Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Drnhawkins

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

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

Despite the efforts in April 2009 at Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep, the editor's talk page and the talk page of the deleted article, Drnhawkins is still trying to create articles (or add material to articles) based on his own original research and which are pov content forks.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

That Drnhawkins will:
 * Understand and accept the consensus interpretation of Wikipedia Policies on Original Research (WP:OR) and Reliable Sources (WP:RS).
 * If no secondary sources exist, publish in a reliable vetted source before seeking publication in Wikipedia.
 * Avoid lengthy discussion on talkpages. Discuss issues in a clear and concise manner.

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

Drnhawkins has been working on a series of articles relating the histories of the Hebrews and Ancient Egyptians. He does this using the primary sources of the Old Testament in conjunction with archaeology of questionable scholarship at best. He combines this into a synthesis to advance his own religious point of view. He also adds his arguments to existing articles and clutters them with large diagrams that illustrate his case.

The issues are further outlined in the Evidence of disputed behavior section below.

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

In addition to User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt, User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt, User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person, User:Drnhawkins//Archives/Where do Moses and the Israelites fit into Egyptian History? he also added a file he created, File:Egyptian dynasties and the Bible.gif with links to his userspace to four articles:

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * No original research, especially
 * WP:PRIMARY
 * WP:SYNTHESIS
 * WP:RS
 * WP:V
 * WP:DIS
 * WP:MOS
 * WP:N
 * WP:NPOV

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Drnhawkins's talkpage
 * On Drnhawkins's talkpage, after Dougweller has pointed to WP:RS, John Carter agrees and explains further, pointing out WP:OR and WP:N. (19:33, 2009 April 25)
 * On Drnhawkins's talkpage, Quantpole points out the advisability of brevity in conversations, and again points the editor towards WP:N and WP:RS. (11:08, 2009 April 27)
 * Dougweller points out that sources have to state what is being claimed in the article: "sources need to discuss the idea".
 * Dougweller in a reply to Drnhawkins (advocating OR) comments, "...it comes down to our poliies and guidelines, and reliable and verifiable sources discussing the issue." (2009 April 27)
 * Edward321 explains why what Drnhawkins put in an article was OR and that it's against policy.
 * User:Peterkingiron gave the editor some good advice. (12:16, 2009 April 28)
 * John Carter pointed Drnhawkins towards some subjects he might be interested in editing, and offered his assistance in editing any of them.
 * Dougweller explained some problems with using work of Ron Wyatt as source material.
 * John Carter carefully answered several questions, explained policies, and laid out a lot about how we do (and don't do) things on Wikipedia. (08:21, 2009 April 30)
 * Peterkingiron gave a lengthy commentary with explanations of WP:POV/WP:NPOV and use of the Bible in WP articles. (09:07, 2009 April 30)
 * LadyofShalott and Peterkingiron [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drnhawkins&diff=next&oldid=287053697 made a suggestion about an appropriate way to contribute to Wikipedia within Drnhawkins's area of interest.
 * Athanasius1 gave a lengthy response discussing the Bible as a primary source and its historicity, and explaining some about WP:Fringe. (09:48, 2009 April 30)
 * TenPoundHammer gave a level 1 warning about OR. (08:26, 2009 May 31)
 * John Carter points out again relevant policies and gave suggestions about finding WP:RS to expand articles.
 * John Carter responded (and expanded thereupon) to some rather rude comments by Drnhawkins. (13:22 and 13:53, 2009 June 1)
 * LadyofShalott made a comment about references to Bible passages. (22:20, 2009 June 3)
 * John Carter made some observations and suggestions about Drnhawkins's contributions. (10:45, 2009 June 4)


 * WikiProject Christianity
 * A discussion was held at the talk page of the Christianity WikiProject about some of Drnhawkins's images. LadyofShalott notified Drnhawkins of the discussion and invited him to participate in it.

This is the talk page of an article deleted via AfD at Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep, resurrected temporarily for the purpose if this discussion only and will be deleted again at the end of this RfC. The AfD discussion also gives background to this and since then there does not appear to have been any progress in the editor's understanding or behavior.
 * Talk:Joseph and Imhotep
 * R'n'B gave several pointers about sourcing and style.
 * Dougweller commented again about original research and made a suggestion of a possible useful contribution Drnhawkins could make.


 * MfD compromise
 * At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person the decision was made to let a page remain in userspace if Drnhawkins would not repost it in mainspace again. This was 2 years, 1 month, 10 days ago from the date of posting this RfC and it has not been edited by Drnhawkins since. The closing Admin's comment "The result of the discussion was keep, for now. However, if this lurks in userspace for a long time without becoming an article, then the consensus will probably change to deletion."

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
The discussions above show Drnhawkins' difficulties in listening to the advice of a number of other editors. Most of that discussion was approximately two years ago, anfter which Drnhawkins took a wikibreak. Upon his return, he went back to the same behaviors that prompted all of that discussion. Drnhawkins still includes his own WP:POV and WP:OR. The discussion on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt clearly show an unwillingness to acknowledge that there is WP:OR involved. His list of deleted contributions is telling in itself.

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


 * Lady of  Shalott  13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  He  iro 16:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * causa sui (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * MER-C 06:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Peridon (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per SmokeyJoe. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * &oelig; &trade; 00:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Phearson (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''

These articles cite a number of primary secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia has does not consider them reliable.

There is an obvious inconsistency in the application of Wikipedia policies when it comes to other articles in main space.

There are numerous articles in Wikipedia that do not have adequate references but have been allowed to be moved to mainspace.

Wikipedia is not neutral, it is clearly 'Athiest' and any articles that suggest that the Biblical account may be correct or quote the Bible as a source of historical information are not allowed in mainspace.

