Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RidjalA

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

---

• RidjalA (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

RigjalA's bias against the subject of the article of La Luz del Mundo. The article deals with a Mexican born church and he/she may be manifesting their bias in disruptive behavior. The bias itself is not the problem, it is RidjalA's actions of constant accusations against other editors, multiple consistent edit reversions and deletions of justified edits supported by sources and wiki policies, and insertion and forced preservation of unsourced content when it sheds a negative light on the church. RidjalA also consistently reintroduces content that was deleted for copyright issues and refuses to rewrite it in his/her own words. RidjalA has stated that he will keep the church's leadership in check. His/her edits match that of a person with a vendetta.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

1. RidjalA will cease adding content deleted on the bases of copyright issues.
2. RidjalA will cease preservation of unsourced content.
3. RidjalA will respect edits made by other editors if those edits are under Wiki policy and/or consensus.
4. RidjalA will admit that his/her bias is a cause of these issues.
5. RidjalA will cease activities that are indicative of article ownership.
6. RidjalA will agree to not use Wikipedia as a platform to attack, or to keep the leadership of the church "on check."
7. RidjalA will agree to refrain from any personal attacks and baseless accusations against other editors
8. RidjalA will respect the opinions of all editors as separate independent individuals when forming consensus.

Description

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

The editor in question has engaged in behavior that may be article ownership, POV pushing and edit warring. In the controversy section of La Luz del Mundo page, any edits that Fordx12 has made have always gone challenged via deletions and reversals at first. Many of these were not clearly justifiable under wiki policy. RidjalA has constantly exclusively added content that sheds negative light to the church and challenges content that does not showing bias and POV pushing. Upon discussions in the talk page, RidjalA has been dismissive of other editors' opinions lumping both Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore together because they do not share his or her biased views on the church. RidjalA has also insisted in keeping negative unsourced content on LDM (Acronym for the church) in the article while diligently deleted non-negative unsourced content and deleted sourced content. RidjalA continues to restore content deleted due to copyright issues without rewording said content in their own words despite multiple warnings.

RidjalA has admitted indirectly to his/her bias, while this isn't an issue it is the actions that result from this bias that have caused problems.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

POV pushing

1. Admited to having a personal vendetta against the LDM church leadership and using wikipedia as a platform for said vendetta here [1].
2. As evidenced below, RidjalA meets several of the characteristics of a civil POV pusher found here WP:CPUSH as evidenced in the other sections below.

• They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.
• They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like (PCCTL for short).
• They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
• They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.
• They argue that some sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.
• When they are unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research.
• They revert war over such edits.
• They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others opinions.
• They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument. See ad hominem.

Personal Attacks

1. Lumps both editors (Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore) implying sock puppetry. Accuses both editors of being church members and therefore unable to be objective due to genetic fallacy. Accuses either editor of trying to remove as much info from controversy section, and warns that it is impossible. Asks personal information such as whether either editor believes the church leader is an apostle of Jesus. Also implies that Fordx12 is intolerant of scholars solely based on Fordx12's beliefs. [2]
2. States that if you are religious, he/she is sure that you think your religious book is perfect. [3]
3. Makes blanket accusations of plagiarism against Fordx12 [4] by adding tags to multiple sections without providing examples of close paraphrasing as required by WP:PARAPHRASE. Subsequent discussion in the talk page shows the editor's reluctance to provide examples of such and the examples provided are extremely lacking as presented here [5]
4. Does not consider Ajaxfiore a third opinion as sometimes both editors agree on the same matter (implies sock puppetry). Thus trying to distort any sense of consensus. [6]
5. Begins edit war and once more accuses Ajaxfiore of being a church member. Accuses both editors of trying to turn the wiki into a publicity page. Accuses Fordx12 of removing info from the controversy section using a multitude of explanations that do not warrant deletion. [7] despite a lack of evidence.
6. Once again accuses both editors of being adherents of the church and trying to turn the page into a promotional page for the church. [8]
7. Accuses both editors of complicity tinkering with the Controversy section. [9]
8. Accuses Ajaxfiore of going off on a mini rampage deleting information, and of lacking good faith and civility. Accuses Fordx12 of disliking the controversy section and preferring to leave it a mess so as to render it useless. [10]
9. Starts a sockpuppet investigation without informing the parties involved without cause. [11] Quotes Fordx12 out of context and accuses Ajaxfiore of slandering an author after evidence was shown that the author was unreliable here [12] [13].
10. Accuses both editors of resenting him/her for keeping a "check on" church leaders. [14]

