Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:56, 22 December 2005

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Retcon (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to User:Tommstein/Retcon-Missionary Sockpuppet Evidence for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Introduction

Hello to all. I'll entertain any input, commendation, commentary, critique on this page. Please follow proper rules of decorum, doing such will add to meaninful dialogue between you and I. Thx. Missionary 05:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Missionary. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I've noticed you've started editing some of the articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, which is great; the more the better!

Something to keep in mind editing is that if you're adding the POV of a particular group, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, you need to attribute the POV as well as cite a source. If you find existing unsourced material in an article, don't immediately delete because it is unsourced or unattributed. First, see if you can find a source for the statement, either by researching yourself, or by mentioning it on the talk page so that other editors can help out.

In addition, feel free to add yourself as a participant in the WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses and read through the info on the project page. Happy editing! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, thank you for the invitation to the group. I agree that citing a source for all statements is in keeping with POV, I've added a proponent source as well as link to the section of the article in question. My question however was the statement opposing shunning did not have a source, I was simply following the precedent set. In the future, if you would also be so kind as to fyi me here before removing my added material in case it isn't cited, and I'll be sure to research it asap and remove if unsupported. Thx. Missionary 08:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you've joined the project. I think perhaps you missed the point of my comment. Much of Misplaced Pages is unsourced, but editors are not encouraged to simply delete unsourced statements. The idea is to find sources, and if that fails, then remove. On the other hand, when adding material, you shouldn't do so without having your source lined up, so other users don't need to question it. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I do understand that when adding material, source material should be lined up. My question would be why the statement in oppositive to disfellowshipping wasn't provided with source material when it was first entered into the article? I'm sure you understand my confusion as I was simply adding a counterargument without source as the precedent had already been set in the paragraph. In any event, we've both added our source material and future additions will be sure to include sources references to backup statements. Thx again. Missionary 11:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why no source when put in? Good question. But Misplaced Pages has only recently started to push for having sources for statements, so previously statements got in without sources. On the JW related pages, because of the high likelihood of controversy, it's especially important have sources for new statements, and to find sources for existing ones. Your help in that area would be much appreciated. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Missionary, from your contributions, it seems you joined Misplaced Pages just today. On page that has been around for a good amount of time, there are topics that have been discussed at length. As such, don't be surprised if some of your edits are reverted, because they may have already been discussed earlier.

Since you're new, I understand that you may not be aware of all WP policies and customs. Before inserting an NPOV notice, you need to discuss on the talk first. Since you haven't done this, I'll remove the NPOV for now, but if the discussion on the talk page makes it clear the consensus is a POV problem, feel free to put it back in. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I've included two instances in the talk section with some correlating quotations from Jimbo Wales. I think just some different phraseology will settle the problem. Missionary 11:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I'm with you that the current content needs work; my only concern was that NPOV tag shouldn't be added without discussion on the talk page first. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 11:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Helpful Tips from Unknown Party relating to NPOV

Hello friend, I rec'd your tips and thank you for both your compliments and critique. I as a general rule of thumb do not leave notes on my user talk unless they have a signature, and there was none. However, the wording you provided in those two instances does indeed provide me with some helpful guidelines, which I definitely appreciate. Thank you. Missionary 01:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome 2

Hi, Missionary. Glad to see you here. Tom Haws 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thx for the welcome Tom Missionary 19:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note to terminology "vandalism".

If vandalism is implied, please specify which specific instance there has been a "vandalized" article and how one poster's conduct deviates from another poster who performs the exact same style of edits. If no valid claims are rendered for consideration, any such notices will be removed from this talk log as meaningless clutter. Thx for your future consideration. Missionary 10:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

discussion group

The group is no more. Read about this on my talk page. - CobaltBlueTony 15:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a shame. Oh well. Missionary 01:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing Jehovah's Witnesses articles

Because of the volatile and tenacious nature of certain editors whose stated or subliminal goal is to detract from Jehovah's Witnesses at any and every opportunity, I am making it my goal to recommend to new and existing editors interested in JW articles to review the Misplaced Pages's policies:

• WP:NOR - no original research
• WP:V - verifiability
• WP:NPOV - Misplaced Pages: neutral point of view (this one is critical to JW pages edits especially)
• WP:CIV - Civility

We do have to keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not the proper forum for any form of proselytizing. This is an academic endeavor, and to make it worthwhile for Jehovah's Witnesses to contribute positively, abiding by the rules of the forum and sticking to the facts will help us not only keep these articles and the discussions behind them free from ineffective and off-topic banter, but present a respectable product that addresses all sides, but keeps them in perspective.

