User talk:Rick Alan Ross
Welcome RickAlanRoss1952!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Please contact the Arbitration Committee to credential your account
[edit]Greetings! Since you are holding yourself out to be Rick Alan Ross and Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs), you are subject to the ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Rick Alan Ross instructed and restricted. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for the email address at which you can reach the committee; you must correspond with a member of the arbitration committee. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have contacted the arbitration committee and received no response. I am still barred from the Talk page of my bio.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 14
- 47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Make sure you sent the email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org you should get back an email saying that your email is being held in moderation because you are not a member of the list. A clerk or Arbcom member will then pass it on to the list or contact you. You can also send them email them by clicking Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. The technical restriction was placed on your article talk page to prevent anyone from posting using an IP address or non-autoconfirmed account. Regardless, based on my reading of the Arbcom restriction, you can not edit until you have heard back from Arbcom about confirming your account whether the software will let you or not. Doing so could lead to a complete loss of editing privileges as it would be rapidly reported to the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard as a violation of an Arbcom sanction.
A list of Arbcom members is available at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Members. If you think there is some problem with your email you can start a new section here and {{ping}}
{{ping|Example}}one or two of them to get their attention on-wiki. I usually notice Courcelles, DGG and Doug Weller on regularly but all of the ones listed as active should notice a ping within a day or so. I hope this helps you resolve this matter. JbhTalk 15:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)- Thanks. I will email again. I only wish to post suggestions for edits at the Talk page and participate in that process.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please email the arbitration committee with the instructions (posted above) rather than filing an AC amendment request. You can also post a note on an arbitrator's talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Liz: He says [1] that he has emailed ArbCom. Based on the conversation here and on my talk page he says he has done it at least twice. Maybe there is some hang up on the list filter?? JbhTalk 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have emailed, posted and repeatedly requested help. I would like to be able to post suggestions for edits at the talk page of my bio.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have sent an email to the committee on one of their internal email lists asking them to keep a lookout for your messages. Just know that there are 12 active arbitrators right now, they get many email requests and usually discuss cases among themselves which can take a while to come to decisions. It may be a while until you hear back so I recommend patience. Thanks to Jbhunley for your help on this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. My understanding is that I am blocked from posting at the Talk page of my bio because Wikipedia editors are not sure I am me. I am willing to absolutely prove that I am Rick Alan Ross. I can fax or email documents or whatever it takes.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have sent an email to the committee on one of their internal email lists asking them to keep a lookout for your messages. Just know that there are 12 active arbitrators right now, they get many email requests and usually discuss cases among themselves which can take a while to come to decisions. It may be a while until you hear back so I recommend patience. Thanks to Jbhunley for your help on this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please email the arbitration committee with the instructions (posted above) rather than filing an AC amendment request. You can also post a note on an arbitrator's talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will email again. I only wish to post suggestions for edits at the Talk page and participate in that process.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Make sure you sent the email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org you should get back an email saying that your email is being held in moderation because you are not a member of the list. A clerk or Arbcom member will then pass it on to the list or contact you. You can also send them email them by clicking Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. The technical restriction was placed on your article talk page to prevent anyone from posting using an IP address or non-autoconfirmed account. Regardless, based on my reading of the Arbcom restriction, you can not edit until you have heard back from Arbcom about confirming your account whether the software will let you or not. Doing so could lead to a complete loss of editing privileges as it would be rapidly reported to the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard as a violation of an Arbcom sanction.
Just to let you know
[edit]I saw your recent edits. I'm somewhat offended by your "One Wikipedia user has insisted that..." ([2]). Afaik there was a lot of them, including the admin who protected the talk pages against IP edits. So "One..." seems completely out of order. Not sure whether I'll let myself get involved in this again, I need a somewhat clearer editing environment for that to be productive I suppose.