Ownership

Violations of WP:OWN

1. RidjalA claims that unsourced content that was recently removed could not be disproved, despite lack of sources. [15]
2. States that the Controversy section is no longer disputable, and warns that any edits will be reverted. [16]
3. Claims that whatever info contained in the wiki that is not challenged by an unbiased source will stand as true. [17]
4. Shows pattern of constant unjustified edit reversions. Reverts edits by Fordx12 claiming the edits are not found in the sources cited and that Fordx12 is misrepresenting sources. Fordx12 shows that the edits are backed by the sources. [18] Third opinion editor settled the matter [19] RidjalA revert or deleted edits made to the controversy section. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] All of the justifications for those reversions/deletions fall short of wiki policy.
5. Refuses to allow parts of the Controversy section to be changed claiming it has been so for a long time and are therefore neutral as possible. [27]
6. Claims that new edits add irrelevant information, and states intention to remove sentences. [28]
7. Begins edit war, reverts to previous version which contains an obscure primary source no editor has access to. Insists on using a source two editors have agreed is not reliable as shown here [29]. [30]
8. RidjalA attempts to retain copyrighted content despite multiple deletions.The first deletion [31] was made on the basis of WP:PRIMARY, this was reverted by RidjalA without justifiable cause here [32]. Upon RidjalA's referral to a secondary source, it was found that the content was basically the same word for word and was thus deleted it due to copyright issues here [33]. RidjalA reverted this deletion here [34], RidjalA's revert was reverted here [35].
9. Again reverts page [36] despite copyright issues mentioned here [37]. Insists on using a questionable source.
10. RidjalA states that the page should be reverted again despite copyright issues, claiming it is impossible to paraphrase it. [38]
11. Insists that page should be reverted despite copyright issues. [39]
12. RidjalA again reverts the page despite copyright issues and the presence of an obscure primary source. [40] Claims that credit was given to the source from which it was taken verbatim [41].
13. RidjalA refuses to allow the deletion of unsourced content that implies that LDM (La Luz Del Mundo Church) is lying about it's membership data in the infobox. The infobox stated that the church claims 5 million members but "outside sources" say less than 1 million members. This implies deceit on behalf of the church. Ridjal first introduced this data here [42] with a source that does not contain that information. He later inserted that "Most reliable up to date research points to estimates of <1.0 million" in the infobox here [43] yet when this content was removed RidjalA's excuse for keeping the source and the information was a alleged consensus here [44]. The info was in the page for over two years with the false source, and for 2 months with a citation needed tag. It has been removed twice by two editors on different occasions, yet RidjalA has reintroduced it.
14. RidjalA has removed sourced content without cause. Aside from previously mentioned examples, RidjalA removed content sourced to a paper written by Dr. Jason H. Dormady, a historian, on the church in the same section described above. Content from Dormady's source stated the names of the first two deaconesses here [45] that section was edited by RidjalA here [46] where RidjalA replaced Dormady's mention of the first to deaconesses with Fortuny's mention of two known deaconesses, however he/she did not change the citation to reflect that the new content was Fortuny's. After that RidjalA made this edit [47] removing the name of one of the two deaconesses from Dormady's source and accused me of ursurping data with information not found in Fortuny's source. The edits he/she made gave the impression that the church has only ever had two deaconesses and not several as Dormady pointed out in his paper, further slanting the article to give the impression that the LDM church is oppressive to women.

Evidence of Bias

1. RidjalA claims that everyone but church members know that the founder exploited and raped female members. [48]
2. Makes sweeping generalization about church members implying that church members are trying to vandalize the page. [49]
3. RidjalA also misrepresents sources to give the LDM church a bad image. Aside from the issues regarding the church's membership status, he/she also inserted a misquotation and defended it.It's insertion happened here [50] and was challenged here [51] and here [52] but RidjalA reverted it here [53]. Editor Fordx12 opened up discussion to illustrate the misquoting in RidjalA's talk page here [54] but RidjalA has yet to fix that quote. Furthermore, this edit [55] was made to invalidate the church's teachings that women are socially equal. RidjalA's excuse is that it was only one member who said it, ignoring that said member was Patricia Fortuny's connection to LDM (Fortuny is the cited source's author) and that the member represented official church positions to Fortuny. RidjalA says that it (Female social equality in the LDM church) is against actual research but does not point to it.
4. Accuses church leadership of wanting to appear grandiose, also implies that membership statistics were fabricated by the church. Also admits to incorrectly using a source to contradict official LLDM figures for number of members.[56]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:EDITWAR
3. WP:OWN
4. WP:CIVIL
5. WP:NPOV
6. WP:CPUSH