It is best to ignore insults and off-topic discussions, addressing only the pertinent points so as to reach a consensus regarding the content of these pages. If you must address them, it's best to simply cite the Misplaced Pages standards and redirect your focus to content and format. I hope my suggestions help. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Admission

Self-Admission

As has been pointed out above, this account was a sockpuppet of Retcon. The user Retcon (myself) was unaware of the sockpuppet policy on Misplaced Pages, and the intention used for switching to Missionary was due to multiple personal attacks by the user known as Tommstein when I was using Retcon. I then posted content as Missionary, and was again abused. I exercised bad judgement on one thread in relation to defending one identity with another one. When I became aware of the sockpuppet policy in its entirety 4 days ago, I immediately ceased posting content on disputed pages under either alias. I deeply regret this infraction, and while I will be attacked by a few individuals for my lack of knowledge on this policy and poor decisions, I simply want to move on. This account will no longer be used and this user will not make multiple edits on any individual pages with more than one alias. Administrators can check this in the future. I ask for a fresh start. I also ask that, not as rationale but to allievate attacks on other new posters, administrators also continue to monitor Tommstein and Central, as they call their fellow users names when their beliefs conflict with their own. I have violated the sockpuppet policy, just as Tommstein in particular has violated the personal attacks policy with labels such as "punk", "idiot", "dumb" to names but a few derrogatory statements, along with his multiple POV attacks attempting to discredit an organization he is no longer associated with. I will be making a list in the upcoming days (as Retcon) on the multiple occasions for administrators to review. Thank you for your time, and especially to my fellow JW editors, a sincere apology. Retcon 16:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith. - CobaltBlueTony 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when this person has claimed that this account was not connected to Retcon,and even attempted to provide "evidence" for that position. I've tried to wait and see what's going on here, but as of now, I can't assume good faith. --Krich (talk) ~22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

While the behavior was deceptive, intended to avoid personal attacks, it was self-evidently not done as a blatant disregard to the policy, as he was unaware of the policy. Once the policy was made known to the user, he posted an admission. There's nothing at all other than accusation to connect Retcon to any other account. Good faith can be seen in that he did not intend to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Good faith can also be seen in that there is no evidence that he is intentionally trying to hurt the project. It is not really 'good faith' to revert an edit on someone else's talk page if they were the ones editing it. The best and more logical explanation is Hanlon's Razor, not bad faith. (No offense to Retcon.) - CobaltBlueTony 22:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just not buying that. People told him that he was suspected of being a sockpuppet - rather than say he didn't know what that was, or say nothing at all, he instead decided to lie and create fake "evidence" that the Missionary account was not him (i.e., Retcon).

As to editing "his" talk page - I try very hard to bend over backward in such cases, and held my hand many times when I felt that "Missionary" was using deceptive edits here to hide. Now that Retcon has admitted this account is a sockpuppet, "user Missionary" has no rights to the content of "his" page, in my opinion. --Krich (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. RetCon, while I appreciate that you may not have been aware of the sockpuppet policy, you were accused of violating it some time ago, and you did not immediately admit to it. You used the sockpuppets to try defend that you were two separate users, and then even changed post signatures. This hardly seems the behaviour of someone who made an honest mistake. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 23:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, I did not see the word sockpuppet in Retcon's interchanges as himself or as Missionary with others; nevertheless, I had never heard the term before Misplaced Pages, and if you had called me a sockpuppet, I would have thought it was some tech-geek/nerdy insult and dismissed it. I certainly did not see the accusation labelled until right before I saw Retcon acknowledge it. I agree that Retcon was attempting to play as more than one person, but as someone unaware of the term and/or its application within the rules of Misplaced Pages. - CobaltBlueTony 03:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you are correct, I made some poor decisions for which I regret. I would say, as my solitary defense, that had the No Personal Attacks Policy been as equally enforced as the sockpuppet policy, then I would've stuck with Retcon. Tomm and Central have a long history of attacking fellow editors whom they disagree with, attacking them with derrogatory slurs which directly contradict policies established here. Central was banned for a period due to his hostility last summer, and Tomm has had several individuals whom he has verbally abused. Unfortunately, I made a bad decision which I regret, although I cannot bring myself to apologize to these two individuals as they have instigated this situation, Tomm with his multiple erroneous "vandal" proclamations whenever a viewpoint disagrees with his own, and Central with attacks and slanderous misrepresentations such as "did you know the Society is involved with contract killings?" Krich, I know I have no leg to stand on, but I ask that you refer to the other contributors on the pages in question...Dannymuse, IP Girl, CobaltblueTony, to name just a few of the many they've offended. Ask for their testimony and please restore some order to the JW pages, they are heavily NPOV in certain areas rather than presenting both sides...as they offer extensive commentary. I'm through with those pages, much to the delight of these two detractors. Again, to everyone else, including you Konrad (whom I havent' always agreed with but do respect) I offer my sincere apologies. I know it is too little too late, but that's all I can say. Retcon 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In Retcon's defense, the development of an alias due to harassment from the previously mentioned editors is not unreasonable. Not everyone deals well with hostile confrontation and unfortunately, the editors (Central and Tomm) are relentlessly confrontational in destructive rather than productive ways. This forum should be about sharing facts not irrationally lambasting persons with a different POV. Some of the editors, such as the two named individuals, (if in fact, they're not the same person themselves) have had a bit of a problem wrapping their heads around this idea. I have also been called a "sockpuppet" by these two and as Tony mentioned, I was unfamiliar with this WP term also. I would not have developed an alias myself because I have no problem with confrontation whatsoever but I can understand why Retcon did. Was it inappropriate? Yes, but the guy has said as much himself and has made a public apology. I say lesson learned, let it go and let's move on. If you have any question as to the validity of anyone else's identity, let's root it out now. I have absolutely NO problem proving who I am. Should we do this will all the posters here? Then, after we establish everyone's legitimacy, maybe we can address the issue of irrelevant and defamatory edits? IP law girl 04:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Retcon