Re. comparison with Steve Hassan's Wikipedia article: comparing in this sense is somewhat of a weak argument in Wikipedia, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (before even examining the WP:COI). If you have a problem with Mr. Hassan's page, post on its talk page with, if and when applicable, disclosure of your COI in the matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The issue is consistency in BLP Wikipedia rules. Otherwise I have no interest in Mr. Hassan's bio. Do you somehow know Steve Hassan, or do you know people in some way associated with him or his work? What is your special interest in my bio? Do you have any COI in the matter?RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Never heard about the person until an hour ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Is there some special interest that drew you to edit at my bio?RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ten years ago I got involved in the Prem Rawat imbroglio. Way out of my field of expertise, just trying to help out. At the time we were discussing whether your website could be used as a reliable source on Rawat. Then your Wikipedia bio got unstable (... the Scientology ArbCom case): I was still hoping things would stabilise, and your website could be used, which didn't work out that way. Anyway, that's when that bio landed on my watchlist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting. There was someone that used to edit my bio that worked for Prem Rawat. I think he was outed and banned at some point. It seems that a number of people with some axe to grind due to the Cult Education Institute (CEI) database have used my bio over the years for retaliation. BTW -- CEI is a tax-exempted educational nonprofit, which maintains an online library, not unlike Wikipedia. First established as a website (1996) and later converted to a database, CEI is an institutional member of the American and New Jersey Library Associations. I simply want Wikipedia to admin and edit my bio fairly based upon facts, not POV. Thank you for your interest.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Probably Jossi (last edit to your page) – left "under a cloud" during the second Rawat ArbCom case, and was later blocked for socking. But that's far from the only Rawat-involved editor having edited your bio that left (or had to leave) the premises – note that not all of those who left or had to leave the area are pro-Rawat. Explains part of my cautiousness, I hope. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Seems like it was Jossi. The irony is that Rawat is a very small part of the CEI database. There has been quite a bit of POV and/or misleading edits at my bio. My hope is to sort through this with suggestions at the Talk page. I am trying to learn the ways of Wikipedia.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Re. "small part of the CEI database" – Yes, I know. I think Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations is doing considerably better than http://www.culteducation.com/group/1219-divine-light-mission.html that apparently stopped following Rawat some two or three name changes of his organizations ago, if I may shamelessly promote a page that is for a large part my work. What CEI does better is the publication of primary sources like court transcripts (something Wikipedia due to its rules would generally avoid); another difference is that we would never keep a full copy of a copyrighted document like the Cade Metz piece (although we have a fair share of quotes at pages such as Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars, Talk:Prem Rawat/journalists, ... see more)
- Whatsoever... wouldn't it be nice to have the DLM CEI page or http://www.cultnews.com/category/elanvitaldivinelightmission/ listed at the Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations page? Alas it wouldn't be possible (yet) I believe. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Per its disclaimer Wikipedia is not a reliable source. its disclaimer states, "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information" it contains see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer fCEI is an online library with fully attributed articles, reports and documents. Guru Maharij (aka Prem Rawat) is historically known as a "cult leader" that hurt many people, Today very few people are interested in him and so he has a very small subsection at CEI, which reflects that fact see http://www.culteducation.com/group/1219-divine-light-mission.html.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The irony being that for me Rawat is a thoroughly uninteresting topic. Re. "Today very few people are interested in him..." – I disagree, Cagan's 2007 book on him was a bestseller. I think you worded it better at the cultnews page: "... the old familiar groups called “cults” ... actually are still around such as ... Divine Light Mission ..., although they may now use new names ...". Also the buckloads of hurt feelings pouring into Wikipedia in connection with the Rawat article make your assertion that he hurt people only "historically" seem flawed.
- Re. Wikipedia disclaimer: true, but doesn't impede Wikipedia editors from trying to get it right. There are several reasons why under current Wikipedia rules it is not possible to link to the CEI website as a reliable source. There are the questions about copyright clearance for some of the content on that website, there are the questions regarding editorial oversight of what is on the site (is it really only one person who decides what gets published, or is there a process of peer review?)... On Wikipedia there are some discussions regarding whether or not the site can be used as a reliable source. If you're interested I can look these up, and give you the links (unsorted, this is where I'd start). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not interested. My previous response to you covered this. If you enjoy editing about Rawat fine. Seems like you have a POV that you bring to your editing at Wikipedia and a bit of an attitude regarding CEI. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia entries like Prem Rawat are not quoted and cited by serious researchers. Wikipedia says regarding its content that there is "No formal peer review" and "opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields." Anonymous editors at Wikipedia often skew and conflate Wikipedia entries. The Prem Rawat entry seems like an example of this ongoing problem.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, err, let's not talk attitude. I enjoy editing about Rawat probably less than you do – neither do I "enjoy" editing your article, that was my point, and explaining why I do nonetheless. Scholars not wanting to look beyond Wikipedia itself (i.e. not wanting to look to the texts used as sources in Wikipedia) are not Wikipedia's target audience. The disclaimer should make this clear: Wikipedia does not want serious scholars to quote Wikipedia directly (that does more harm than good to Wikipedia). That being said, I do think Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations superior to http://www.culteducation.com/group/1219-divine-light-mission.html – at least the Wikipedia bibliography article is more up to date, and more complete (although yours has a few advantages too, as I pointed out).
