Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell

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


 * (Example user | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

This Request for Comments is about the behavior of user in editing the article on Charles Taze Russell: primarily POV pushing, and breach of Wikipedia guidelines to that end.

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.}''

Charles Taze Russell was a 19th century minister. The article, as currently written, appears to several Wikipedians to be non-neutral. Pastorrussell is a member of the Bible Students, a religious group following and promoting Russell's teachings, and his edits attempt to keep the Wikipedia article closely based on the biographical page at his own website Pastor-Russell.com.

After previous collaborative editing, this version appeared in May 2005, first via an anonymous editor 65.28.248.240 and then explicitly via Pastorrussell ( "Pastorrussell (Bio (c) 2005 ... Suggest changes at: webmaster@pastor-russell.com").

Since then, edits by other editors have been persistently reverted except for trivial paraphrasing and Wikification. Pastorrussell has asserted that he and his religious group, the Bible Students, have control of the article because they have a unique factual insight into the subject due to access to primary sources. This stance makes it impossible to make relevant edits that significantly alter the article: for instance, to include alternative views, religious or secular, of his life and actions (as required by NPOV).

Despite this claim to sources, he fails to cite them.

An NPOV banner has been put up on the article five times within a 24-hour period and removed each time.

At 05:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC), after ignoring an admin warning, he was blocked for 24 hours for breach of the Three Revert rule.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)

Ownership of article and editing conduct
 * See the History of Charles Taze Russell for evidence that an NPOV tag was added and removed five times in the 24-hours period from 1200 GMT 19 July 2005 to 1200 GMT 20 July 2005. Continuing deletion of NPOV tag even after RfC in progress:    22:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1 for the statement
 * "Bible Students are in charge of this article, and are happy to discuss and view information about historical facts, or the addition of other events in Pastor Russell's life".


 * See response to K.'s notice about editing behaviour and Wikipedia being a collaborative medium:
 * "Since it is collaborative, any factual errors will be cleaned up by Bible Students who ARE in charge of Pastor Russell's life and legacy since we are the only ones who have a direct linkage to him, have all of the original historical documents, and the closest tie to him. I am willing to work with you, but your stubborn attitude results in an equally stubborn response as we are defending the truth of Pastor Russell's life, ministry, and character".


 * Attempting to get the page permanently protected in his preferred version
 * There is a problem with an 'edit war' on this page. The group most closely associated with Charles Taze Russell's Last Will & Testament, and documented legacy, have had factual data removed from the article in favor of groups who have no association with him. A permanent protection is requested to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia entry, and to prevent accurate material being removed, and innacurate material being added, etc... Thank you.


 * Continued assertion, at Talk:Bible Students, of ownership of article and refusal to accept the collaborative nature of Wikipedia:
 * It also concerns me that a few of you guys seem to be following me around and "correcting" everything I do under cover of making sure things are edited properly. That is neither ethical, nor moral. Oh, of course I'm not perfect, and will make mistakes, but you aren't Bible Students, and you have no respect for Pastor Russell or his ministry. If you want to 'wikify' something, fine and good, but to follow me around and hound me is quite frightening and highly improper. Leave me alone. Leave the Bible Student entry alone. Leave the Pastor Russell entry alone. Let Bible Students work on it. It's about us, not you. If you want to make an entry on anti-JWs or anti-Bible Students, go right ahead. PastorRussell 14:05, 04 August 2005 (UTC)


 * More assertion of unique ownership of article:
 * Why are just a few of you guys moving OUR history around when you have no connection to it? PastorRussell 16:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And more (including personal attack):
 * ''Your conduct is beyond unacceptable. Your rewording and reworking of sections is appalling ... This article doesn't belong to you. You have no connections to Pastor Russell or Bible Students. You know very little of our history, and have presented it in very unclear ways. If you do not stop this ridiculous behavior I will immediately report you to the administrators of Wikipedia, who have already told me in email that they support my efforts to keep this article free of your form of bias, and the fact you aren't even a Bible Student and are attempting to write our history. PastorRussell 16:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Legal threat
 * See Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1 for the statement: "If you are choosing to not work together, and if you push the matter, then we will work without you, and defend the truth, even to the point of using the courts and television, if necessary, because we have original source documents backing up the truth".

Failure to cite sources


 * Self-evident from the article: a lengthy biography whose language strongly indicates uncredited archaic source(s) (e.g. "...when he was but seven-years-old ...") . sourcing improving 01:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
 * General likelihood of POV when material comes from a partisan religious site.
 * The introduction's  failure to mention that Russell's organisation is generally considered, outside the Bible Students, to be the precursor to the Jehovah's Witnesses.
 * The extremely vague description of Russell's divorce ("This arrangement eventually fell apart, causing Charles great distress, and became grist for the mill to many of his critics" ) - in reality a well-documented and acrimonious court case involving allegations of sexual misconduct.
 * Claim (see Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute below) that credible reference sources are invalid due to bias in favour of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Original research and verifiability
 * Use of content sourced from Pastor-Russell.com, Pastorrussell's own articles whose source is neither provided nor verifiable . see sourcing 01:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Applicable policies

 * Neutral point of view


 * Three-revert rule


 * Ownership of articles


 * No legal threats


 * Cite sources


 * Original research


 * Verifiability

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
As Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1 shows, several users have asked the user in question to stop removing the NPOV banner. There has been a suggestion that a vote be taken.