Wikipedia regards the artical as original research even though numerous articals have been written on this subject.

One of the main problems is that Wikipedia does not regard the Bible as a reliable source of Historical information.

The Bible contains the Chronicles and records or Israel. It is not possible to write an article that correlates Egyptian history with that of Israel without referring to the Bible.

The period of history that we are referring to is around 2000BC ie 4000 years ago. There are no other documents from this time that are anywhere near as reliable as the Bible. The Q'ran for example was written in 600AD in a time where there was a plethora of historical information to correlate it with. 4000 years ago, there were only a few other civilizations that kept records; Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks Asians etc.

The histories of two of these civilizations, Egypt and Israel, came together around the time of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, the Judges and Saul, David, Solomon and the other Kings of Israel when there was interaction between these nations. These periods in history should be regarded as anchors for correlating the histories of these civilizations, independent of potentially eroneous dating techniques that currently used to find contemporaries in the respective cultures.

Dating techniques are not the only way of correlating history. As explained in the article, the match between the profile of Joseph and Imhotep is so exact that it should be given more credence than the dates imputed to them based on archaeological dating techniques. It is now clear that many Egyptian dynasties ran in parrallel as there were separate kingdoms in the North and the South of Egypt. Any timeline that presents one serial sequence, one king or dynasty after another, simply cannot be right. Our understanding of Egyptian history is far from complete and so Egyptian History cannot be used as the 'ultimate reference' or 'Gold Standard' as Wikipedia seems to believe.

If wikipedia continues to delete articles like this which do not fit with what they believe, wikipedian history will become more athieistic, unbalanced, a construct of their own policies and not based on reality. You are creating your own delusional system!

--Special:Contributions/ (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC) --Drnhawkins (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This article was accepted by Creation Wiki and is consistent with the chronologies in their articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnhawkins (talk • contribs) 11:02, 31 July 2011 --Drnhawkins (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The picture that I placed in articles in main space were recently created. I did not realize that this was contravening the agreement that I had made with you. The links back to my articles in userspace were unintended. You can varify that the links were first created in usespace to link between my own articles in userspace and the links were part of the description of the picture. When I copied the picture and it's description and pasted them into articles in main space, it created a link back to my articles in userspace. This was not my primary intention. I simply wanted to put the newly created picture and it's description into the relevant articles in mainspace.--Drnhawkins (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by Rocksanddirt
A quick observation. The userspace article thing is hard to call disruption worthy of an Rfc. The not hearing that original research is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is a larger problem.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Appears to be a straightforward case of refusal to get the point. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Peridon (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Peridon
The material in userspace is not of itself disruptive of the encyclopaedia in the same way as addition of obscenities to, or the blanking of, articles is. It is that the material is obviously intended to be moved to mainspace at some time that is the problem. (If it is not so intended, then the principle of Not Free Webspace applies.) The material would take a large scale rewrite of Wikipedia's policies to become acceptable. (There would be little point rewriting the material, as it would then become duplication of existing articles... )

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Peridon (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) causa sui (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by TenPoundHammer
The dude's creating fake "articles" in userspace. They're full of OR and synthesis, and therefore can't be moved into article space. Tell me why we should sweep them under the rug and say "well, it's not only in userspace, it doesn't matter". It's obvious he's using his userspace to circumvent xfd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ETA: I meant "it's only in userspace", not "not". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Similar to the above statement in substance if not in tone. causa sui (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Peridon (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) MER-C 06:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  He  iro  21:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)  Also note that he has been doing it for a long time, and has been told it is not OK, for a long time.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC).
 * 7) I'm aware of this user only from the MfD nomination of his userspace stuff, and yes, it's obvious that he's trying to circumvent AfD after his pieces were snow deleted, ie. textbook WP:FAKEARTICLE. This is disruptive behavior. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) WikiCopter 04:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Cube lurker
Drnhawkins I fully believe you have good motives. I do not believe your intention is to be disruptive in any way. It can be a difficult thing to write on topics where we have strong beliefs.

Religion, politics and similar areas often lead to conflicts here on wikipedia. Policies are there to give wikipedia a clear direction, and not just become a collection of everyone writing what they believe. It's entirely possible that in certain cases this may result in the exclusion of information that years from now we'll look back at and realize was correct. However these rules are deemed necessary for wikipedia to be a neutral point of view encyclopedia

You've been pointed to a number of policies, most on them connected to what is considered original research. You may not agree with these policies, but if you want to edit here you're going to need to read them, and write within the limits of this website. As an alternative you've already mentioned another website where you can submit your research, also there is always the posibility of writing in a personal website or blog.

I don't want to discourage you from participating here, but you might consider backing away from creating new articles at this time. Try to understand the policies, perhaps work through discussions on talk pages of existing articles. It might also help to try doing some editing on a diferent topic for a time, learning the way wikipedia works in a subject where your obvious passion doesn't cause any conflict.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Cube lurker (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)   DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) WikiCopter 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  &oelig; &trade; 00:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Summary
As far as I can tell, I am an uninvolved administrator. I can't recall a time I have crossed paths with User:Drnhawkins.--v/r - TP 14:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Background on this RFC closure


 * Findings of the RFC
 * 1) Userspace is not a free web host to indefinitely store fake articles that were deleted via AFD or are unsuitable for article space.
 * 2) Drnhawkins has engaged in original research
 * 3) Drnhawkins has been reminded sufficient times to heed WP:OR and WP:RS.


 * Solution
 * 1) The fake articles that are unsuitable for article space due to WP:RS and WP:OR should be deleted.
 * 2) Drnhawkins should adhere to WP:RS and refrain from original research.

If issues persist, the next appropriate step in dispute resolution is arbitration.