Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science

What's going on?
I came here on the recommendation of User:Admiral Norton per discussion on Talk:The Christian Virtuoso. Since I began making contributions to Relationship between science and religion back in June of this year, User:Hrafn has sometimes nitpicked my other articles in apperent retaliation for something I did at Relationship between science and religion. Both sides with examples are fairly well summarized on Talk:The Christian Virtuoso.

I believe the problems have to with a movement among some scientists, as quoted in the Relationship between science and religion article itself. Hrafn literally seems to be on a crusade to run down human worth and often mine as I interact with him or her, while editing Relationship between science and religion. A recent example is his or her usage of the word "stupid".

What would you like to change about that?
I would like User:Hrafn to recognize the basic editing policy WP:IMPERFECT, to stop nitpicking other articles in retaliation for things that happen at Relationship between science and religion, and to recognize human worth towards others in his comments and actions, while editing this article. I believe two other editors User:Ludwigs2, User:ScienceApologist have recently joined Hrafn on his crusade on the Relationship between science and religion, making edits to the article's lede that don't really follow the standard scholarship and which appear to be motivated by some sort of scientism. I would like them to stop following Hrafn on his or her crusade. User:dave souza has also sometimes seconded Hrafn from time to time on Relationship between science and religion and now on Talk:Issues in Science and Religion. User:Eldereft has also seemed to join Hrafn, whom I consider to be part of the wrong crowd for any editor to join with (these reasons will become apparent per core wikipedia policy).

Perhaps these editors don't realize that they do appear to be on crusade. I would like them simply to recognize it and perhaps stop themselves from doing so in the future.

Mediator notes
I'll mediate this case. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Closed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Okay, some basics to get things started. First, be sure to assume good faith. Let's not assume people are coordinating an attack. Comment on the edits, not the editors. With that in mind, could Firefly322 post some diffs showing some changes made by these editors that are in contention? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hrafn stated on this page's talk that he was concerned with some IP edits that may have been done by Firefly322. If anyone has made any logged-out edits, please disclose them now, so that we're aware. Thanks, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A contrary view from Hrafn
I see things rather differently from Firefly322. My concerns over his/her editorial style are as follows:
 * 1) Firefly322 tends to write what is, in my opinion (but apparently also the opinion of some others), often badly-worded, uninformative and often badly-sourced material.
 * 2) When this material is reverted, (s)he tends to revert to reinstate (often repeatedly) rather than discussing first (per WP:BRD).
 * 3) Firefly322 is very thin-skinned to criticism of his/her writing style.
 * 4) Firefly322 makes repeated claims that this material is merely WP:IMPERFECT and should be allowed to stand, even when it provides no meaningful elucidation of the topic.

First example (and first encounter with Firefly322)

 * 1) The conflict started in June 2008, when Firefly322 attempted to add a significant amount of new material directly into the lead. As well as lacking clarity of wording, it was "a whole heap of complex concepts with no explanatory context" (to use my talk description at the time) apparently relating to a minority viewpoint, so I considered it inappropriate as part of a lead's general introduction and reverted it.
 * 2) Firefly322 reinstated this material, demanding that this controversial material be discussed before it was removed again (a reversal of WP:BRD which proposes that controversial edits be discussed before they are reimposed).
 * 3) I requested quotes in an attempt to discover what this material was actually meant to be, but then reverted again when, on closer examination, I discovered that the sole specific citation did not verify the material cited to it.
 * 4) There was also a discussion of this material at Talk:Relationship between religion and science.

Second example

 * 1) Firefly322 created Aydin Sayili, which as of 25 June, only contained the statement "Aydin Sayilli (* 1913; † 1993 ) was a historian of science who studied under George Sarton at Harvard." and listing of one book that Sayili wrote.
 * 2) When I tagged the article for failure to articulate an assertion of notability, Firefly322 immediately reverted, and eventually accused me of being a "TROLL".
 * 3) It was not until another editor 'speedy'-templated the article some time later (for the same reason), that Firefly322 tardily included some articulation of notability.
 * 4) Discussion can be found at Talk:Aydin Sayili

Third example
A number of articles that Firefly322 has created and is the sole substantial editor of, e.g.:
 * 1) Issues in Science and Religion (probably unique in wikipedia for have 46 citations to the topic's own index, and appears to make little or no mention of the topic's arguments and reception)
 * 2) Science & Religion: A Symposium (basically a quote-farm and a laundry-list of reviews)
 * 3) Exchange of women (more name-dropping with little or no ellucidation of the topic)

[Further examples may be forthcoming when it is established what IPs, if any, Firefly322 has been editing under]

Desired changes
HrafnTalkStalk 16:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Firefly322 to acknowledge that a number of editors (including some with very different viewpoints) find his/her writing style to be problematical.
 * 2) Firefly322 ceases taking criticism of his/her writing as personal attacks.
 * 3) If Firefly322's edits are reverted, he/she discusses these edits on talk and gains a consensus (per WP:BRD), rather than attempting to reimpose them unilaterally.

Orangemarlin's view
I've made precisely one edit to this article here. The writing was poor, confusing, and added nothing to the article. I'd accuse the editor of having a POV, but the writing was so confusing, I had no idea if there was a POV. I guess you could say that makes a perfect NPOV, but I don't think the intent was to endorse bad writing. Oh, by the way, I've cooperated with editors whose first language was not English to get articles to FA status. So, I have no particular feeling one way or another. Anyways, I can't believe we're wasting everyone's time on a revert of poor writing. Firefly should chill out, accept that everyone can edit this encyclopedia, and there are many individuals who are great writers around here, and close this thing out. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 20:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Just to put a final nail in the coffin of some sort of conspiracy, Ludwigs and I agree on nothing, except maybe Wikipedia is spelled "Wikipedia." Otherwise, the rest of the editors have common interests, and will always have common interests. What's hysterical is that I had no clue who these people were, until I was reading an article (not even sure which one), and links lead me to find a group that was harassing Hrafn. However, now they are on my radar. I still don't understand the need for this mediation. We are talking about poor writing, which I guess is peripherally a content dispute, but just marginally. If someone is willing to give some writing courses to Firefly, then this could be a useful exercise. Otherwise, it's really wasting some good people's time. IMHO. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 16:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by dave souza
This is an odd situation, and appears to be a time wasting exercise. Hrafn is a diligent editor who does a lot of work in trimming out unsourced or inadequately sourced stuff, while doing his best to first check and add sources or correct the statements where possible. From the few interactions I've had. Firefly produces astonishingly undeveloped work that lists things without explaining them or adds unsourced but incomprehensible statements to articles.

