Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:54, 13 January 2015

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

Two editors have accused you of inconsideration for the article's quality and of advocacy, discouraged by WP:NOT. I don't know what is going on, but several disputes have led to several protections. I don't want this article to head the same direction as mass killings under Communist regimes, a fully-protected article with indefinite time. I wonder if you can request for mediation. WP:Arbitration/Requests is a last resort, so I recommend doing other resolutions first, like more discussions as you have been doing and requesting a third party to mediate. I may seem a random person to talk to you, but I have been interested in similar topics... well, some that definitely relate to me. --George Ho (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The article has been plagued by a steady and a rotating cast of POV-pushers for literally years; the attempts by the current chief culprit and an obvious sockpuppet who's stalking me around to edit-war their opinions into the article are nothing new. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I added "controversial" tags. I hope you sort things out with other editors before you would risk facing sanctions. --George Ho (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if you are fully concerned with the article's balance. --George Ho (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Esoglou; he showed me this diff. I don't know why an info of denying one person's own sexuality is removed. This would violate WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV, which cannot be tolerated. Sexuality is considered complex nowadays, but sources matter the most. Well, you did swell on balancing the article, but advocate elsewhere, not in Misplaced Pages. I am waiting for your viewpoint on this. --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops... I was referring to this link, discussed in Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Edit-warring without discussion. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not really sure what you're referring to, but I've repeatedly explained on the talk page why I don't think Esoglou's proposed change for Pastoral care is a positive one, as well as my disbelief that he was accurately reporting the content of inaccessible sources when he's had problems with lying about sources in both the recent and further past and, in that very edit, was engaging in original research. The latter issue is now moot, as you can see from the talkpage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What about Jeanine Deckers, the Singing Nun? Can you tell me what is wrong with the below passage as shown in diff?

Jeanine Deckers (d. 1985), was known as The Singing Nun or Sœur Sourire, and was a Belgian singer-songwriter and at one time a member of the Dominican Order in Belgium as Sister Luc-Gabrielle. After leaving the order, she is reported to have begun a lesbian relationship with Annie Pécher. She herself never admitted being a homosexual, and she was said to be maintaining a chaste life.

--George Ho (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Simmonds, Jeremy. The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars. Chicago Review Press. p. 204.
2. Thierry Ardisson, Cyril Drouhet, Joseph Vebret, Dictionnaire des provocateurs (EDI8 - PLON, 2010, ISBN 978-2-25921285-4)
3. Gordy, Margaret (8 February 1979). "'Singing Nun' makes comeback". Youngstown Daily Vindicator. Retrieved 14 November 2014.

I've already explained this on the talk page, but the Dictionnaire des provocateurs is not accessible to me and, given Esoglou's historical tendency to misrepresent sources, I doubted that it said what he claimed; I also wasn't sure it was reliable. (As it turns out, it does contain the statement that Jeanine remained closeted, but also states that Annie was the love of her life, so it's clear that Esoglou was taking advantage of the source's inaccessibility to push a POV in using it to undermine other sources' statements about their relationship.) The Vindicator source doesn't say anything about Annie and shouldn't be used to make statements about Annie one way or another - that is original research. But as I said, we went through this on the talk page already. I suggest that you begin there rather than dragging me through endless repetition on behalf of this creepy user. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping that mediation will resolve this and arbitration will be avoided. The more I understand the whole situation, the less chance mediation will be effective. Either this is a user misconduct or something. The dictionary is French, so he might have taken advantage of it. I'll ask him about this. --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're arguing here. I speak French. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll explain clearly: I have seen the article fully protected several times. I was worried about its stability, so I have to investigate. As I learned, editors are accusing of pushing your agenda, so I want to make sure you are not doing so. I was speculating there might be miscommunication between you and other editors, but I couldn't grasp the complex situation. One accuses you; you accuse other. --George Ho (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting I do here, other than continuing to encourage Esoglou to gain consensus before trying to push through these new proposed changes, as is policy. I'm not sure this rises to the level of needing mediation, he just needs to learn to lay off when he hasn't succeeded in obtaining consensus for his edits. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked his block log. Esoglou was blocked as a sockpuppeteer, but it was considered a mistake, so s/he was unblocked. I don't know what would happen to The Singing Nun if the dispute extends to there. There are ways mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. I'm unsure whether negotiating with Esoglou is effective. What about requesting at Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance? --George Ho (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou has taken up too much of my time already (and I'm frankly disinclined to give him more as he's admitted that he's trying to get my attention). He needs to learn to build consensus and to stop edit-warring his content in if consensus for it is not achieved, just like any other user. The idea that a user can gain a wider platform for his personal views and agendas by behaving particularly badly is not one we should encourage. Again, if you are interested in mediating this dispute, I suggest reading through the discussion history first. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I read past discussions. I see one agenda; I see another. Neither are willing to make compromises. Also, the messages are too long for me to read, but I read no progress or agreement yet. Also, there have been disagreements about reliability and interpretations of sources. I'm not sure whether Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 31#Various at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism is helpful. Seems to me that most options have been exhausted. If you think mediation won't work, and you refuse to talk to him, perhaps WP:arbitration/Requests should help the article return back to normal with sanctions or something like that. I want the article unprotected or semi-protected as soon as possible. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou

I think my initial approach was flawed, as I attempted to foster discussion centered on the article in question. I've since realized the core problem lies with your past with Esoglou.
I know it's likely been rehashed many times, but, in the interest of clarity and in no uncertain terms, can you tell me what needs to happen so that you can discuss this matter openly with Esoglou? Assess this question in a vacuum, regardless of your previous encounters. What do I, Esoglou, or any other party need to bring to the table for discussion to happen?
P.S. - and this is actually a pretty important detail - accusing an editor of being an 'obvious sockpuppet' is not acceptable. Please don't do so again unless you're prepared to open a case at SOCK. m.o.p 02:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in discussing this with Esoglou, but remain happy to discuss this with other people and have, I think, successfully been doing so.

A number of other users, including admins, have pointed out that the user is displaying classic sock behavior. I personally think that existing solely to stalk another user is blockable behavior on its own, even if the sockmaster isn't identified. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

So there's absolutely no way to change that?

Right, but an investigation concluded that this was not the case. All I'm asking is for you to keep your speculation to yourself in the future. I'm sure you're already aware that such accusations fall under the scope of our civility policy, and continuing to make them can be grounds for a civility block.

Maybe we should spend more time on the stalking claim. Can you provide me with a few instances where you believe Esoglou edited articles solely because you had previously done the same? m.o.p 03:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If Esoglou ceased his creepy behavior and started editing in good faith, possibly, but it would take a while to establish that given the history of his behavior toward me.

As far as I know, an investigation did not in fact conclude that this was not the case. Re the stalking, I'm (still) referring to Padresfan, whose edits Black Kite has already analyzed on that user's talk page and concluded that they resemble the edits of a sockpuppet. MastCell has made the same observation and indicated willingness to block on the basis of behavior. Literally all Padresfan does is follow me around and edit-war. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you be able to define 'creepy behaviour' and demonstrate bad-faith edits by supplying me with one or two diffs? That would definitely help.

My apologies, I thought the above claim of socking/stalking was directed at Esoglou, who has been previously accused of the behaviour but was cleared. Black Kite did bring my attention to that matter earlier last week. m.o.p 03:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Back in 2012, I presented evidence demonstrating Esoglou's disruption in the abortion topic area, which was under ArbCom sanction. (Evidence of behavior, incidentally, not dissimilar to the behavior he continues to display in the topic area of homosexuality.) He chose to respond to this case by sexually harassing me, and when this was the proximate cause of a six-month topic ban, his second in the topic area and third in any Catholicism-related subject, decided to display the offending image as a banner at the top of his talk page until the beginning of this year and continued at the time to make taunting reference to it and maintain that I should be pleased with it, directly after I had asked him again to stop. He describes his behavior towards me as motivated by "affection", which is presumably what leads him to spam noticeboards and talk pages with posts about me to the point where users who haven't been mired in this thing for ages, including completely uninvolved users, have asked him to drop the fixation ( ). He's also made numerous snide or derogatory remarks about my sexual orientation, saying that it negatively affects my editing; those remarks alone, and doubling down on them after being advised that this was unacceptable, almost got him topic-banned or blocked. at ANI; (The latter is the remark after which I stated that I had finally become fed up with his behavior and would no longer speak to him. Long overdue.) And then yesterday, he attempted to edit-war his comments onto my talk page after I'd made it clear that I didn't want them there; I had to remove them three times. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and you wanted to know about bad faith too. I think deliberately misrepresenting the sources about Deckers in the article (attributing words to a reliable-seeming writer that the writer never said and never was represented as saying; citing an inaccessible source which, it transpired, identified the person's female partner as the love of her life to cast doubts upon the fact that she was gay or bisexual), which happened this month, demonstrates that this behavior is alive and well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets:, @George Ho: Dude never knows when to stop - claiming my refusal to put up with his sleazy behavior is just "playing hard to get." Can you not encourage him to avoid topic areas where he isn't able to control himself around other editors? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I notice that he has been evasive on his own talk page. Can you request for mediation or arbitration? Master and I can't handle this matter alone. The article need either a mediator or an arbitrator. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, since he's evidently trying to get me to pay attention to him and sees my desire not to speak to him as encouragement rather than a signal to back off, I am disinclined to do this. I think rewarding his bad behavior will only induce him to continue. Are there other solutions for getting him to end his disruptive behavior that do not require my prolonged engagement with him? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Running away from or avoiding him is becoming ineffective. He wants somebody to take his side or to turn against you (which he denies), and this should not be tolerated. If he is your problem, read Misplaced Pages:Harassment to verify whether he is harassing you. --George Ho (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Catholic Church and abortion in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, I checked Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Other sanctions. Somehow, your conflicts with Esoglou have gone far enough. To stop him, Esoglou must be disciplined in Arbitration. To be honest, I don't know any solution without your getting directly involved. Perhaps email an administrator, like Master of Puppets? --George Ho (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Since MOP has been pinged, I'll wait and see what he says about the evidence presented here, first. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been nearly one week without his response. I wonder what's up with him. --George Ho (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. What do you think is best to do next? @George Ho: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You can try WP:Help desk. That's all I can provide. But if he's still the problem, perhaps use WP:requests for arbitration. --George Ho (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, hopefully once the article is unprotected, he won't continue trying to push his non-consensus version through, and will stop obsessively posting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This expectation is futile. I've conversed with Esoglou and found him fanatic to his words. Have you thought of him reading a Bible? --George Ho (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, his recent interactions with me show that he hasn't cooled down and is just as obsessed as before. Do you know anyone else that might want to mediate? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think mediation will work. There are user conduct concerns. I think Arbitration suits well. Can you file a request? If not, can you file a request for mediation? --George Ho (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015 full protection