The talk shows that the user in question, while saying that discussion is the way to resolve disputes and claiming to desire a compromise, nevertheless makes clear that any such compromise must be based on other editors' acceptance of the accuracy and NPOV nature of his version .

He repeatedly dismisses specific questions as minor, fails to Cite sources, and will not agree that there is a POV issue.
 * "I, and other Bible Students, are monitoring this article, and will stand by it as it stands now, but are willing to discuss possible changes of certain sentences and paragraphs, but not the entire article, which is 100% accurate, neutral, and historically factual"

On User talk:Pastorrussell, K. has asked him to stop removing the NPOV tag and to discuss the situation, and Tearlach urged him to read the NPOV guidelines. Currently (13:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)) there has been no response.

In response to the RfC, discussion is ongoing (21:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)) at Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1 with uncertain tone. Pastorrussell has expressed an interest in compromise and discussion, but his commitment to NPOV looks questionable as he views credible sources by Wikipedia standards - the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed., Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, 2005 and The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church - as biased
 * "All of them written by Jehovah's Witnesses of the Editorial Committee. As a result, they are biased. Please research the matter further and you will see that encyclopedia references are wrong to use here, and do not apply"".

He is also continuing to delete the NPOV tag   with a unilateral claim that "All NPOV issues have been fixed".

Multiple reverts in five hours time      with the claim that "NPOV issues have been & are being resolved " on 22 July 2005 (not a basis for removing a NPOV tag).

One of the authors of this RfC has advised the user in question that, if he thinks the majority are being unreasonable, he should request mediation. There has been no response from the user in question.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Robert McClenon 12:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * K. 12:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Tearlach 12:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Flammifer 03:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) JCarriker 12:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Stirling Newberry 18:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Carnildo 21:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Flammifer 09:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Thryduulf 20:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

It is important that a neutral and unbiased article reflecting on the life, ministry, and legacy of Pastor Russell be created, and maintained. Any edits reverted by me have been edits harmful to the facts, and not simply to the article itself as it now reads. There have been a dozen efforts to remove all forms of POV from the article, but others keep insisting on adding additional material that has nothing to do with Pastor Russell, or connecting him with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Although they claim him as their founder, he was merely the founder of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, and not the current religious movement. Thus, to connect him with the JWs, or make it appear that they are one and the same goes contrary to historical fact. To connect him with the JWs would be a non-neutral POV, which everyone seems to be talking about. I am anxious to work with everyone, and have said that from the start. Many have been hostile to these attempts, and have made edits which are highly inappropriate to the facts, or again, biased towards the JWs. It is my desire the article reflect a fair, balanced, neutral, and factually correct record of the life of Charles Taze Russell, not the JWs or Bible Students, or any other group.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view by Stirling Newberry
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Having reviewed the pages, all I can say is that the editors dealing with this problem have shown incredible patience. Pastorrussell has continually violated the 3RR, unilaterally declared NPOV problems have been fixed, when, in fact, all he has done is revert to his preferred version, and has made declarations of special, uncitable, knowledge. Currently he is blocked because of a 3RR violation. His behavior is almost a paragon of the phrase "Pove troll" (see Talk - Tearlach 15:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)) in that he has not merely attempted to enforce his POV, but has made statements which seem almost calculated to provoke, or at the very least are made without regard for civility and collegiality.

Several editors have repeatedly attempted to bring the page to consensus, and work within the discussion process, and each time Pastorrussel has refused in terms which are both high handed and arbitrary.

The present situation is intolerable, and the recommendations from the editors involved indealing with Pastorrussel should be taken, and acted on upon quickly with the support of the community. We should not be allowing individual abusive editors to waste the time of so many valuable contributors for as long as this edit war has dragged on. Stirling Newberry 06:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Robert McClenon 14:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Husnock 22:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) DavidH 05:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Gamaliel
It seems fairly clear that User:Pastorrussell is a POV warrior and is convinced that everyone else is filled with bias. I have no knowledge of the content of this article and had never even heard of Russell until two days ago, but when I blocked Pastorrussell for his second 3RR violation (after letting him slide for the first violation with a warning despite a whopping 14 reverts) he accused me of being biased against his POV. Until Pastorrussell is capable of writing in an NPOV manner and learns to play nicely with other editors, I don't think he should be editing this article. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Gamaliel 22:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Robert McClenon 23:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) DavidH 05:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.