Firefly points in particular to The Christian Virtuoso, seeming to think that one uninformative sentence and a picture was enough to justify leaving it as a stub and doing no work on it for over a month. When Hrafn followed normal procedure and redirected it to an article with all the information, Firefly argued to keep it as was rather than doing the sensible thing and expanding it. The article now has an astonishing two sentences, and could easily be expanded to a third using a cited source that I've just glanced at. I urge Firefly to do that work. Hrafn gets exasperated, understandably, and shows it more than is ideal, so a gentler touch would be desirable in edit summaries and comments. However, the basic problem appears to be an unwillingness of Firefly to co-operate and produce informative work. . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by user:Ludwigs2
I came into this particular disagreement late. I've had this article on my watchpage for a couple of months (because it interested me), but I only started editing recently because I happened to notice an RfC had been opened.

First, let me say that any an examination of my only history with Hrfan (over at intelligent design, and not to mention the stormier interactions I've had with some of the other editors cited here) should clear up any misconception that I am working in concert. I can provide diffs, if asked, but I'd rather just let bygones be bygones. I can understand how firefly might make that assumption (because he's sounding a little beleaguered at the moment), but I just want to make it clear that I am only editing on this article out of interest. I consider myself an uninvolved party in this case, though I will (of course) cooperate with the mediator.

With that being said, let me point out that I have had (at the time I post this) possibly two exchanges with Firefly - enough to clarify that he doesn't like the revisions I made to the lead, but not enough for me to have figured out precisely what his dissatisfactions are. I am more than happy to work with him, and will continue to do so. If he'd like to take the time to get into a detailed discussion of the problems he sees, either on the talk page or my user page, I'd enjoy that, Beyond that, I can't really speak to the particular issues that are bothering him in this case without making unwarranted assumptions. -- Ludwigs 2 01:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:ScienceApologist
This is a joke, right? What a waste of time. To accuse me of being in league with Ludwigs2 is just about the silliest thing I've ever seen! I have a simple way of resolving the dispute: show Firefly the door. (S)he is a terrible editor anyway. But for what it's worth, I am on a crusade with everybody else on Wikipedia to make Firefly's experience as painful as possible as long as the terrible edits persist!

That's the last you'll hear from me here.

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera!
Who in Hades is "Firefly322"? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be too concerned with who the user is; anything to be said about the changes to the article back in June? That is, your take on the other edits. You were somewhat yanked into the middle of a lot of reverts that were going on between other users. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The point was that I didn't recall the edit or the editor. Having reviewed the edit, I reverted it because it was crap. ' Nuss 'Nuff said, I think. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough, thanks. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from my dumb typo. ;) &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Okay, let me make a couple of points. First, I should stress that WP:BRD is an essay, not any kind of guideline. However, it's never helpful to revert war. At some point, one of the parties needs to stop reverting and discuss it. If somebody reverts your addition, you shouldn't revert again. If you revert an addition, and the adder reverts you, you shouldn't revert again. Thankfully, somebody finally did stop, and you had some discussion. In the future, just avoid re-reverting; if someone reverts your revert, it won't become anything but a revert war if you revert again, so stop. It's very possible that the other user is being disruptive, but if you revert war, you're adding to it. Remember, you can always have it protected at WP:RFPP in the event of a serious edit war.

On a second note, I ought to point out to Firefly322 that reverting the addition of a maintenance tag, in this case for notability, is often considered vandalism. In fact, there are talk page templates for warning users not to do this. You're supposed to discuss the issue at hand (in this case, a user believing an article lacked a statement of importance), before you pull the tag.

IP users
With that out of the way, let me look at the other users and IPs that seem to be involved. First, here are IPs that look like Firefly322. Firefly, could you look at these and confirm or deny?



It looks like there are other identifiable people that have recently edited under IPs. They have a different writing style. The IPs are:
 * Stanford University
 * U of California
 * U of California
 * U of California

Just to be sure those people don't get mixed into this. (I stress the writing is different; these are in a similar geographic area.)

Confirm or deny what exactly? --Firefly322 (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That you were the user editing under the IPs in the top list. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Users
Looking at the edits of this article, I do now see the contributions of (and, who is an indef-blocked sock of ScienceApologist, that turned up further back in the edit history) and. I do not, however, see anything relevant by - Firefly, can you provide diffs?

I am also going to include based upon this, and, based upon an involvement in the reverting back in June.

