Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/John Foxe

74s181 response to "Response" written by John Foxe
It is not surprising that John Foxe would attempt to paint himself as a lone voice of reason fighting against a conspiracy of 'Mormon' editors. His goal is to shift the discussion away from his behavior and redirect it to what is, quite frankly, an unpopular and controversial doctrine of an unpopular and controversial church. I have previously attempted dispute resolution on this article and John Foxe, and in the process I learned that it is difficult to get uninvolved editors to take the time to try and understand the content issues. That is why I was so careful to frame this RfC as a behavior issue rather than a content issue. 74s181 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe attempts to prove to the editors evaluating the RfC that the First Vision is, in fact, a hoax. This is really an excellent example of the problem. John Foxe believes that his POV is a fact, like 'Mars is a planet'. He believes that the First Vision is obviously false, that all the 'historical facts' prove this, completely ignoring the 'fact' that a considerable number of people believe that the First Vision did happen, and therefore, both POVs must be presented in a neutral, balanced, and plausible manner.

John Foxe said "...a consensus of editors who represent a minority position in opposition to a single editor who represents the majority." It is John Foxe's POV that this 'majority' includes every person on the planet who is not a member of any of the Latter Day Saint movement churches. That is, according to John Foxe, the minority is the 14 million or so followers of Joseph Smith, Jr., and the majority is everyone else, most of whom have never even heard of the First Vision. My POV is somewhat different. I say there are 14 million people who know what the First Vision is and believe it, there is another, probably smaller group who know what the First Vision is and don't believe it, and then there is the vast majority of the population of the earth who have never heard of the First Vision or, if they have heard of it, know little or nothing about it, and therefore, don't really have an opinion. But the question of who is the majority and who is the minority is immaterial, what matters is that John Foxe reverts or deletes anything he doesn't like and is unable or unwilling to understand WP:NPOV policies. 74s181 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that John Foxe has chosen to quote from my user page. What is even more interesting is the point where he chose to end the quote. This is typical of his style, but as I said, this RfC focuses on John Foxe's behavior, not the content of the material he adds. However, John Foxe has used a quote from my user page to accuse me of POV-pushing, so here is the quote in context. I've highlighted the portion that John Foxe left out:


 * What does that mean in English? It means that I will work to ensure sure that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrines and beliefs are fairly and accurately portrayed. I will do this by editing according to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. These three policies are the law of the land regarding content. If you think you have seen an example of where I have violated either the letter or the spirit of the laws of Wikipedia please bring it up on my talk page.

In other words, I'm not here to try and turn the First Vision article into a pro-Mormon tract. My agenda is to protect articles like the First Vision from becoming thinly disguised anti-Mormon rants by applying Wikipedia rules such as WP:NPOV. And, when articles are already highly biased anti-mormon rants (like the First Vision article was after John Foxe had been editing it for six months), then my task becomes one of remediation, not protection. And when dealing with an editor like John Foxe who doesn't care about Wikipedia policies like NPOV and appropriate editing, well, yes, it becomes an obsession. 74s181 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe invited all to look at the article. I agree. I also invite everyone to look at the edit history, the talk page, and the talk page archive. If you think there is too much to look at, just say the word and I will provide links to example after example of John Foxe reverting good faith edits, refusing to allow POV statements to be properly attributed and balanced, insisting that his POV is 'fact', refusing to allow certain kinds of POV to even appear in the article, and ridiculing WP:NPOV concepts. 74s181 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe said "In passing, no one has charged me with incivility or personal attacks." That is not true. I have repeatedly called him to task for his constant reversion or deletion of good faith edits, and from time to time I have even crossed the line and been less than civil, but I don't think I have crossed the WP:NPA line. John Foxe, on the other hand, has been a regular Eddie Haskell on the talk page. But his actions when he thinks the grownups aren't watching continue to be a serious problem. 74s181 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe has accused me of WP:OWN behavior because I have edited little else but the First Vision since I first looked at it back in April. I say, take a look at the edit history. I spend hours and hours trying to fix POV problems, John Foxe comes along and spends a few seconds reverting, maybe as much as 20-30 minutes now that he is trying to disguise his behavior via multiple edits. I then study his edits, and his (usually bogus) comments, then spend further hours trying to again fix the POV, in compliance with his complaints. He then reverts again. And again. And again. It's no wonder he has more time than I do for other articles. 74s181 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe said: "...the community should not lightly relegate such an article to the tender mercies of those whose interest it is to protect Mormon doctrine..." I ask the community to protect this article from the heavy-handed abuse of an editor who is unable or unwilling to understand and edit in accordance with WP policies. It is not my goal to have John Foxe blocked from this or any other article. I value his POV, his participation means that I don't have to 'write for the enemy'. I only ask that he be told what is wrong with his behavior, and that he be warned, in the strongest possible way, that this behavior must change. I also ask that a record be kept so that if he doesn't acknowledge the problem, if he doesn't change his behavior, then he will be blocked, and quickly. 74s181 06:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Laleena's response
I have checked out the things John Foxe has said, but I truly would not like it if he were blocked. Rather, why not place him in some sort of tutorial, make him show edits he wants to make on the Sandbox, and do such things as are required. I support requiring a watch on him, and the above tutorial, but nothing else other then a record. Laleena 12:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of what Laleena has suggested has been tried. At one point a full blown edit war exploded and the article was protected.  The admin who protected the article instructed everyone to fully discuss all significant changes on the talk page and reach a consensus prior to edits.  After protection expired, John Foxe wrote a few brief comments on the talk page and returned to his previous behavior.  The article was again protected.  John Foxe finally got it, and for a short time discussed changes on the talk page, but this was short lived.  The only reason the article hasn't been protected again is because other editors haven't been as aggressive as John Foxe has.  74s181 12:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt that anyone who has been involved in the First Vision article wants John blocked. He has valuable insight into a critical view of the topic, and many of his contributions are appreciated.  The biggest problem I have with him is that he seems unable (or unwilling) to perceive the difference between a historical fact and an interpretation of a historical fact.  As with many people who have POV problems, John perceives any comment he does not agree with as POV, while comments that he agrees with are factual, and therefore NPOV.  IMHO, if a controversial article is truly NPOV, then nobody is happy with it. ;^)


 * As a friend of mine once said about a former boss: he has great ideas, but he shouldn't have the keys to the car. ;^) John needs to learn to accept that those who tone down his contributions are not always pushing any particular POV, and he needs to stop reverting an edit just because he doesn't like it. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I value John Foxe's contributions, the First Vision article has grown substantially in content as a result of his participation, but I believe his behavior must change.  I think that there are three possibilities:
 * He doesn't understand what is wrong with his behavior.
 * He understands that his behavior is wrong but thinks he is 'foxey' enough to get away with it.
 * His 'Truth' is important enough to him that if it comes down to a permanent block vs changing his behavior, he will choose the permanent block.

Of these, I think #2 is most likely. 74s181 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)