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by certifier Fordx12

1. Attempted to resolve via user talkpages here [57] and then again here [58]. Here is RidjalA's response [59] and then my reply [60] followed by a new attempt to resolve issues here [61] met by this reply where RidjalA showed no desire to cooperate [62] and my response which has gone unanswered [63]
2. Attempted to reach compromise in La Luz del Mundo talk page here[64], as of the time of this posting, this [65] is the result where RidjalA refuses to cease disruptive behavior. Conversation continues and as of this point this is the current talkpage [66] RidjalA continued to edit page without recognizing proposed compromises as discussed here [67].

Attempts by certifier Ajaxfiore

1. I initially ignored RidjalA's personal attacks and accusations of suck puppetry here [68].
2. Nonetheless, the user continued to make accusations and started an investigation of sock puppetry where he wrongly accused me of slandering an author, when I provided clear evidence that the author was an unreliable source. I expressed that I was annoyed by the user's actions, and asked the user to stop accusing me of being a church member to discredit me. Also asked the user to stop making accusations of sock puppetry, and to stop making sweeping generalizations so that he/she can be more objective. [69]
3. RidjalA continued to accuse me of being a church member, and reverted edits by me and the other editor. I informed the user that I feared he/she might be claiming ownership of the article. [70] However RidjalA accuses both editors of trying to turn the wiki into a promotional page for LLDM, and continues to assert that both are church members. [71] Reverted the page to a version that had copyright issues, and an obscure primary source.
4. I once again express my discomfort with RidjalA's accusations. [72] To which RidjalA responds that he/she cannot rewrite what has been nearly copied and pasted from an unreliable source, and accuses both editors of complicity tinkering with the Controversy section. [73]
5. Another editor makes attempts to stop the edit war, I agree to stop making edits and apologize for engaging in the edit war. [74] However, RidjalA reverts an edit to add an unsourced sentence to contradict the membership numbers (it was with a fake source for over 2 years, and with a citation needed for 2 months). The user refuses to agree to a truce, and accuses me of going off on a mini rampage removing information and of lacking civility and good faith.
6. I once again express my concerns that RidjalA is not acting in good faith and is trying to take ownership of the article. [75] I show that the user has double standards when it comes to editing [76]. After the other editor makes an attempt to get user to agree to cease editing until arbitration/mediation, RidjalA attacks both editors and admits to unscrupulously incorrectly using a source to make far-fetched assumptions to contradict the official LLDM numbers. RidjalA still refuses to cooperate and attacks both users, and LLDM leadership. [77]
7. I again clarify that my issues with RidjalA are his/her refusals to cooperate and his/her constant edit reversions. And once again ask RidjalA to stop blatantly attacking people without evidence. [78] As of now the user has not yet responded. I have refused to revert his edit until the issues are resolved.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Fordx12 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
2. Ajaxfiore (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for allowing me to present my response to Fordx12 and ajaxfiore, and thanks to those of you who will take the time to read my case.

Recently, Fordx12 introduced a large trove of information to wiki lldm that appeared to lean more towards the promotional side (in my opinion, but more of that in a minute). If it appears as though I have modified large portions of it, it is undoubtedly because contributions this large like the ones that Fordx12 has contributed require a vast amount of volunteer work to curate. To Fordx12 and ajaxfiore, this came off as me being disruptive. Fordx12 introduces tens of thousands of bytes of information and expects for me to revise his work with the same consistency as ajaxfiore by simply coming along into the picture and cleaning up a few bytes' worth of typos here and there (searching for the the amount of minor fixes in ajaxfiore's contribs here, and one can see that these types of contribs, including typo fixes, comprise the majority of ajaxfiore's contributions); furthermore, Fordx12 becomes frustrated when I bring up more serious issues, like abstaining from the repeated use of Wikipedia as an advertising platform for the benefit of lldm church.

