Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/DJ Clayworth-Davidcannon

I am new to Wikipedia and am already quite turned off on the concept. Let me begin by saying that it seems strange that Wikipedia allows anonymous posts and edits, yet in this case I was taken to task for posting anonymously. If you don't want people to do that, then maybe the software shouldn't allow it.

Anyway, in the past couple of weeks I have added material to several topics, many related to Christianity in some way. My attempt was to bring some balance to the traditionalist and, in some cases, almost fundamentalist viewpoints expressed. The problem occurred when I added a section under the entry "Born again", stating an alternative viewpoint. DJ Clayworth first deleted everything I had added. I restored it, and afterwords discovered the Talk page (Talk:Born again) on the subject (as I said I was new at this). Mr. Clayworth and I engaged in some discussion, during which he assumed a very superior posture due to my desire to post anonymously. I stopped conversing with him when he made it clear that what I had to say counted for nothing unless I was willing to get an account.

I made one edit in response to Mr. Clayworth's comments, hoping to appease him. He then rewrote the entire section, basically charging the entire tone and meaning of what I had written. I restored my text once more (since it says that's how you deal with vandalism, and considered the wholesale removal and replacement of my text to be vandalism) and then Davidcannon jumped in and said this:

"I have restored the Clayworth version. In my opinion, it is much closer to the 'neutral point of view' espoused by Wikipedia. Additionally, our faceless user (or, should I say, abuser) will not identify himself. Mr Clayworth, on the other hand, logs in properly and we all know who he is. Now, to the nameless intruder, unless and until you can write something better than what Mr Clayworth has written, his version is going to stay put. Sorry. Davidcannon 00:38, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)"

Now I assume that Davidcannon must be a system administrator to write in such a manner (hence the question marks in my topic heading above) but I just want to say that while I am the first to admit that my writing can certainly be improved upon, I felt it was a real slap in the face to basically have what I wrote thrown out and then to be categorized as a "nameless intruder" to boot. So again I say, if this is how Wikipedia administrators really feel about anonymous users, you should either not let people post anonymously, or at least warn us that whatever we write may have a rather short life expectancy, so we don't waste a lot of time making contributions.

The other comment I will make is that if you truly want these pages to have a neutral point of view, I would think that you'd welcome alternatives to the traditional, fundamentalist viewpoint on pages dealing with Christianity and religion. No view in matters of faith is "neutral" to the person holding it, therefore I would think that one way to make a page more neutral would to welcome alternatives to the traditional dogma, provided they're at least somewhat reasonable. Perhaps these comments would be more appropriate elsewhere (in which case please feel free to move them) but at the moment the whole thing leaves me with a very negative feeling about the Wiki concept and Wikipedia. Again, I'm not saying my text couldn't have been improved upon, but I don't feel that first deletion, and then a rewrite which changes the meaning is necessarily improvement.


 * The anonymous user in question has announced his/her intention to leave Wikipedia. Do I need to respond to this? DJ Clayworth 22:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * No, there's no requirement for anyone to respond to any comments. If no one else responds, I'll assume there isn't a need for it to be here and remove it. It's only here because I moved it from vandalism in progress. I wasn't sure it should be anywhere really, but I thought I should do something other than just deleting it. Angela. 23:50, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * This seems to me like an exercise in biting a newcomer. Like it says elsewhere, labelling a new or anonymous user a vandal will deter them from adding anything new. Furthermore, you are allowed to contribute anonymously and not have this thrown at you as an argument tactic. Arno 11:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, the anon made the vandalism accusation against me, not me against him. And I have no objection to him posting anonymously. I welcome suggestions on how I might have handled this better. DJ Clayworth 14:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * To follow up on this, I am the anonymous user in question, and I had only just discovered Wikipedia within the last month, so I guess I am new. I added an alternative interpretation to the entry for Born again, and DJ Clayworth basically took it upon himself to act as a censor by first removing what I had written completely (which is why I first called it vandalism) and then when I restored my previous text, he again came in and rewrote it in a way that made it more palatable to himself, at the expense of making it much more vague and unclear. I again restored my original text, whereupon Davidcannon jumped in and restored Mr. Clayworth's edit. Now, Davidcannon lists on his user page that his Religion is Born-again Christian and that his Politics are "Center-right; strong supporter of the ACT New Zealand Party - a party which has been accused by its opponents of being far to the right."  So I question seriously whether he can be considered a totally objective and neutral party, but from the tone of his message I thought he was a system administrator (now that he hasn't responded here I am starting to wonder).


