Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Willfults

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: 22:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.''

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.''

Willfults has continually showed that he will push a (ultra-conservative) Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) POV, by:
 * -giving ultra-conservative SDA views undue weight
 * -engaging in original research; claiming that he is providing reliable and neutral sources when in actual fact he is just supplying quotes from the Bible and a 19th century SDA prophet (interpreted by him)
 * -marginalizing or removing views which do not agree with his conservative SDA beliefs
 * -no matter how often he is warned or reverted, often misrepresenting sources and lying in edit summaries.

Cause of concern
''{Add summary here, 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.}''


 * Note: The following was originally a userpage by Ian.thomson, which other editors (such as Tonicthebrown and Efiiamagus) added their comments to. It has been minimally altered to correct a spelling error, and more clearly separate additional comments not by Ian.thomson while keeping them in the same place.  This only goes back to last December of last year, and only within the past hundred edits of the pages involved at the time the evidence was gathered.

Waldensians
Context: The Waldensians claim to start with Peter Waldo, contemporary sources (Catholic) do not begin to complain about the Waldensians until Peter Waldo comes about, and modern secular academia (which includes a fair number of Protestants) accept that the Waldensians begin with Peter Waldo. I have tried to make the article reflect this. In the 19th century, a few Protestant revisionist historians started to claim that the Waldensians were an apostolic group (to hell with what the Waldensians themselves say), in an attempt to undermind the Catholic church's claim to succession. I have given due weight to this idea. Willfults tried to give equal weight (really undue weight) to this fringe theory.
 * here I revert him for the first time in his attempt to hide that the Waldensians themselves say they started with Peter Waldo.
 * Here I have to revert him a second time.
 * Here I mass revert all the axe-grinding he's snuck into the article over a length of time.
 * Here, here, here, here, and here he continually tries to POV push in the article.
 * Note that in addition to edit summaries, we did try to talk about it on my talk page, and on the article talk page. He never counters my arguments, only ignores them and waits until later to revert me.
 * Here he reports me as a vandal for reverting him 3 times. Here an admin declines his report because "No one has broken 3RR & this looks a lot like trying ot get a block to win a dispute."

Investigative judgement

 * Here User:Tonicthebrown reverts Willfults for removing lots of sourced information, reinterpreting sources, and weasel-wording things and trying to give the article a more conservative stance. A look at the article's history shows that most of the edits are Tonicthebrown cleaning up after Willfults's POV pushing (1, 2, 3, 4).

The Beast (Bible)

 * Here I undo Willfult's attempt to push a conservative SDA interpretation into the article over a variety of interpretations. His edit consists of original research (take a few Bible verses, give his understanding of them, and then take a few news articles that are not about the Beast to push his conclusion that America is the Beast).
 * That wasn't the first time I had to revert him over that, either.

Early Christianity

 * Here Willfults removes a reference because he apparently can't locate the Bibliography section of the article
 * Here Willfults is reverted for inserting a bunch of POV OR into the article
 * Here Willfults removes a bunch of sourced information by professional historians for his own interpretation of the Bible (because of all things, the page numbers weren't given). It was later reverted.

Lord's Day

 * Here Tonicthebrown reverts Willfults for removing a lot of sourced material under the guise of adding "a mix of sources."
 * That was not the first time either.
 * And those weren't the only things Tonicthebrown has had to revert.


 * And he's done it again.. Claiming in the edit summary the he is merely "adding sourced material/ restoration of sources", he has deleted material sourced from scholarly works and replaced it with POV material and Ellen White quotes. Tonicthebrown (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sabbath in Christianity

 * Willfults has systematically altered this article to reflect a conservative SDA view. He has been opposed by myself and JJB.
 * See

Papal Tiara

 * Here Willfults censors an explanation of pareidolia that compares the SDA accusation of the Pope being the Beast to accusing SDA founder Ellen G. White of being the Beast. Why?  Because the reference wasn't in English...
 * Here Willfults reverts to POV push, acknowledging that another editor had called him out on this very edit in the past!
 * Here that editor calls Willfults out for using a blog as a source that he previously acknowledged was not an WP:RS (although when it justifies his position, it's obviously OK).
 * I'm not the only person to notice this double standard. "I just find it suspect that you removed one unusable statement that you disagreed with, only to replace it with a statement you support, but still are willing to admit is improperly sourced. If you were interested in proper sourcing, shouldn't you have simply deleted the first unsourced statement, and not bothered to re-add the blog sourced statements?" -- Farsight001