In the most recent patterns of creating an advertising platform, Fordx12 changed the standard accepted acronym for the church from "LLDM" to an unheard of "The LDM", creating a clean slate for La Luz Del Mundo in search engines (it is fair to ask, since when is LLDM "the LDM"? Even the official church website is LLDMusa.org. Also, one can search and compare hits on a search engine for "lldm" vs "the ldm", or even "ldm", and see a stark difference)

If I were to open a discussion about it to try and revert "The LDM" back to "LLDM" using reliable sources, my concerns would be downplayed by a complicit Fordx12 and ajaxfiore by stating that my questions and reversion are out of line and "done against [their] consensus" as Fordx12 stated recently here, and I would endure rash criticism and attacks like the one I am responding to right now.

In another incident, Fordx12 introduces thousands of bytes of information and a new section he/she created called "Women in La Luz Del Mundo", and goes off portraying the church as this liberal pro-women religion, stating things like "this prayer provides space for empowerment in which women are able to express themselves and develop a status within the church's membership in much the same way that men do during other prayers and religious services" {1} However, it is important to note that Fordx12 omited a crucial fact in their source which stated that (translated from Spanish) "however, Patricia Fortuny remarks that 'the church explicitly denies such roles exist for women for fear that either women may be seen as equals to males, or that it may appear as an 'absence of subordination' in women'", which I introduced here

Hence, by ensuring that I incorporate a "check and balance" like in the aforementioned example, I ensure that this page does not turn into an advertising platform; for Fordx12 and ajaxfiore, this constitutes pushing a POV and being uncooperative.

Further, it is my inclination that Fordx12 has grown increasingly frustrated by his/her failed censorship of the controversy section. I feel safe calling it "censorship" because Fordx12 incriminatingly goes as far as to state that in regards to the controversy section, the user "would like for it to go away" {2} and asserts in the talk page that "Samuel Joaquin is an apostle of God," {3}

I believe that it is hard to argue in Fordx12's and ajaxfiore's favor that their deletions and revisions of content in the controversy section, as well as the creation of this report, are done entirely in good faith. Even in Fordx12's initial contributions as a new member to wikipedia, the user was dedicated to the deletion of content in the controversy section, like so

As far as ajaxfiore goes, I feel that the user reiterates and seconds Fordx12's views, and I must point out that they have yet to disagree on anything concerning wiki lldm. ajaxfiore's comments and edits are consistently in line with Fordx12's stance. For instance, their coinciding anti-Jorge Erdely dispositions found here, and their anti-Revista Academica stance found here. These two conservative standpoints (anti-Jorge Erdely and anti-Revista Academica) are an old recurring theme amongst the lldm faithful (another hint that both users are lldm adherents) in establishing a red herring so as to avoid discussion over victims' accounts of rape and abuse in the church, which is what Jorge Erdely published in Revista Academica.

Fordx12 and ajaxfiore feel compelled to chastise me and castigate me for impeding their progress in promoting the church. In the past I have helped to clean up the lldm page by ensuring that it doesn't turn into a publicity page again, which has been an issue in the past as evident by early discussion in the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo and back in 2008 when the page was primarily used for the boasting of random facts about the church http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Luz_del_Mundo&oldid=224121459

I have tried to determine if these two users are lldm members for the purpose of determining if they comprise a genuine consensus. So far only Fordx12 has come clean as belonging to the church. Ajaxfiore has yet to announce whether he/she believes Samuel Joaquin Flores is an apostle of God (there is nothing wrong with believing that, it's just a matter of being honest to determine if we need more outside people).