- Having a POV is not a problem, disclosing it is not a problem (even required in some circumstances as you are well aware), bringing it to article editing is. Instead of vaguish complaints show me the edits where I did. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding quality of the Prem Rawat entry, I agree that that quality is still worse than suboptimal. But at least no Wikipedia article is currently "ruled by the Lord of the Universe". Jossi Fresco, the person mentioned in the 2008 Cade Metz article is no longer allowed to edit Wikipedia, not Rawat's article, not yours, not the COI noticeboard. But you know how that is from personal experience: one does something wrong and the press is all over it. It is put straight, and nobody even mentions. My suggestion is that you give a follow-up to your February 9, 2008 entry at http://www.cultnews.com/category/elanvitaldivinelightmission/ – And you're as welcome to help getting the Wikipedia Prem Rawat article in better shape (which nowadays by implicit agreement is done by unanimous decisions on its talk page, that's why the improvements to the article still move very slowly). The page is still on my watchlist, but I try to intervene as little as possible, while, yeah, not interested in the topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not interested. FYI -- I have never edited the Prem Rawat bio at Wikipedia. Again, the very small subsection relegated to Prem Rawat at CEI reflects his actual historical significance and importance. If a new press article from a reliable source comes out about him let me know. I have not seen anything of any relevance or importance, but maybe it was overlooked. IMO the CEI subsection is more useful to researchers and the public who want to know who Prem Rawat is and why he is of any interest.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not interested. My previous response to you covered this. If you enjoy editing about Rawat fine. Seems like you have a POV that you bring to your editing at Wikipedia and a bit of an attitude regarding CEI. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia entries like Prem Rawat are not quoted and cited by serious researchers. Wikipedia says regarding its content that there is "No formal peer review" and "opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields." Anonymous editors at Wikipedia often skew and conflate Wikipedia entries. The Prem Rawat entry seems like an example of this ongoing problem.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Per its disclaimer Wikipedia is not a reliable source. its disclaimer states, "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information" it contains see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer fCEI is an online library with fully attributed articles, reports and documents. Guru Maharij (aka Prem Rawat) is historically known as a "cult leader" that hurt many people, Today very few people are interested in him and so he has a very small subsection at CEI, which reflects that fact see http://www.culteducation.com/group/1219-divine-light-mission.html.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Seems like it was Jossi. The irony is that Rawat is a very small part of the CEI database. There has been quite a bit of POV and/or misleading edits at my bio. My hope is to sort through this with suggestions at the Talk page. I am trying to learn the ways of Wikipedia.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Probably Jossi (last edit to your page) – left "under a cloud" during the second Rawat ArbCom case, and was later blocked for socking. But that's far from the only Rawat-involved editor having edited your bio that left (or had to leave) the premises – note that not all of those who left or had to leave the area are pro-Rawat. Explains part of my cautiousness, I hope. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting. There was someone that used to edit my bio that worked for Prem Rawat. I think he was outed and banned at some point. It seems that a number of people with some axe to grind due to the Cult Education Institute (CEI) database have used my bio over the years for retaliation. BTW -- CEI is a tax-exempted educational nonprofit, which maintains an online library, not unlike Wikipedia. First established as a website (1996) and later converted to a database, CEI is an institutional member of the American and New Jersey Library Associations. I simply want Wikipedia to admin and edit my bio fairly based upon facts, not POV. Thank you for your interest.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ten years ago I got involved in the Prem Rawat imbroglio. Way out of my field of expertise, just trying to help out. At the time we were discussing whether your website could be used as a reliable source on Rawat. Then your Wikipedia bio got unstable (... the Scientology ArbCom case): I was still hoping things would stabilise, and your website could be used, which didn't work out that way. Anyway, that's when that bio landed on my watchlist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Is there some special interest that drew you to edit at my bio?RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Never heard about the person until an hour ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The issue is consistency in BLP Wikipedia rules. Otherwise I have no interest in Mr. Hassan's bio. Do you somehow know Steve Hassan, or do you know people in some way associated with him or his work? What is your special interest in my bio? Do you have any COI in the matter?RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