Other articles

 * Here Tonicthebrown reverts a deletion by Willfults in Sabbath in Christianity under the guise of removing original research. As Tonicthebrown points out, "solution is for someone to rewrite the section with sources, not to delete it entirely. The E.O.C. is the second largest world church, thus a section is mandatory."
 * Here I revert a deletion in Number of the Beast which actually was already mostly supported by other parts of the article (except the bit about grain markets).
 * Here Willfults pushes a bunch of personal exegesis on the Christian eschatology article, which I later remove.
 * I note that he has also been opposed on this article by User:William M. Connolley and User:Kicheko. He is clearly pushing an ultra-conservative SDA POV on this article which is not even an SDA article Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Willfults has systematically attacked material on Seventh-day Adventist theology which does not support his conservative POV. Of particular note is his strident opposition to statements concerning the church's position on creationism (see ). He persistently deleted material that drew from the Geoscience Research Institute which is an official insitution of the SDA church because it did not concur with his own more conservative views. Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass PRODing spree demonstrating his POV

 * In the article on Evangelica (a magazine started by a not-so-conservative SDA leader), Willfults tried to place a Prod tag. When this was declined, he tried a second, third, and fourth time to Prod the article.  Of course the fact that the magazine follows a moderate but controversial SDA theologian couldn't have anything to do with it...
 * Here he tries to PROD an article in someone's userspace. The article he's trying to work on is on a play about how different people understand Ellen G. White (instead of just how Willfults would).
 * Here, here, here, here, and here, he tags a bunch of articles for deletion relating to Desmond Ford (remember the Evangelica trouble?) or that advocate non-conservative views.

Additions from other users

 * Talk:Christology Check the talk page... below that section there are couple more sections regarding his deleterious deletes and removals. Cheers mate!!! Efiiamagus (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since his return
Since Willfults has returned, he has removed heavily sourced information, downplayed mainstream scholarship and given Ellen G. White's views more credit than they have under the guise of restructuring, engaged in original research, original research based on a misunderstanding of Latin, and misrepresenting sources.

Also, as seen here, he turned the Charismatic Adventism article into a soapbox piece on Ellen G. White's views on music, dancing, and speaking in tongues, and attempts to debunk the charismatic worship. He gave undue weight (nearly tripling the article's length) going on about stuff that wasn't about the Charismatic Adventist church. Previously, the article was even larger, and did lean a bit towards a Charismatic Adventist view, but his attempts to correct this (seen here) labelled them "extreme," said that "it disagrees with fundamental Adventist beliefs," and refered to differences in doctrine as "counterfeit" (such as "counterfeit revival.")

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.


 * WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE
 * WP:NOTCENSORED
 * WP:NOR
 * WP:RS

Desired outcome
''This summary of the dispute is written by the 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. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.''

Willfults should cease pushing a SDA POV, and engage in behaviors that will prevent him from unconsciously doing so.

Evidence of trying and failing 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.)
 * Numerous warnings on Willfults's talk page concerning POV and OR, involving User:DanielRigal, User:KrakatoaKatie, and User:Martynas Patasius
 * Discussion at Talk:Sabbath in Christianity concerning Willfults's behavior, involving User:Efiiamagus, Errant/Tmorton116, JJB, User:Ian.thomson, andUser:Tonicthebrown.

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


 * Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tonicthebrown 02:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Efiiamagus (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Ian has outlined above. Willfults has a long history of being disruptive and contentious on SDA and Sabbath articles, with a very unbalanced POV. Tonicthebrown (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks on the additions/corrections and other help. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I signed the petition. The evidence of the dispute has already been added by Ian in the main body of the page. I agree that Willfults is disruptive and unrepentant. Efiiamagus (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.



Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response
''{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section.}'' I'd like to make this a dual request for comment if possible. Both in regards to the conduct of Ian Thompson and myself, feedback is appreciated. I first met Ian a while back in regards to a page entitled "Waldensians". I was adding some sourced material, which quite frankly upset Ian. You can see our brief discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waldensians#Catholic_Response_to_Waldensians. His main reasoning was that "Protestant journals and books from the 1800s" were not valid sources? However, those sources did meet Wikipedia guidelines. I eventually allowed Ian to have his way, even though I personally felt he was very unkind in word and action. You can see our brief discussion also in Feb 25th, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldensians&limit=500&action=history. There is some previous edits as well. You can also see our differences in edits here....http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waldensians&action=historysubmit&diff=415938626&oldid=415937448. I had a lot of sourced material, but Ian seems to be silencing any wikipedia edits that go contrary to his beliefs. As stated in regards to this article, there are two mainstream views, the Catholic view which was given due weight already in Ian's edits + a Protestant view that I was attempting to show, which was silenced. I am willing to work with Ian on that article still, but I believe that he will just revert any changes and accuss me of "POV" pushing. If you check the history, Ian has done the same to other users in regards to this article. He is pretty consistent about attempted to ban or silence anyone who edits this article in a way he doesn't agree with. He may be honest in his opinion that he thinks there is only one opinion in regards to this article, but such is not correct, and silencing other viewpoints is wrong.

I'm unsure on what I'm supposed to comment on directly... all these "disputed" articles that Ian is bringing up, are already resolved. Concerns were taken to the talk page for the majority, and we reached a consensus (at least on most of them). There are no edit wars going on in regards to the pages "1.1.1 Waldensians 1.1.2 Investigative judgement 1.1.3 The Beast (Bible) 1.1.4 Early Christianity 1.1.5 Lord's Day 1.1.6 Sabbath in Christianity 1.1.7 Papal Tiara"

I haven't editted some of these pages in a while? Anyways I decided to drop by wikipedia today...

However today Ian threatened me that he would report me to the admins, for editting the page "Whore of Babylon". The recent conversation is documented as follows.... Restoring previous wording, with Willfult's restructuring. If it's really about restructuring, this should be all. If it's about marginalizing mainstream scholarship and inflating White's views, there'll be a revert.) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:52, 27 July 2011 Willfults (talk | contribs) (24,840 bytes) (Undid revision 441748709 by Ian.thomson (talk) - see talk) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:51, 27 July 2011 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (24,854 bytes) (You're downplaying mainstream scholarship and giving Ellen White's views more credit than they have. That's POV-pushing. I'd let go if you'd quit pushing an SDA agenda. I still have an RFC/U report ready to file.) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:40, 27 July 2011 Willfults (talk | contribs) (24,840 bytes) (Undid revision 441746866 by Ian.thomson (talk) - I fail to see how changing the word "many" to "some" is considered "POV". You are filled with anger from the past, let it go.) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:37, 27 July 2011 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (24,854 bytes) (Undoing restructuring by habitual POV-pusher. POV word changes were hidden in the restructuring. You know how to be a good editor Willfults, yet you come back after hiding as if we're going to forget and lose the record of your actions.

I found Ian's comments quite offensive in regards to this, especially since the change was so small. If you do a [compare] you will see that I changed two words from "many" to "some" and I also made a grammar fix. This was enough for Ian to call me a "POV" pusher. What? Are you serious? "Can't we all just get along?" :) Ian then proceeded to follow me around, undoing all my changes to other articles.  This is rather frustrating to say the least. I'm trying to work with Ian to produce fair articles, but articles that do show Protestant viewpoints as well.  Today, Ian kept requesting more sources and more sources for every addition I made in the article [Vicarius Filii Dei].  I attempted to follow his guidelines, I added more sources, etc.  His edits seem to be um... disruptive, which with all fairness he likely thinks the same of me.

I'll try to respond to some of the attacks above, but I'm limited on time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabbath_in_Christianity&action=historysubmit&diff=441564202&oldid=440886730
 * Regarding Sabbath in Christianity - JJB won't be able to respond or participate in this discussion, because he is blocked indefinitely.   Again here Ian is stating that my edits are not valid compared to his opinion.  But that is quite irrelevant, the topic is about the Sabbath in Christianity, and the sources I added were valid.  I added material from a wide range of scholars, Moody Bible Institute, Martin Luther etc. I'm also an expert in this topic, having grown up Baptist but now Seventh-day Adventist, they are polar opposites on this issue.  I do try to add quotes from Ellen White, she is the most published female Christian author of all time, but Ian seemed to revert these edits, claiming they are fringe, which is incorrect.  I haven't editted this article in, I'm unsure a long time so I'm unsure why this is brought up, but what does concern me is TonicTheBrown has recently removed a great deal of sourced material which has brought a huge slant to the article.

I don't think any of my changes are in the current revision of this article?


