Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Willfults

Red Books
I would just like to clarify the situation with Red Books which is mistakenly described as being an article which Willfults prodded in my user space. Actually it was an article in the article space which was part of his prodding spree against articles dealing with mainstream or moderate views within his own religion. I have no interest at all in the subject but I found it disgusting to see somebody setting about a whole load of articles as part of some religious grudge and the fact that he seemed to be trying to do it without drawing attention to his actions made it worse. I declined as many of his PRODs as I could find but Red Books had already been deleted. I requested it to be undeleted into my user space so I could see if it was worth restoring in full. My view was that it was not notable enough for an article but was notable enough for a short paragraph in Ellen G. White so I merged a little of it there. You can read my discussions with Joe Decker about the undeletion at User talk:Joe Decker/Archive 3. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Religion are not for Wikipedia
Religion is not for Wikipedia. Imagine if everybody started pushing their own point of view on religion. Religion would be a edit war battleground, indef protected and generally all of Wikipedia would turn into a mess of edit warring, protections and 3RR and vandalism blocks. If your mission is truly to warn people of the end times, then please don't do it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a neutral point-of-view encyclopedia that delivers non-biased information to the world, not a place to warn people about believing in Jesus, following his commandments and the end of the world. I am a Christian too (though a different denomination) and if I can manage to keep my views of religion off Wikipedia, I think you can too. WikiCopter 00:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Communication (or lack of it)...
I was asked to comment in this RFC, but am not completely sure how and where to put my (rather minor) addition... Thus I'll just write it here. I guess it should also be noted that Wilfults, well, could communicate a little more... For example, the section of Talk:Papal Tiara, which concerns his edits, has been edited by him only twice (and he actually started that section) - looks like he ignored all later discussion... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment from John J. Bulten
I am mentioned on this page as JJB but did not notice it at the time. For the record, I did some work with Willfults on ensuring NPOV. I recognized that he often had difficulty balancing the SDA POV with others; he has presented relatively good sources, though has deleted good sources at times too. I regarded him as someone who could be worked alongside given a little attention. I did not regard it as "opposing" him when he and I made bold edits at the same time: it never got to the point where we had a significant discussion that demonstrated opposition on a clear point, though it could perhaps have been misconstrued as a prewar. Shortly after the RFC opened it appears Willfults disappeared and made no edits other than blanking his userpages. If he returns with a new account, he may be easy to spot via similar activity (though I haven't observed any such account), in which case I would not argue for any RFC/U solution other than informal and perhaps formal mentoring. JJB 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)