No problem, hope I didn't annoy you too much. However there's an advantage in being more than a WP:SPA at Wikipedia. Tried to raise some more general interest in the Wikipedia project. Didn't work apparently, no problem, maybe just unsuccessful in uncovering other topics that might interest you here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- I did request that my bio be deleted from Wikipedia. Failing that my interest is for it to be factual, NPOV and not a place for POV propaganda and personal attacks. My online time is largely devoted to CEI and the ongoing construction and improvement of that database online library as an educational resource. IMO the Prem Rawat BLP is an example of what's wrong with Wikiepedia and how it is at times used for propaganda rather that a genuine reflection of historical information and perspective. It reads like an infomercial put together by Prem Rawat's PR team.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting new news report about Prem Rawat reflects his actual history significance http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/9033909/greedy-guru Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 14:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Just in case you didn't see the message from C.Fred - MrX 14:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have now logged in under Rick Alan Ross.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
User account renamed
[edit]Per ARBCOM request, I have renamed this account from User:RickAlanRoss1952 to User:Rick Alan Ross (moving the previous account to User:Rick Alan Ross (usurped)). I am given to understand that the individual behind the account has confirmed that they are in control of the new account. User:LFaraone, could you please confirm? Cheers WormTT(talk) 12:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have logged in using Rick Alan RossRick Alan Ross (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
[edit]
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Reading
[edit]Just read your message, tx! For now I'd wait for two things to happen (neither of them will take too long any more I suppose: a few days max): (1) the AfD on the article being closed; (2) the ANI discussion being archived and/or closed.
In the mean while there's some area that might benefit you to have somewhat more feeling of: what (at Wikipedia) is understood by references to reliable sources. WP:V is somewhat where it starts (with WP:RS as an important subsidiary guideline, somewhat tough reading but there is no better summary for the time being); then there's WP:RSN if you want to see a bit "hands on" how Wikipedians put that in practice (I think your website has been mentioned somewhat a dozen times in its archive too). Then about formatting of references I'd recommend WP:CITE too, not so much for all the technicalities of references, but in order to get the main thrust, e.g. that a reference to a reliable source usually names an *author*, at least a *publication* (newspaper, book, trusted website, etc...), a date, etc. so that you understand that "it was all over Asian media" is not something we can work with, but "Article abc" by John Author in Newpaper XYZ, page ii, published Month dd, Year is something we can work with (no matter in what language that newspaper is written). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Printed out Citing Sources, Verifiability and No Original Research. These will be added to my desk stack, read and noted. My book has 1,200 footnotes and was professionally edited. We used Chicago Manual of Style footnotes format. No problem.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Some advice that you might find helpful
[edit]While you're not exactly new at this point, I thought you might find it helpful if I shared some advice I give to new editors:
I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again.
The article about you fits all the cases that I note: It's a biography, you have a conflict of interest with it, and it is under general sanctions. When I realized this as I was looking over the BLPN noticeboard discussion you started, I cringed at participating in the discussion. It's quite the hornet's nest.
One thing that might help you: Articles like this should be written from high-quality sources, and most of those sources should be secondary. Disputed content without such sources will be difficult to add to or retain within the article. When you make a suggestion, it will go much easier when you have a secondary source to support it.
Because of the subject matter, deprogramming, I expect the secondary sources to be popular news articles rather than the academic and peer-reviewed publications we'd like. In such situaions, we prefer news articles based upon in-depth reporting that includes historical context.