 * I consider it vandalism to edit someone's text in a way to change the meaning. My addition was not intended to espouse Mr. Clayworth's nor Mr. Cannon's point of view; that's why it was clearly labeled an alternative interpretation and placed in a separate section. The question really is whether religious fundamentalists are going to be allow to censor interpretations of religious terminology that they don't happen to agree with, even when such an interpretation is clearly labeled as alternative or non-mainstream.  As I pointed out in the "Talk" page, this is an interpretation that lines up with what has been reported by those who've had Near Death Experiences, and while it perhaps could have been written more clearly, I didn't think that the wholesale gutting and rewriting was necessary.


 * My question at this point is, if I were to go back and restore the text I wrote, would action be taken against me? Would my IP address be banned?  Or is this just how Wikipedia operates, where you have dueling edits until someone tires of the game?  I confess I'm tired of it already; I have no desire to play those kinds of games and that is why I have not posted a single word since I wrote the above complaint (up until now). But I guess I really would like some clarification on why one person is allowed to rewrite another's text in a way that changes the meaning, and whether there is any way to prevent religious fundamentalists from censoring points of view they disagree with.  I felt that my edit made the page more neutral by showing that there was an interpretation of this term other than the one commonly attached by fundamentalists; in effect there were opposite viewpoints presented.  Is this not permitted?  Anonymous, 15 February 2004 (not sure how you get the time in UTC, but it's 1:11 AM EST)

I hate to see a new user get bitten, so I'm going to respond to your comments.

''...my previous text... my original text...''

Once you press the submit button, it's not yours anymore. Under the edit box, there is a line that reads, "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it." This applies to everyone's article contributions. See Be bold in updating pages, in particular, the third paragraph.

That said, there is a need for editors to respect each others' viewpoints. I think that you will be able to get along here in Wikipedia; I have written advice to help you below.

So I question seriously whether [User:Davidcannon] can be considered a totally objective and neutral party, but from the tone of his message I thought he was a system administrator (now that he hasn't responded here I am starting to wonder).

I would categorically doubt anyone's claim to be a "totally objective and neutral party". We're all just regular humans; the best we can hope for is to represent all points of view. See Neutral point of view.

I want to clarify the role of administrator (aka sysop) here on Wikipedia. A sysop is not a superuser who gets to decide unilaterally what goes in an article, but rather an editor who is trusted to be able to perform certain janitorial duties. There is supposed to be a distinction between what a user does as an editor and what he or she does as a sysop; a sysop should not wear his or her editor hat and sysop hat at the same time. Neither DJClayworth nor Davidcannon is an administrator. The complete list is at Administrators.

I consider it vandalism to edit someone's text in a way to change the meaning.

Vandalism is more like this edit or this edit. See Dealing with vandalism.

My question at this point is, if I were to go back and restore the text I wrote, would action be taken against me?

Someone might revert your edit.

Would my IP address be banned?

No.

Or is this just how Wikipedia operates, where you have dueling edits until someone tires of the game?

Some people are inclined to operate this way, but most realize quite rapidly that it's futile. (Incidentally, one of a sysop's duties is to protect pages, which makes them uneditable, in order to force the disputants in an edit war to resolve their differences on the talk page. A sysop who protects during an edit war in which he or she is a disputant is likely to have his or her actions reviewed on the mailing list or Possible misuses of admin privileges.)

Here's my advice on how to proceed. First, make a post on the talk page explaining the reasoning behind your edit, and the reasons that DJClayworth's subsequent edit are not what you had in mind. Then, draw DJClayworth's attention to your post and cordially invite to respond by leaving him a message on User talk:DJ Clayworth.

I felt that my edit made the page more neutral by showing that there was an interpretation of this term other than the one commonly attached by fundamentalists

All of my other comments have tried to convey information about how to get along in Wikipedia. This is the one comment where I will discuss your proposed edit.

One of the things that Wikipedia is not is a place for original research (#10 on the second list). If you are the one who came up with this interpretation of the scriptures, then it's a no-go on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you can provide a citation to a fairly reputable person or group that propounds that interpretation, then you can insert the interpretation with the corresponding citation. Even just applying Aristotelian logic to a Bible quote, as you've done, may be a novel hermeneutic (although I sure hope not). (For the record, I'm Jewish.)

not sure how you get the time in UTC, but it's 1:11 AM EST

Use four tildes ( ~ ) to automatically sign and datestamp. Since you're anonymous, it will sign with your IP.

I hope my comments are helpful to you. -- Fuchsia 07:10, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)