 * There is a lot more that he brought up, but I don't have time to write at the moment. perhaps admins can ask specific questions, and I can answer.

Request directly to Ian
Ian, as you see above, I disagree with your statements. Yet, I think we can still work together to produce good articles if you are willing (As wikipedia is about publishing all viewpoints within their guidelines). But apparently, haha this might not be so. As a report like this, really has only one motive, get me banned so you don't have a contrary opinion on wikipedia to deal with. So I guess what can we do, take it to the courts I guess. However, let me say a few things before I go. EVEN THOUGH WE may 100% disagree, I want I know we disagree on almost every religious point, I know that some things I believe are likely offensive to you. Yes it's true I do believe that the papacy is the First Beast of Revelation 13 (and that is likely offensive to you). I also do believe that the United States is the second beast of Revelation 13, and I live in the U.S. and love my country. And I do believe that the RC church is Babylon, all these things I can show from the Bible but I also believe that Revelation 18:4 says "And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues." Did you notice it says "My people". Thus God has a people in your church, and He loves them. He loves you. And He wants us to be like Jesus in character. This also means that we need to keep God's Ten Commandments per Exodus 20. For it is written "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city."(rev 22:14) And Jesus said "if you love me, keep my commandments" (john 14:15). By the way, God cannot allow anyone into heaven who would start another rebellion. If we disregard His commandments, we won't make it. This is why there is such an urgency, this is why I must continue to publish the views that I believe are Biblical, and that have very little place in many Christian articles, before time runs out, souls are at stake, and much of the world is in great darkness. The everlasting gospel of Revelation 14, which includes a call back to the seventh-day Sabbath will go to the entire world, and then the end will come. Time is almost finished, do we reflect the lovely image of Jesus as we should? Willfults (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to concerns
{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.



Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.''

Q. By the way, God cannot allow anyone into heaven who would start another rebellion.... this is why I must continue to publish the views that I believe are Biblical... souls are at stake, and much of the world is in great darkness. That sounds like you are placing your religious views above wikipedian policies. You believe your religion, and you will prioritise editing wikipedia in a manner that helps your religion (and therefore, helps souls, in your view) rather than, say, policies such as WP:NPOV? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A.

Q. How would you feel if an editor tried to change articles to give Catholic views equal treatment to non-Catholic views, even when the Catholic view was totally and objectively in the minority and not backed up by historical records? If he used outdated Catholic sources, but didn't allow current sources he miscontrues as "protestant"...? How would you feel if this editor labelled protestants "heretics," deleted reliably sourced information which he didn't agree with, engaged in original research with Canon Law whenever it favored the RCC's views, but only allowed Ellen White into articles in the form of out-of-context quotes which require rearranging White's words? And if he was confronted for his behavior, how would it make you feel if he said that you should forgive him because he's a Christian (while heavily implying that you aren't) and he's only spreading the truth? (Although not quite relevant, so you can assume good faith, I'm saving you a seat in whichever afterlife I end up in.)

A.

Q.

A.

Additional views
''This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.''

Outside view by ErrantX
I was asked to consider commenting here. Whilst I prefer to stay out of disputes involving religious topics I was slightly involved in a discussion with Willfults some time ago - I don't really remember the substance of that discussion, or what we were trying to achieve. I never really got in-depth on the material and had no particular interest. I see to remember two editors were reverting back and forth between two article versions without much discussion.

The content seemed quite "specialist", requiring some time to read the material and understand the context.

However the above response from Willfults does concern me that he may not be editing these religious topics objectively. I suspect there is something to look at here by uninvolved editors with experience in religious topics. --Errant (chat!) 11:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposed solutions
''This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties. ''

Willfults should:

-restrict himself to 1RR on Christianity related articles ((since he never owns up on his behavior))

-seek approval on talk pages before making any edits concerning the Catholic church (other than reverting vandalism) ((since they are the target of a lot of his OR and POV changes))

-not remove any sourced information unless the source is a blog or Bible verse ((since he does this to remove views which are not in line with SDA views))

-not cite the Bible as a source ((as he uses it for original research))

-not change any wording concerning amounts (i.e. "many," "some," or "few," or replacing specifically named authors with "many authors/scholars/theologians") ((since he uses this to marginalize non-SDA scholarship and overemphasize the views of authors like Ellen G. White)) <-- This recommendation was place by Ian.thomson(opener of this ticket)

Template
1)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.