I think the involved users should also disclose any involvement with each other. Some of your edits make it appear that some of you know each other outside of this article. Was there any off-wiki canvassing occurring? Firefly has made an accusation of users being on a "crusade" (pun intended, I am sure), and this needs to be examined. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, any further accusations of outside wiki involvement will be considered uncivil. Those type of accusations create an atmosphere poisonous to your need to be a uninvolved mediator.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse, I asked. "Yes" or "no" would be an appropriate response. I suspected you found the article in Hrafn's contributions, but figured I'd ask flat out, since the accusation was there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this the spanish inquisition? ;) The relationship between science and religion was on my watchlist, as I recall, and I noticed a discussion about lack of sources so mentioned one that had come up in research on another article. Hrafn's talk page is on my watchlist, and I've probably picked up there on the astonishing Issues in Science and Religion article which is largely a list of links, each with a citation to the same index of a book. . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I suspected as much. I'm trying to reassure Firefly that these are simply like-minded users, and there is no crusading or ganging up. So far as I can tell, this is just a content dispute. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a content dispute. It's a poor writing dispute.  Firefly's writing is so confusing, that we can't tell what the content is.  But maybe there's more.  I reverted bad writing, plain and simple.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OUTDENT Okay, I think we've established that we're best focusing on content differences; not looking for connections between the editors. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * hmmmm... without saying more, I'm going to ask you to keep an open mind.  that 'like-minded editors' thing is used too frequently to have actual meaning. -- Ludwigs 2  05:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeremy, please keep reading. Four of these users are connected through their mutual interaction surrounding my unpublished sandbox page, as demonstrated below. That is not a "content" dispute. That is evidence of their hyper-vigilance surrounding the then-remote possibility that i might be about to post an AN/I report about one of them. The four who left footprints around my sandbox are hrafn, Orangemarlin, Dave Souza, and Jim62sch. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because good editors can discern the malodorous miasma of effluvium. Given that you have no clue how many articles an editor has watchlisted, you merely show potential (and  frankly presumed) correlation, not causation.  The universe does not work in mysterious ways, logic is all that is required for comprehension.
 * BTW, when came you here? Was it canvassing, or watchlisting?   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither -- just common or garden WP:WIKISTALKing. She's also followed me onto Daylight Origins Society‎, David Watson (evangelist)‎ & Michael Dowd‎. HrafnTalkStalk 05:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * She's certainly sincere and is using it to gather evidence for her "ANI-proposal", but it's also Tendentious editing with a tendency to misread or present evidence in a one-sided way with no apparent grasp of policy. She's ignored my advice, perhaps someone else could advise her accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 11:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would likely be of negligible value. Oh well.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * yeesh... the regularity with which you guys piss off other editors, and you still think you have no culpability in it? there is a point where self-assuredness bleeds over into delusion, you know...  -- Ludwigs 2  20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * you're pretty funny. nice acerbity, a bit limited on sardonic sarcasism, but overall quite humourous. of course, your last point could be clarified as it appears to be born of assunptions.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Everybody, please, MEDCAB won't help with conduct issues. Sniping at each other is only going to make a mess of this page. Can we simply stick to Firefly's edits and the reasons they were reverted? For readability, please put future posts at the bottom. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode's post

 * Comment by Catherineyronwode


 * Proleptic preface

I apologize in advance for the length of the following. I have been documenting this material offline for a while. I brought it together at my user space on September 4, 2008 with the idea of making an AN/I report against hrafn. On Spetmeber 6th, on finding this mediation discussion in progress, i realized that this mediation page is a far better place to post the results of my reasearch.

In the interest of full disclosere, i will also note that right after i placed this material online at my own user sub-page sandbox and asked three or four editors to look it over and help me with typos and grammar, i was brought up on an AN/I report by dave souza, one of the accused "cabalists" here.

Souza was aware of my tentative work on an AN/I report against hrafn, as he noted here, on my talk page.

My private AN/I sandbox page also received an uncomplimentary drive-by visit from Jim62sch.

And here is the possible "cabal" participant Orangemarlin warning possible "cabal" editor hrafn about my AN/I sandbox. He found it "boring," or so he said. So, again, they seem to be playing tag with one another. Wether this is evidence of cabalishness, i leave it to the reader to consider.

Neither dave souza nor Jim62sch nor Orangemarlin was previously known to me. The only editor i was trying to understand was hrafn. I was actually surpised to see the four of them named together in this mediation request, as i had only learned of their interconnection through their mutual discussion of my sandbox. They do seem to know each other and they may indeed work together.

I beleive that these four editors were viewing my sandbox as a result of their having become involved in deleting some edits that my husband recently made, in his first attempt to edit at Wikpedia in a year or more. (He created a POV-fork that he called "Psudoskepic target" as a sort of demonstration of what he found unaccpetable among the anti-religion folks because some religiouse topics had been categorized as "pseudoscience." (His method of demonstrating this was more or less an "Other Stuff Exists" exercise, but he is not familiar with Wikipedia mores.) They may have been following my husband's edits and found my sandbox about hrafn, where my husband had commented -- but, in any case, i had not previously conflicted with them.

As i said, what i offer below is simple evidence of hrafn's months-long use of non-consensual deletes and redirects that effaced or eliminated useful Wikipedia pages about small, minority religions and spiritual beliefs, including Unity Church, Church of Divine Science, and so forth.

I am not a member of any of these religions, just an editor who noticed something disturbing enough that i documented it. I hope it is of use in this mediation discussion.

And, again, my apologies for the length.

cat yronwode (updated Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC) )


 * Premise

Editor hrafn is engaging in a disruptive, biased, tendentious, and POV-pushing war against New Thought and Christian pages.


 * Hrafn's Incivility

My main purpose here is not to enforce civility rules, but i will note that hrafn is given to incivil laguage and to making threats:

"Put up or shut up!

TROLL

"I would (...) suggest that he takes his irrelevant intellectual masturbations elsewhere."

"If you want this article to exist, prune it back to a cited stub."


 * Documenting hrafn's war against New Thought biographies and books

Since hrafn's war on both religious and secular New Thought pages is a gradual process, it is difficult to document, but i suggest that anyone interested in how this technique has been applied should start by checking the page for Wallace Wattles and the page for Charles F. Haanel. Both were New Thought authors. Read the revision hisory of each page for the byte-count numbers. Watch them grow as editors contribute and then gradually shrink as hrafn plays the "verifiability" card to trash the work that others have added in good faith. If you have time, read the talk pages for the two biographies.

Hrafn's technique is to engage in hostile cite-tagging (placing multiple fact-tags on the page, generally one per paragraph) followed by spurious tagging, spurious redirects, and undiscussed deletion.

If he bothers to post to the article's talk page, he usually starts with a "warning" like this:

This article is in flagrant violation of WP:V. Material that is not cited to a source is unverifiable, and may be challenged and deleted, per wikipedia policy. Please do not make contributions without citing them to reliable sources. HrafnTalkStalk

The fact-tags insist on "verifiability" and at first he poses as one who is simply "enforcing verifiability." If no other editor wanders by to add the cites, he eliminates the data and a second round of hostile cite-tagging ensues. Byte-count can drop 75% in a month or two.

If no editor defends the page, the destruction escalates.


 * Images may be removed with no discussion (see blow).


 * The article may be tagged for deletion due to non-notability of the subject (see below).


 * The article may be redirected or merged to another page with no discussion, and none of the data on the page will be carried over to the redirect page -- it will simply be effaced (see below).