The article is fully protected again. Now is the time to make requests. You can't let this slide, run away, and let things cyclically happen. --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Argh, I know, he and his sockpuppet friend are never going to stop trying to push their POV. I'm just trying to figure out the best way to help end their disruption of the encyclopedia without dragging myself into a lengthy interaction with this creep. I've e-mailed Kite for advice, too, and directed them towards the list of diffs up above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How did he respond? If there is nothing that he can do, perhaps I shall file a request myself. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems disingenuous of you to claim not to want to interact with them and then continue to edit the same articles, which is by definition an interaction. In fact it is the very standard of interaction on Misplaced Pages, in which you are expected to work constructively and collegially, which you have decidedly not done. The continued personal attack of sockpuppet accusations without proof or investigation are also wearing thin. I think it is high time for you to put up or shut up. Elizium23 (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternately, he could stop editing disruptively and behaving like a sleazeball, and the sockpuppet could stop socking. If Esoglou didn't have this creepy fixation on me and hadn't sexually harassed me and directed homophobic rhetoric at me, it is well possible that we would be having constructive discussions to this day. Although I doubt it, because he's clearly not interested in neutrally editing articles on things he personally disagrees with. I've suggested before, back before I decided not to communicate with him, that he step away from topics he's unable to edit, but he's declined and instead had to be deterred with bans. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Easier to do this through tagging people...

Bishonen, Black Kite, Valenciano, Cwmhiraeth, Jackfork, and Frosty, thanks for dealing with that user last night! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And thank you Bsadowski1 and Bongwarrior. Would one of you mind semiprotecting this page long-term? Short-term protections have, shall we say, not been effective. If IP users actually need to get in touch with me, there are other ways. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I can probably protect this for between 3 to 6 months, as long as you set up an unprotected talk subpage and link it from your main talk page. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Special greeting...

Thanks Atsme! You too. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for being open to changing your position. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Scott Card racist?

(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.)

Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?

(Also see a 2013 blogpost by M Aspan citing this from Card in 2000 rgding allegedly non-racist use of nigga'.)

See discussion here: Talk:Orson Scott Card#RfC: Subject of blp racist?

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Roscelese, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Thank yo for fixing my mistake

Thank you for this undo of my edit, which indeed was a mistake. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Hope you had a happy Chanukah! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Breivik

Re that article, I'm not bothered about the descriptions of Breivik, it's describing groups like ETA and the IRA as terrorist that is the problem. Longstanding consensus on Misplaced Pages is that we don't label groups as terrorist without attribution. Also, in the case of the prison move, the source doesn't say anything about him being "polite but fanatic" so I've reworded that to manipulative, exactly as the source says. Valenciano (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)