I hope you find some helpful information in all this. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks you and happy holiday. I have a stack of Wikipedia policies printed out about two inches high on my desk. I have read this material and hi-lighted pertinent policies that reflect relevant issues concerning my situation. Secondary sources have been linked in my latest round at the Talk page. I will continue to locate links to such sources and use them. Many publications don't keep articles up indefinitely, but some keep them up for long periods of time. I will do my best to locate the supporting articles online and link them. The Cult Education Institute (CEI) was launched (1996) to archive articles about various groups and leaders in an effort to keep such material readily accessible to the public for an extended period of time in an organized database. Much of the reports, articles and academic research is not available elsewhere on the Web, though it could be found at a public or university library. It's CEI, my many media interviews and court expert testimony that I am actually known for today, through I began as a community activist and organizer in the early 1980s and later became more widely known as a cult deprogrammer in the 1990s. IMO the reason my bio is often "hornets nest" is that some people disagree with my opinions and/or object to the information contained within the CEI database. My bio for these folks is a place to exact retribution by discrediting me and/or diminishing my work. This is often done by soapboxing, fact picking, coat racking and giving undue weight to certain points. I am resigned to this as an ongoing issue. I appreciate the willingness and openness of Wikipedia to address the situation. Several editors have encouraged me to study the rules and work positively in good faith within the framework of Wikipedia. It's a slow process and I continue to benefit from the suggestions and insights offered by verteren Wikipedia editors.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I also wanted to chime in with further unsolicited advice. I urge you to exercise brevity in your talk page posts. Volunteer editors have limited time. It will help you to be more brief. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Note on request to add DS template
[edit]My original purpose in wanting to put the DS notice about Scientology on the talk page was to give notice to passing users and enforcing admins that the article was vulnerable beyond a typical BLP based on concerns you raised, most recently in your conversation with me at Talk:Steven Hassan (Who is also explicitly subject to the Scientology DS because he is in [Cat:Critics of Scientology], which I assume would fit you as well) but several other times as well. There is no question in my mind that the page falls under the Scientology decision and my original post was simply to ask a procedural question of the Arbs about whether I could place the template or if I had to ask an admin to.
Whether that template is there or not if I felt you were behaving in a way that I thought should be addressed in reference to Scientology I would simply open a complaint at Arbitration Enforcement and make my case. The only thing that template does is place users on notice that the article is subject to enhanced enforcement and warn people that Scientology crap may be going on.
Bishonen said it perfectly, what is now going on is simply shit-stirring for unknown reasons. At the most the template will put everyone on notice that disruptive behavior surrounding Scientology can be addressed under DS even if it is not an obvious or direct BLP violation, maybe not even that since I am not overly familiar with how admins interpret DS stemming from one case or another. JbhTalk 01:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Notification of WP:NEWBLPBAN
[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Per my edit to Talk:Rick Alan Ross I feel that your continued refusal to address one topic at a time and swamping editors at that talk page has become disruptive. You have been asked repeatedly to slow down and have refused to do so. Your overall behavior has, in my opinion passed from proper engagement by a BLP subject to disruption for the purpose of pushing your POV. See WP:CPUSH which I have pointed out to you before. This notice, in and of itself, does not mean that you will be subject to any sanction or even that there is a consensus your behavior is improper. It does however, provide the notice required for an WP:UNINVOLVED administrator to take action per WP:AC/DS without further warning if they feel such action is necessary. I have placed the same template where I record my WP:AC/DS awareness [3]. You are subject to nothing from this notice that I am not subject to as well. JbhTalk 18:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia: WikiBullying IMO I have been bullied at times by certain editors. Certain editors have made no edit requests and suggested I cease posting on the talk page for 6-8 months. Certain editors have used disruptive by cite-tagging, calling for bio deletion.I have learned to work within Wikipedia guidelines as advised. But certain editors have included false and/or misleading statements at my bio. I have responded by providing accurate information based upon reliable and independent sources at the talk page. There are serious problems at my bio regarding cherry picking, undue weight, POV and at times coat racking. Certain editors have suggested that I wasn't found "not guilty" at a criminal trial, but rather that the trial ended in a "hung jury," which is completely false. They based this on statements made by scholars who were proven to be wrong and unreliable sources. Editing was done to infer that I was somehow part of the Christian counter-cult movement. I am Jewish.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- One topic at a time. Will you stick to that very reasonable request or not? JbhTalk 19:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting censorship at the talk page? What am I supposed to do when editors at the talk page make false statements or edit the bio by importing false or misleading information from unreliable sources? What am I supposed to do when editors aggressively delete historical information and filter the facts to make the bio as negative as possible? As you know my bio has a long history abusive editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- One topic at a time. Will you stick to that very reasonable request or not? JbhTalk 19:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia: WikiBullying IMO I have been bullied at times by certain editors. Certain editors have made no edit requests and suggested I cease posting on the talk page for 6-8 months. Certain editors have used disruptive by cite-tagging, calling for bio deletion.I have learned to work within Wikipedia guidelines as advised. But certain editors have included false and/or misleading statements at my bio. I have responded by providing accurate information based upon reliable and independent sources at the talk page. There are serious problems at my bio regarding cherry picking, undue weight, POV and at times coat racking. Certain editors have suggested that I wasn't found "not guilty" at a criminal trial, but rather that the trial ended in a "hung jury," which is completely false. They based this on statements made by scholars who were proven to be wrong and unreliable sources. Editing was done to infer that I was somehow part of the Christian counter-cult movement. I am Jewish.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Editing talk page comments after reply
[edit]Please do not edit talk page comments after replies or after they have been posted for more than a few minutes as you did today [4] [5] [6]. If you must edit your comments please use strikeout to remove text and underline to insert text and add a signature and note that you have changed the comments. See WP:REDACT. Thank you. JbhTalk 21:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Is that a violation of the rules at Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Alan Ross (talk • contribs)
- It is against the Talk Page Guidelines which I linked. If done repeatedly it can be considered disruptive editing(Please read WP:DE if you have not done so).