 * The article may be deleted with no discussion (see below).


 * Example Charles F. Haanel

This article on a New Thought writer was stripped of its image with no justification. Compare Charles Haanel page, edited by Hrafn (Talk | contribs) at 04:20, March 31, 2008 with Charles Haanel Page, edited by Hrafn (Talk | contribs) at 17:51, June 25, 2008. Removal of images further reduces byte-count. (see here and, after the now-stubbed page was restored, see here for a second example).

False reasons were used in edit-comments to support these deletions:

17:51, 25 June 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs) (1,605 bytes) (tag -- source is not reliable ( commercially-motivated source of anonymous authorship & unknown editorial & fact-checking standards); template -- no WP:RS = notability not established) (undo)

The source above-mentioned was said to be of anonymous authorship. In fact, a check of the source shows that it was authored by C. W. Evans-Gunther (so stated on the top page). Furthermore, the site itself contains a long reference-list of books that were utilized in its creation. Note also hrafn's "non-notability" tag. This is spurious as well.

More information on the attempts to destroy the Charles F. Haanel page can be found on the Charles F. Haanel talk page.


 * Example: The Master Key System

This page, about The Master Key System, a book by Charles F. Haanel, was deleted.

Non-notability of a biographical subject can be spuriously heightened by removal of connecting wiki-links. In the case of Charles F. Haanel, there was at one time a page about a popular book he wrote in 1912 (still in print) called "The Master Key System." That page has already been deleted and in order to even learn what was there, i will have to find an admin who will give me a copy of the version of the page when it was at its highest byte-count. I am not saying that the missing "Master Key System" page is notable, only that it was deleted by hrafn without discussion by being merged into the author's page, and then the author's page was incrementally cut from 4,000 bytes to 1,000 bytes, and then tagged for non-notability -- so i am very curious about that deleted page, as you can imagine.


 * Example: International New Thought Alliance

The article on the International New Thought Alliance should never have been a bone of contention. It simply gave the 100-year history of a notable spiritual and philosophical organization that is low-key, non-contentious, and does not proselytize.

Compare this version of the International New Thought Alliance page to the current version, as of Sept. 4, 2008

The earlier version of the INTA article was footnoted according to earlier versions of Wikipedia sourcing guidelines and did not reflect the latest version of Wikipedia in-line sourcing guidelines, but the sourcing of the article could have been remedied and brought up to current standards. Instead, hrafn deleted material, incrementally, against the attempts by the editor Madman to source the article, until it had been reduced from 6,330 bytes to 1,791 bytes over a period of 3 1/2 months.

INTA 15:15, 7 July  2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)           (1,791 bytes) 8:56, 21 March 2008 Globalprofessor (Talk | contribs) (6,330 bytes)

As is typical when hrafn attacks a New Thought article, 75% of the INTA article text was removed incrementally, over a period of two or more months.

In the case of the INTA article, you can see that along the route to taking a probable C-class article to tagged-and-flagged stub-hood, there were complete deletions and restorations of the article, as a close reading of the article's revision history will disclose.

Meanwhile, on the relevant INTA talk page you will see hrafn's aggressive intentions, clearly stated with the threat "If you want this article to exist, prune it back to a cited stub."

I think if you read the talk page, the level of hostility and aggression will be more than evident.


 * Example: Napoleon Hill

Over the course of 3 months, hrafn took the bio of the New Thought writer Napoleon Hill from this long B-Class Napoleon Hill biography which merely needed some sourcing per new guidelines to an about-to-be-deleted Napoleon Hill stub.

The byte-count and date recap tells the story:

Napoleon Hill, once a B-Class biography, now a stub 15:37, August 17, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)     (2,439 bytes) 02:02, April 19, 2008 Johnlocke2 (Talk | contribs) (7,695 bytes)


 * Example: Divine Science

Here you will find a complete account of how hrafn deleted the entire New Thught religious denomination of Divine Science without going through any standard Wikipedia discussions and how User:Madman recreated the article and named it Church of Divine Science.


 * Example: Affirmative prayer

Afirmative Prayer is a specific form of prayer used in New Thought religiious denominations. It is not supplicatory prayer.

Here the Affirmative prayer page was said to have been deleted by hrafn  without discussion.

I know Affirmative prayer existed because i once did some edits on it. It now redirects to Prayer -- but the New Thought text about Affirmative prayer was deleted when the reditect was made. This was done without discussion or concensus agreement.

Because this page dealt with specific New Thought religious techniques and was deleted-through-redirect it should be restored so that the lost textual matter can be inserted as a sub-section on the Prayer page.


 * Example: Affirmations

Affirmatons are a form of self-talk used by secular and religious New Thought adherents, and other groups as well. (They are not the same as Afrirmative prayer.)

The Affirmations page was said to have been deleted by hrafn without discussion. I know Affirmations existed because i once did some edits on it. It now redirects to the dab page Affirmation with no mention of the text or the meaning assoicated with Affirmations in New Thought religion. Here is where the redirect-and-deletion occured :

(removed terminology implying negative biases and removed erroneous use of supplicatory (which is contrary to affirmation)) [an editor simply tried to remove the negative word hrafn had added]
 * 16:03, 30 April 2008 Low Sea (Talk | contribs)   (1,113 bytes)

["supplicatory" was a term added added by hrafn] (rm self-link) [it became a "self-link" because hrafn had redirected the page out of existance]
 * 16:05, 21 April 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)      (1,142 bytes)

(add link to "Affirmation" article) [Affirmations article existed at this point, hence the link from the dab page]
 * 22:40, 19 February 2008 Vernon39 (Talk | contribs) (1,146 bytes)


 * Example: One mind

This is a technical religous term among some New Thought religious denominations, i believe. I copy edited it but am fairly unfamiliar with the page. Apparently text was deleted by hrafn, as per this commentary.

This may be typical of was was being noted in the request for help. These edits are sequential and took place on one day, with no talk-page concensus:

06:27, April 19, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs) (10,705 bytes) 06:25, April 19, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs) (10,686 bytes) 06:13, April 19, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs) (13,868 bytes) 02:13, April 19, 2008 69.22.232.176 (Talk)   (14,265 bytes)


 * Example: Malinda Cramer

A converstion about page deletion and restoration of the Malinda Cramer biography is here.