The last straw for Fordx12 and ajaxfiore, I feel, was when I did not admit to their forceful demand for me to apologize for our differences {4}. Even in the 'Desired Outcomes' contained in this report, the fourth sentence reads "RidjalA will admit that his/her bias is a cause of these issues" (after reading this response, Fordx12 crossed this out in the report here, but argumentatively this is a straw man since it ignores the fact that I responded in full to the rest of this report; so why not also cross out DO#6? Did I not just show how I ensured that sections like "Women of la Luz Del Mundo" are unbiased?) Fordx12 and ajaxfiore expect for me to self-abashingly apologize for our differences. While it would appease them for me apologize, I sincerely believe that self-penance is not genuinely warranted in this case. I have truly been cordial to these users, and I have maintained my respect for them, and have been especially careful to state that I do not in any way seek to question their faith and that I appreciate our work together. In fact, in discussing our differences, I have always encouraged for us to continue working together regardless of our discord, and remained an open avenue for discourse at all times (when I discussed one of my concerns regarding Fordx12's close paraphrasing, although we disagreed I ensured the user that "I do appreciate our dialogue, and any disagreement that arises out of our discourse is merely a necessary process that is characteristic of progress. I look forward to continuing our collaboration, and in contributing our share of knowledge to lldm wiki." {5}) Thus, if I were to admit to any wrongdoing as they demand, I know that it would be an insincere thing for me to do. I firmly believe that civil honesty is a most cherished virtue, and I stand by that.

As far as the sock puppetry goes, my looking into a sock puppetry investigation was a legitimate concern of mine (even though an admin did not feel compelled to look into it further), given that a few weeks ago a new user (Bravoq) emerged and blanked the entire Silver Wolf controversy section here, when in fact it's been Fordx12 and ajaxfiore who have had a recent interest in deleting that exact same section, evident when Fordx12 states in the talk page that in regards to the Silver Wolf controversy, "the only reasonable action to take is to delete the section." {6} To no one's surpirse, ajaxfiore comes along and immediately seconds Fordx12's viewpoint by stating that "the Silver Wolf Ranch subsection of the article no longer belongs in the Controversy section" and should "perhaps [be] removed altogether." {7}

So no, I am not attempting to take ownership of the lldm page to any degree. I am ensuring that there be checks and balances on this page. On the contrary, I am inclined to say that Fordx12 and ajaxfiore's ostensible convictions are a ploy to gain dual-editor ownership by censoring me so that they, as promoters for the church, may create their preferred version of wiki lldm. They are complicit in their opinions, and complicit in striving to silence dissenters and controversial matters surrounding their church, and they are now attempting to censor me in a concerted Orwellian fashion.

It is for these reasons that I feel that the claims made by Fordx12 and ajaxfiore are columny, unfounded, and dishonest to not only me, but to the general wiki community as well. Such behavior should warrant further examination to determine if any applicable warnings may apply to prevent further false consensus and to impede their progress of attaining multiple-editor ownership.

I have been careful to not come off as disruptive in volunteering for la luz del mundo wiki in ensuring that it doesn't turn into a publicity page, including closely monitoring the sweeping deletions from the controversy section that these two have recently sought to make. I have a strong inclination that fordx12 and ajaxfiore are taking a Hail Mary approach at censoring me by accusing me of POV pushing, making personal attacks, and for attempting to take ownership. Even right now as Fordx12 finished finalizing this report, the user went back to lldm wiki to continue to try and bait me by making spurious revisions to the controversy section:

User reverted my most recent edit here

User removed sources on Controversy section, citing "redundancy" {8}

User changed source to "Todd Bensman", rather than citing the news agency itself {9}

User changed number of adherents from "5 million according to the church, less than 1 million per outside sources" to "7 million", when user acknowledges that there is an ongoing discussion as to which numbers to cite (I've suggested we offer the highest and lowest values, like it was before) {10}

User again disclosed source as "Jorge Erdely", as opposed to the newspaper where the news originated from. {11}

User (for the fourth or fifth time) changed the introduction to Rape Accusations when there is an open discussion awaiting a third opinion on how to best present the introduction while avoiding copyright issues {12}

As proof to which of us is acting in good faith we should also consider how we each propose to fix our different philosophies. Whereas Fordx12 urges that I be reprimanded for my "conduct", among other corrective sanctions, I urge that the best way to settle our differences is not by reprimanding, nor by obliging an apology, but by the simple continual utilization of independent third opinions. Also, I would recommend that an outside administrator be assigned to overlook this page for the time being. That way, we are all given a fair chance at offering our insight- although I wouldn't be at all against a temporary cool-off period for both parties.

By adhering to the five pillars of Wikipedia, I firmly believe that I have acted in good faith in ensuring that ajaxfiore and Fordx12 do not take dual ownership of the lldm wiki, and that they do not convert the lldm page into an advertising platform for the church's benefit.

Please contact me any time for any inquiry.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. RidjalA (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.