Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-20 consensus of editors defy WP:RS

Comment from Fahrenheit451
User:Terryeo is banned by ArbCom decision from editing any Scientology related articles. On certain article discussion pages, he has repeatedly attempted to get other editors to apply WP:RS as a policy rather than a guideline. His behavior has been tendentious in this respect. He has not been an editor who I have found discussion with to be productive. Therefore, I will not participate in any mediation with him.--Fahrenheit451 22:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As a point of information, it is indeed accurate to describe my actions as tendentious. My tendentiousness is based and rooted in confidence that Wikipedia's policy will produce good quality, useable, readable articles for the reading public.  I refuse to loose my teeth from the policies and I believe the guidelines which are created by a broad concensus of editors supports those policies.  My confidence and tendentiousness in in Wikipedia.  Of course I understand the implication User:Fahrenheit451 attempts to present, that my interest is only in presenting a single point of view, that all of my effort is bravely thwarted off, time after time, by a concensus of sane editors.  But the actual situation is not that I am attempting to bend Wikipedia policy, nor circumvent Wikipedia guildeline, in order to present some piece of "official Church information".  Quite the opposite.  My tendentiousness is rooted in Wikipedia's WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, manifested in this case by WP:RS and WP:CITE.  This is not the only article in which several Wikipedia editors defy WP:RS and insist on bending the rules to suit thier own tendatiousness, but its discussion clearly spells out the divide.  Therefore, I use it. Terryeo 23:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo's history of application of wikipedia policy has been commented on here: and his arbitration can be found here:--Fahrenheit451 00:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I raised the issue that personal opinion on personal websites were being commonly used as a secondary source of information through the Scientology articles and I particularly requested clarification about the most commonly used one, Xenu.net. Which is what the mediation revolves around, you see, so your action of standing completely outside the mediation and firing shots into the mediation, is actually useful in this one, singluar posting. I hope you will continue to post :) Some resolution is needed, some understanding of WP:RS required.  Not just by User:Fahrenheit451 who refuses to mediate, but a number of editors in the Scientology series articles.  Just to refresh the situation and not get stuck in old news, WP:RS presently states: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." This is the area that several Scientology editors defy.  Not just User:Fahrenheit451 who has hotly refused to mediate, but a number of editors in a number of articles. It pulls Wikipedia down to use such personal, unprofessional opinion, opinions expressed without a breadth of knowledge or responsibility. Individual people who simply blast out their opinions on their personal websites. Then they get quoted here on Wikipedia as if their words has some substance to them. My tendentiousness is to Wikipedia policy and guideline which I have good confidence in. Terryeo 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo hotly refuses to acknowledge that WP:RS is a Guideline, NOT a policy. Terryeo foolishly presumes that other editors must edit the way he wants them to edit. Terryeo's tendentiousness is POV editing.  He himself cannot edit Scientology articles because he has repeatedly and grossly violated Wikipedia policy in the recent past. My experience with Terryeo is that he is a problem user who is a waste of time.--Fahrenheit451 17:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that WP:RS is a guideline, in fact, I have participated it its discussion page for some while now. The simple fact is, not every editor is qualified to judge what a reliable published source is, as outlined by WP:V.  The idea needs further clarification and WP:RS is the place which most such discussion takes place.  I'm beginning to sound pedantic, but WP:RS is set in stone within its area of address.  That is, it provides some rules which can not be altered at the whim of an editor.  If Scientology series editors are going to include personal websites or newsgroup postings (as they often do), then WP:RS would be the place to make that change to Wikipedia.  But I have made this statement many times and I'm sure the editors I specifiy have read it many times.  WP:RS is there for you to change, if you wish to. Meantime, let us abide by it. Terryeo 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)