Examples of repeated redirects of the page by hrafn, each time trashing all text it contained:


 * 14:32, 16 May 2008 Madman2001 (Talk | contribs)  (941 bytes)


 * 14:15, 16 May 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)       (25 bytes)
 * 14:12, 16 May 2008 Madman2001 (Talk | contribs) m (505 bytes)


 * 14:10, 16 May 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)       (25 bytes)
 * 14:01, 16 May 2008 Madman2001 (Talk | contribs)  (505 bytes)


 * Example: Charles Fillmore

Here was the unsourced but generally accurate bio of Charles Fillmore, the founder of the Unity Church denomination as edited by 71.247.78.33 (Talk) at 01:50, February 15, 2008 with a byte-count of 7,318 bytes.

Tagging it for lack of sources would have been appropriate. Deleting it piecemeal, over the course of several months, was not.

At some point, hrafn actually deleted the entire page, prompting this dialogue over the loss of the page between an IP editor and Madman.

Hrafn incrementally shrank this bio to less than 2,000 bytes (removed approx. 75%):


 * 17:17, March   23, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)   (1,833 bytes)
 * 17:15, March   23, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)   (2,038 bytes)
 * 17:03, March    4, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)   (5,645 bytes)
 * 14:28, February 19, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs) m (7,316 bytes)
 * 14:27, February 19, 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)  (7,302 bytes)
 * 01:50, February 15, 2008 71.247.78.33 (Talk)      (7,318 bytes)

It has since rebounded to 2,981 bytes, but the material that hrafn removed has never been restored.


 * Example: Florence Scovel Shinn

Editor Julia Rossi asked editor Madman's help in defending the Shinn article against hrafn.

Hrafn worked for the article's deletion on grounds of non-notability, but failed.


 * Example: Wallace Wattles

An example of hrafn's massive cuts on the bio of a New Thought writer and the restoration of the material by the editor Madman.

05:12, 17 August 2008 Madman2001 (Talk | contribs)      (5,300 bytes) 05:00, 17 August 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)           (1,631 bytes) 21:44, 16 August 2008 IceUnshattered (Talk | contribs) m (5,300 bytes)

Hfrafn later tried to delete the page for a variety of reasons, including non-notability.

Talk about the cutting of the Wattles page is here.


 * Example: The Science of Getting Rich

This is a book by Wallace Wattles. It was a nice, short piece, but hrafn decided to redirect it out of existence several times. Note that his redirects (to Wallace Wattles, which he was simultaneously cutting and trying to delete as non-notable) involve complete loss of the text; not a merge and rediect, rather a blanking of the page and redirecting. The following edit-pairs show him blanking and redirecting the page within 24 hours of the page being worked on; there was no discussion with other editors; he acted alone.


 * 05:14, 9 July 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)          (29 bytes) redir.; trashed into
 * 23:51, 31 August 2008 64.142.90.33 (Talk)           (3,204 bytes) new start by new ed.
 * 05:14, 9 July 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)          (29 bytes) redir.; trashed info
 * 22:29, 8 July 2008 Friarpuckrory (Talk | contribs)  (568 bytes) new start by new ed.


 * 0:54, 4 March 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)         (32 bytes)  redir.; trashed info
 * 08:48, 22 February 2008 SmackBot (Talk | contribs) m (725 bytes)

Further details on hrafn's campaign to redirect this page out of existance and its repeated restoration can be found on The Science of Getting Rich talk page.


 * Example: Phineas Quimby

Quimby is accounted as one of the founding thinkers of New Thought religion. Again, it is best to view this history of deletion in terms of editing pairs. Four editors have added varying amounts of text; hrafn has made large cuts each time:

06:00, 8 July     2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)      (8,899 bytes) 22:41, 7 July     2008 79.97.246.219 (Talk)         (10,171 bytes)

11:48, 2 May      2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)      (7,874 bytes) 23:55, 17 April   2008 Lindsay658 (Talk | contribs) (8,266 bytes)

07:31, 17 April   2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)      (8,266 bytes) 22:02, 16 April   2008 149.171.241.39 (Talk)        (9,610 bytes)

03:29, 25 February 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)     (7,564 bytes) 20:50, 30 December 2007 Triwbe (Talk | contribs) m  (25,456 bytes)

Phineas
 * Example: Thomas Troward

Thomas Troward was an early New Thought writer. Here we see that hrafn uses his watchlist to delete material within an hour or two of each addition, no matter how many different editors try to add material, or what they are adding. I have placed the additions and deletions in pairs, for ease of viewing the byte-counts:

17:48, 3 September 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)     (2,699 bytes) 17:19, 3 September 2008 64.142.90.33 (Talk)         (3,352 bytes)

17:21, 21 August  2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)      (2,699 bytes) 16:59, 21 August  2008 87.127.18.198 (Talk)         (3,120 bytes)

02:19, 5 June     2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)      (2,676 bytes) 01:39, 5 June     2008 66.108.106.248 (Talk)        (3,042 bytes)

04:40, 19 May     2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)      (2,676 bytes) 03:28, 19 May     2008 Madman2001 (Talk | contribs) (3,929 bytes)

14:21, 17 May     2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)      (2,639 bytes) 13:56, 17 May     2008 66.108.106.248 (Talk)        (3,929 bytes)

11:40, 2 May      2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)      (2,639 bytes) 21:26, 9 April    2008 69.22.232.176 (Talk)         (3,963 bytes)


 * Hoped-for outcome

As can be seen from the various talk pages cited, a number of editors have tried to reason with hrafn. Some have been inexperienced editors and merely asked why he deleted their edits -- and then left Wikipedia. Others have quietly restored material he deleted, only slowly concluding that he was actually waging a war against religion pages. Some, including myself, have directly confronted him, and have been treated with incivility (i admit that i eventually responded a bit uncivilly as well, for which i apologize). However, until this page was created, there was no one place where all the affected pages were logged and all the affected editors could post examples of what hrafn has been doing.

Now that the data is assembled, i think it is time to act.

