to whether it is open to misinterpretation).
 * Suggests that Roscelese is prudish for failing to see the humor: "I apologize for not having realized in time that a joke that I found amusing would find you, like Queen Victoria, 'not amused'".
 * When Roscelese indicated that she found the image (in context) offensive and a form of harassment, Esoglou responded by prominently displaying it on his talkpage, then displaying it even more prominently at the top of his talkpage, where it remained for nearly 2 years.
 * Even editors on Esoglou's "side" recognized that he was being intentionally provocative and urged him to stop: "You have a way of pouring gasoline onto wastepaper basket fires and starting conflagrations unnecessarily. As one who respects you and enjoys working with you, I wish you would put that gasoline can away and maybe lose the matches too while you're at it."


 * Insincere apologies and excuses
 * Repeatedly voices insincere "apologies" (e.g. during this case) which amount to blaming Roscelese for being offended.
 * Regarding the image (again, of two women in a bondage-themed sexual context), now professes to be surprised that "Roscelese would see in it a reference to lesbianism".

Roscelese is not here to build the encyclopedia
Roscelese is an ideologically driven edit warrior. Her desire to tenaciously edit has been disruptive, and will continue. Here are a few of the highlights:
 * After the page was protected for a month on December 5th, Roscelese was the first edit on January 5th, immediately picking her edit war back up where she left it
 * After the page was protected for a week on November 28th, Roscelese was the first edit back on December 4th, immediately picking her edit war back up
 * After the page was protected for three and a half weeks on August 23rd, Roscelese was the first edit back on September 17th, immediately picking her edit war back up where she left it. She was blocked for this offense. While blocked, Roscelese shared her opinion that blocking was just "down-time" and that she has other projects set aside for it.
 * After the page was protected for a week on August 7th, Roscelese was the first edit back on August 15th, immeditely picking her edit war back up where she left it

Rocelese thinks that she WP:OWNs the article

 * while massively reverting others' edits she declares "Rv series of deliberately disruptive edits. I'll see if there's anything salvageable. " (edit made with Twinkle), 5 minutes later she determines that some of those edits were good enough for her article, declaring "these were fine"
 * same thing, saying "Rv tendentious edits. Will see if there's anything constructive in that string to be saved. " (edit was made with Twinkle), 12 minutes later [she decided what was good enough for her article
 * "I see very few constructive changes in the last series of edits. Rv to previous version, and I'll see what it is appropriate to restore "

Roscelese refuses to participate in the discussion process
She won't discuss things with Esoglau. The majority of her reverts come with the justification "you must gain consensus". To Roscelese, it doesn't have consensus without her. But she refuses to discuss it. You can see where this goes.

Every other editor here has participated willingly in the discussion process except one, who unilaterally took it off the table.

Roscelese has abused tools while edit warring
Roscelese has abused Rollback to make edit warring reverts on the article. And again, twice on August 18th,.

Roscelese has abused Twinkle to make edit warring reverts no less than 15 times on the article.

Roscelese uses her edit summaries to make personal attacks
Again, I'll save you some time and will just go with the highlights:
 * not restoring Esoglou's laughable pile of synthesis, but I don't see that the bit about embargo appears in Allen. the "suggestion" seems to have come from a user
 * rmv frivolous tags for already-cited material and other destructive or redundant edits. Quit it, Esoglou
 * Rv tendentious editing by user with no interest in constructive encylcopedia-building. (edit was made using Twinkle)
 * ordering, rmving idiotic editor commentary; rmv references to RSM and Dignity as sources indicate the nomenclature is more general than that
 * rv more rubbish; all meaning was already present in summary, the excess verbiage was more of Esoglou trying to undermine sources he personally disagrees with
 * Rmv frivolous, disruptive tags. Again, your personal failure or unwillingness to access the source doesn't mean it has failed verification. It's not all about you
 * lol jargon
 * Don't frivolously tag-bomb because you're sulking about not getting consensus for your proposal. instead, be a productive user, and propose something else. (Twinkle was used to make this edit)
 * Sigh...you know you don't have consensus for these innovations. WP:BRD and WP:Consensus don't have a secret "if you keep trying to edit-war it in for long enough, you don't have to gain consensus anymore" clause
 * "I made a post on the talk page" != "I succeeded in gaining consensus for my new additions" - that's not how WP:BRD works. Instead, gain consensus for your changes by suggesting things that aren't ludicrous POV original research.
 * rv rambly and synthetic account of ND events - say only what's supported by reliable, relevant sources
 * belatedly correct terrible para - on the one hand, the misrepresentation of source, on the other, the ludicrous and idiotic synth as an excuse to quotefarm. I thought I'd fixed this already

I wont even get into the strawman arguments that have been left on talk pages and elsewhere ascribing motivations to other users for their editing.


 * Roscelese has been blocked 6 times now, at this rate that number is just going to keep growing.


 * Roscelese should be topic-banned for some period of time, she should lose use of the tools that she has abused in her edit warring and I would like to request an interaction ban with her, I'm tired of putting up with her abusive behavior. Padresfan94 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.