I would like to see hrafn blocked from editing any pages that fall in the New Thought category, and possibly other religion versus sceince categories as well, due to obvious bias, tendentious editing, disruptive editing, POV-pushing, incivility, and repeated violation of Wiki guidelines concerning the need for consensus before making deletions and redircts. He is apparently wreaking the same kind of havoc in the Christianity/Evolution/Creationism pages, but i do not have time to log examples of that.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in response to Catherineyronwode's accusations on AN/I here:
 * Response to Catherineyronwode's off-topic and inaccurate tirade from Hrafn

They are based upon confirmation bias, inaccurate hearsay repeated as fact, and misinterpretation of core policy (specifically WP:V). Her claims of "a hegemonic philosophical viewpoint" would appear to be directly related to her husband's (User:Self-ref) and her POV-pushing on Category:Pseudoskeptic Target and its CfD. I could provide lengthy difs correcting and clarifying many of her claims on User talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal [which she now repeats, apparently verbatim here], but (i) this would take a great deal of time & (ii) [they are likewise off-topic for this page -- as none of the pages listed in her post are at issue here]. I will however note that I apply my "hegemonic philosophical viewpoint" of attempting to see that WP:V is rigorously enforced, not to the "one-purpose" of New Thought articles, but to a wide range of topics, including my own editing speciality (articles relating to Creationism -- in which area an article of my creation, Academic Freedom bills‎, was recently favourably mentioned in the August issue [p11] of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology newsletter), as well as articles relating to the Unification Church, the woollier reaches of speculative Cosmology and other topics. HrafnTalkStalk 07:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC) [Modified for this page HrafnTalkStalk 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC) ]

That Catherineyronwode: HrafnTalkStalk 08:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Desired outcomes
 * cease and desist edit-warring to restore unverifiable material back into articles;
 * cease WP:BAITing editors who attempt to enforce WP:V; and
 * Cease assuming bad faith by ascribing to editors "a hegemonic philosophical viewpoint", when all that they are attempting to do is enforce WP:V (and in the case of the pseudoscience/pseudoskepticism kerfuffle, WP:DUE weight).


 * Comment to hrafn

There is no way that you can convince me that deleting pages on entire religious denominations, with no consensus sought from other editors, is a matter of "enforcing verifiability." Tagging the pages as in need of sourcing is the appropriate response; thousands of pages are thus tagged at Wikipedia (and thousands more ought to be). Mass deletions of content is not appropriate, and when a pattern of such editing is shown to center on religious topics, it paints a picture of a disruptive, biased editor. When that editor has three friends, and all four of them leave tracks around my unpublished sandbox dealing with the problem of disruptive editing by one of the our, it paints a picture of a tag-team of editors. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You really don't seem to have the hang of Verifiability – The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
 * Comment to Catherineyronwode

Just picking at random one example you complain about above, Charles Fillmore (Unity Church), in your preferred state,, waffles on including effective advertising "Unity House has been able to offer them in hardcover at trade paperback prices", and directly contradicts the much more concise biographical information in the Charles Fillmore Home Page linked under External links. The sole reference is a publication by Southern Methodist University Press, cited for a brief statement. Hrafn tagged the article as needing sources, and only edited out the cruft after no reliable sources were forthcoming.

What's all this guff about leaving tracks around your "unpublished sandbox? Have you forgotten that you've published it on Wikipedia, and provided links to it in user talk space? The actions under your name and your IP number together with those of Self-ref, Firefly322, and other friends paint a picture of a tag-team of editors trying to keep unverified fancruft in Wikipedia by attacking those acting properly according to policy. That's unacceptable disruptive editing. . . dave souza, talk 11:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware that it is quite impossible for something as irrelevant as facts to get in the way of your one-eyed demonising, and "convince" you of anything Catherineyronwode. So there's little point in you reading the following. But for other interested parties:
 * Further comment to Catherineyronwode

Affirmative prayer: Hardly unilateral or precipitous action.
 * In September and October 2007, Catherineyronwode edited this article 9 times, but failed to add even a single source to this wholly unsourced article (as can be seen from its state as of her last edit here).
 * Two days after her last edit another editor tagged it as unsourced.
 * Four months later, I prune this unsourced article back to a stub.
 * On the same day another editor speedy-templates this article.
 * Also on the same day another editor first merge tags and then a day later redirects it.

Affirmations was never anything other than a redirect -- so I couldn't possibly have "deleted" an article there. Catherineyronwode simply didn't bother checking Madman2001's inaccurate accusations before repeating them.

These are the most ludicrous examples of Catherineyronwode's ill-considered rant. What her examples all have in common, is that the editors who created these articles, like Catherineyronwode herself, couldn't be bothered complying with core wikipedia policy by providing adequate (or in most cases any) sources. Now a few of them, again like Catherineyronwode herself, are howling like an infernal host that, because of their own inattention to WP:V, and in accordance with that policy, this unsourced material is being challenged and removed -- often without bothering to get their facts straight. I leave this page with this quote from WP:V:

Sound like anything you've just been reading about? HrafnTalkStalk 11:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break- READ
Okay, people are missing the point of MEDCAB. Let me make this clearer:

Mediation is a venue for users to find a compromise in disputes. That, of course, requires users to be willing to work with certain things. Whether or not a user has engaged in improper behavior, if they don't actively admit to improper behavior, there is nothing that MEDCAB will change. I am not going make any statement as to whether I believe there is factionalizing, ganging up, wikistalking, etc. The fact of the matter is, it's just not relevant to what we're actually going to be able to accomplish here.

It is for that reason that I added the additional users. Since they had taken a side in the content dispute, they could give their own perspective. Instead, of course, some have simply gone on the attack against Firefly, which is not helpful. Would you please, without attacking them, just say what's wrong with the edit?

The whole reason I asked if the users if they were coordinating was because I knew you would say no, and we'd just be forced to move past it and talk about the content concerns! For crying out loud, if all of the editors had (not sarcastically) said, "Yeah, we're members of a secret society aimed at destroying Firefly, but we'll change", we wouldn't be here at all. I am only trying push everything out except the original content dispute, since we actually can work with it.

With that said, two things about the newer additions. Catherineyronwode, unless you've edited the article in the infobox at the top of this page, this isn't something you have any involvement in. ScienceApologist, your comment said nothing about your actual edits, just sniped at Firefly. If you had a problem with the edits, say what it is. Orangemarlin and Hrafn have stated their concerns with the edits already, in terms of content guidelines.

One more thing- there is way too much incivility and attacking going on, both directed at myself and the other users. STOP, or I'll close this, and you can explain to ARBCOM why you're acting like you're twelve. This is not a forum to air grievances or hurl insults, it's a venue to discuss a content dispute at the aforementioned article. That is all. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Having had a look over Firefly's complaints, they're too vague to get to grips with and we're having to guess where we come in on this, as well as trying to guess which IP edits are Firefly's. If we can discuss specific content issues that could be a way forward. For example, the diff Orangemarlin has posted is one that I noticed, and it seems to have been added by 72.197.115.254. Is Firefly complaining about the deletion of that unsourced statement? . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd expect so. When Firefly is back, I'll ask for some diffs. There were multiple revert wars, and some partial reverts, so it's a little hard to tell from the history what edits need to be examined. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the only overlap between all parties is mutual concern over Firefly322's writing style (expressed by Ludwigs2 only on talk and by ScienceApologist only after this mediation started). Otherwise, we have a number of doubtfully connected to completely unconnected editing disputes that Firefly322, and/or IPs that he may have edited under, have been involved in. HrafnTalkStalk 18:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I left a message asking Firefly if they still wanted to mediate the content concerns, or if it was limited to user conduct, in which case we're done here. I pointed them to WP:RFC; since Catherine and Firefly are both raising concerns, it meets the two-user requirement and will almost certainly procced. That will let them present the evidence they've accumulated and allow outside users to weigh in. The thing is this: it's going to happen eventually, and you're going to be at each other's throats until it does. Somebody's going to come out of it not happy I'm sure, but you can put the issue to rest.


 * With that said, we really shouldn't allow the conduct concerns to come in here, because we have some editors that are in agreement with regards to this article, but disagree about everywhere else. We needs to put these things aside if the discussion over the edits is to be productive. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (reposting comment made elsewhere) I think the issue is really what I perceive--by User:Hrafn--as a violation of the two-way street requirements of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL: WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. Hfran rarely apologizes a rare example, nor does he or she apparently recipocate in words of kindness. (I tried a friendly word of kindness, Hrafn never responded.), and again see what Talk:Relationship between religion and science mentions about someone's questionable civility on the page with which I have had to deal with Hrafn quite a bit.
 * This comment of Hfran's is somewhat typical, at least as I perceive him. Here says that I violate WP:AGF and then goes on to use thank you feciously, bangs out the word Bullshit, and tells me Put up or shut up.  --Firefly322 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I see is a user who, by his virtually consistent negative commentary towards me, holds WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in contempt, especially in how he speaks on the Talk:Relationship between religion and science. For he seems to bask in the glory of violating it on his or her part, as he or she invokes it towards me.  Since I see these other editors falling in with Hrafn, I am very concerned about the direction Hrafn and these other editors might be taking Relationship between religion and science.  For I believe WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are core policies for good reason.  They aren't just something to beat down other editors with.  They are something that a wikipedia editor must believe in. (The way the Young radicals believed in faith and reason would be good enough.)  --Firefly322 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I will then take the liberty of repeating my response to Firefly322's claims that he has repeated from WP:AN/I HrafnTalkStalk 13:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) As to WP:No personal attacks, Firefly322 has accused me of being a "troll" and repeatedly accused me of being "evil".
 * 2) Far from WP:Civility when (s)he erroneously stated I has introduced new material, and I pointed out that this was actually old material, erroneously deleted, Firefly322 proceeded to complain bitterly.
 * 3) The reason that I did not respond to this olive branch (referenced above) was that I could think of no way to respond that was neither discourteous or dishonest (given my low opinion of the quality of his/her edits) -- so I simply followed the rule of 'if you can't think of something nice to say, don't say anything.'
 * 4) Firefly322's quotation of "put up or shut up" is out of context -- the full statement was "Put up or shut up, instead of making wild and WP:AGF-violating accusations. Provide the requested quotes."
 * 5) On AN/I Firefly322 saw fit to speculate on my religion and draw unfounded conclusions.
 * 6) Firefly322 has absolutely no idea what my religious beliefs are. (S)he is merely speculating wildly.
 * 7) The statement Firefly322 made about my religion appears to be claiming a moral/ethical superiority based solely on his/her religion, relative to my own purported beliefs. I do not consider such claims to be conducive to WP:CIVIL discussion, and quite frankly find them to be offensive.


 * People! Don't comment on users' conduct here! It's pointless! Content concerns only, please. Firefly, could you post diffs of some of Hrafn's reverts, so we can see what the content is being reverted? Also, I see you added ; could you explain the problem there? I see that Eldereft merged the two articles, but I'm not sure what your concern is with that.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a hostility towards Religion and Science article content in general. Content is being merged or tagged in a way that isn't consistent with the avialable sources. A good example is the recent merger of Relationship between religion and science and the Religion and science community.  Given just the past 30 years of one journal in this area: Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, dozens and dozens of legitimate religion and science articles can be created. But given the merger, I don't think Hrafn and Eldereft see it that way. This merger brings in Eldereft and the dispute of what is or is not a legitimate article.   --Firefly322 (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the discussion to merge, which was/is at Talk:Relationship between religion and science? It doesn't look like you commented there, and all of the comments that are there were in favor of merging. That includes some people that haven't had other involvement in these articles. Eldereft merged after the tag was up for five days, which is the normal amount of time that discussion is up. In any event, did Eldereft actaully do anything besides perform the merge? It was Hrafn that proposed it; Eldereft appears to have only gone with the talk page consensus. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I had asked for a different dispute resolution, which was the WP:3. I couldn't involve myself with other parties, because of its two-party rule. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) ok, in the spirit of reasonableness, let me see if I clarify the issues going on here: in other words, I think this is entirely a miscommunication/misinterpretation problem. I don't know if that will help resolve it or not, but... -- Ludwigs 2 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC) In fact, Hrafn is being cited for his behavior here.
 * Firefly is striking out because he's upset/annoyed at the way he thinks he's been treated
 * his 'cabal' accusations are (I think) unfounded, particularly the way he's cast it
 * his feeling of being mistreated, however, probably isn't. Hrfan's editing style (along with that of several other editors on the list, most assuredly including myself) takes some getting used to. I don't think Hrfan intends to be mean, but he is abrupt, short-spoken, and generally a hard-liner, and other editors (particularly new editors), can easily interpret that in various uncomplimentary ways.  it may not be 'true' that he's being mistreated, but I can certainly see how he might 'feel' that way, and on the internet those kinds of impressions are lethal.
 * Firefly's writing style definitely needs some work. I wouldn't say that he writes badly, exactly, but he packs a lot of stuff into short sentences, so that it's hard to separate out the various ideas into usable and unusable sections.
 * That's a definite possibility. I've also seen instances where something that was cited but poorly written was reverted, when it could have been left but cleaned up. That's instances across Wikipedia- I haven't gotten a good look at what's changed in this article so I don't know what kind of sourcing was there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break
Taking a 30,000' view of this MEDCAB "case", it reads like a tag-team attack on User:Hrafn. RfC it in that case. This isn't coming across as a content dispute at all. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * are you accusing Firefly of being a tag team all by himself? how is that physically or logically possible?  -- Ludwigs 2  02:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that OrangeMarlin is referring to the several other issues to which Hrafn is currently being subjected. Returning to the actual matter at hand, Firefly322 has requested that this case remain open for a while longer. Might we avoid going off-topic until the content concerns are articulated here? Alternatively, I would support an RfC of one sort or another. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * well, you might suggest to OM that if he's going to use the term tag team he ought to use it correctly. using it the way he did here (where there is no group in question, and no evidence of collective action of any sort) is just pure incivility.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Eldereft is correct.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The main reason that this case was opened was on the recommendation of User:Admiral Norton's Talk:The Christian Virtuoso. Jeremey, are mediation cabal's unable to address the deeper issues that Admiral Norton suggests they can? --Firefly322 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also this case should probably be limited to just Hrafn and me. I believe here are just to many comments from too many other editors.  Can it be recast? New scope, new limits put in place so that User:Admiral Norton's Talk:The Christian Virtuoso suggestion can be achieved? --Firefly322 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You included others. And this is not a content dispute, it is one editor who has poor writing skills and lack of NPOV knowledge, who is angry at another editor who has superior writing skills and strong NPOV understanding.  Can we move on?  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Orange Marlin's point, though I think he has mischaracterized the problem, and I object to his ad hominem language. -- Ludwigs 2 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since multiple users made reverts of Firefly's edits, it's most helpful in discussing things if all of those users make mention why they think the material needed to be reverted. If someone could post diffs from some of the revert wars, we could address them on an individual basis. As for the Admiral's comment, it looks as if he was incorrect. Here's the thing- both MEDCAB and MEDCOM are mediating groups. They help users reach an agreement, not make a decision like a trial judge. For mediation to address user conduct, the user accused would have to say "yes, I did wrong, and want help in fixing it". If any user did that, there wouldn't be a need for DR at all! Addressing user conduct usually means a process where someone does make a ruling, which is arbitration, a.k.a. ARBCOM. The user conduct RfC usually comes first; no one presides over it, but many users can comment on whether or not they believe the user has done wrong. This creates a consensus between users over the accused's behavior, but if there is a consensus that the user is in the wrong, it would still take arbcom to impose sanctions (unless the user voluntarily stopped). That's why I think you and Catherine should file that RfC soon- she's already got a mountain of diffs she's collected as evidence, and you guys are going to be fighting with each other until consensus says either A) they are stalking you, or B) they aren't. You can't get a consensus either way with inactivity. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a quality and formerly indefatigable editor has announced retirement. Can we thank JeremyMcCracken for his efforts (this part is not sarcastic) and consider this case concluded to the satisfaction of all remaining parties (this part is sarcastic)? - Eldereft (cont.) 11:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Always unfortunate to see an editor retire due to stress. I'm not going to close this just yet- other editors are involved because they also had a problem with Firefly's edits; it would still be good to discuss these, if anyone would still be willing. I think the user conduct RfC idea is dead now, unless Firefly and Catherine are intent on pursuing it against some of the other users (though it looks like Hrafn was the primary individual). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it looks as though an ANI thread was opened, which became the start of the aforementioned RfC: Requests for comment/Hrafn. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the other editors, we have only just encountered each other (or in the past only rarely and tangentially). As for my writing skills, I'm staunch advocate of WP:IMPERFECT.  And I believe that the current state of Christian Virtuoso attests to the fact that my revisions do ultimately result in acceptable copy. I think it's sad to see Hrafn go. I will admit that I sometimes benefitted from his attention.  However, I believe his attention would have been far more valuable if it came with an obviously kind heart. Sometimes his silence and once in a great while his revisions suggested (Victoria Institute and J. C. Massee that he might have, deep down, been kind hearted and fully open to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, but remained tacit since open expressions of kindness might make him look weak.  Alas, in light of his retirement the wikipedia community may now never see such a change, which his edits on J. C. Massee again suggested could have quite possibly happened.  --Firefly322 (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I think more and more about the five pilliars, I realize that my aim has often fallen far from the mark of its WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF target columns. At fist because I was not at all aware of them.  Later, because I tried to live unnecessarily "by the sword" when "by the cross" would have no doubt worked out much better.  To be at the place where I'm at with respect to the WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL core policies takes a lot of experience, but I do believe that changes made by suggestions whose wording overlooks WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL aren't usuualy good for wikipedia in the long run.   Even if they win immediate, short term gains in perceived article quality, the damage to relationships accumulates bit by bit. The wikipedia community is actually weaker in the long run, forcing new inexperience blood in and old experienced blood into retirement.  In light of Hrafn's retirement, the irony here is obvious.--Firefly322 (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so short and sweet question- to you want to continue this MEDCAB with the other users, or close it in light of Hrafn's retirement? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Close it. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay will do. Here's hoping things go a little closer to smooth sailing from here on out. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)