There is a preview button in the edit window, it is by far best that you preview your edits and make any changes you want before saving the edit. Everyone makes errors every now and then and correcting minor things infrequently is fine but if enough time has passed that it is likely someone has read the comment (and it is not a simple typo) you should follow WP:REDACT. If you want to add something you forgot, make it a new post. JbhTalk 23:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have printed out the guidelines. I will review and note them for future reference.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is against the Talk Page Guidelines which I linked. If done repeatedly it can be considered disruptive editing(Please read WP:DE if you have not done so).
Some information on Wikipedia processes
[edit]
If there are editors who continuously add egregious BLP violating material to your article you can use the WP:AC/DS system. To do that you need to read up on {{Ds/alert}}. Essentially you place {{subst:Ds/alert|blp}} on their talk page to make them officially "aware" WP:AC/DS applies to the article. Technically you can do this for anyone editing the article because it is "informational" rather than a "warning" but some experienced editors can take it badly. It is best to explain why you gave the alert and make it very clear either what you feel is problematic or that it is for information. (I suppose you may make it a personal policy to alert/check for alerts for every editor at the article but that may backfire and make people less likely to work with you. You can also use {{subst:Ds/alert|sci}} if you think the matter is related to Scientology but as I now understand it is does not really matter what case authorized DS only that the article is subject to DS.) When you try to save the alert the system will tell you how to check to see if the editor has already been notified. If they have been notified within the past year do not do so again as they are already officially "aware".
Once an editor is aware and if they continue violating policy you can contact and admin directly, create a section on the article talk page explaining the problem and tag it with {{adminhelp}} or take the matter to Arbitration Enforcement rather than WP:ANI. Please remember that using this level of dispute resolution should be closer to last resort than first and if you bring complaints that are not major or continuing violations of policy you may get sanctioned instead - see WP:BOOMERANG for the concept. You can also {{adminhelp}} or go to Arbitration Enforcement to resolve behavior problems without formally notifying an editor of WP:AC/DS but the sanctions available are not as flexible but it might be a better choice from an interpersonal point of view.
Always remember that you must provide diffs showing violations of policy and that accusing someone who has not violated policy can result in your own sanction. To help you calibrate what is can be sanctioned I will tell you that, in my firm opinion, none of the editors who you have accused of bad faith have done anything remotely close to being sanctionable. Read through some of the discussions/archives of WP:AE to get an idea of how things are done there, it is much more formal than WP:ANI and only administrators make decisions there.
There are also some other processes for dispute resolution related to content you should know about. They are requesting a third opinion which you can use when the dispute is between you and only one other editor. Some uninvolved editor will drop by the talk page and give an opinion on the dispute. There is also formal dispute resolution for more in depth matters or matters involving more than two editors. It involves directed discussion with an experienced mediator. Both of these are voluntary and the results are non-binding but they show a willingness to work to resolve the dispute and very often work.
I hope this helps you feel more confident that there are ways to use Wikipedia processes to address problems you have in the future. Also, FYI you should also read WP:FORUMSHOPPING to know what is proper escalation of an issue vs improper forum shopping. JbhTalk 12:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have been in contact with administrators. Based upon my experience it seems doubtful that anything will be done. The rules are enforced selectively and randomly at Wikipedia. Cwobeel is an example. He is doing his best to edit the article as negatively as is possible and he has a few similar POV editors that jump in to help him. There are some NPOV editors, but they are largely ineffective at doing much if anything to enforce the rules even though I have cited them at the talk page when applicable and appropriate. I am increasingly skeptical about fairness and consistency at Wikipedia. I have read the rules, noted them and applied them regarding my posts at the talk page. This doesn't seem to make much difference. Again, I am leaning in the direction of using another forum outside of Wikipedia to draw attention to the abuses I have seen. Those abuses are fairly pervasive in a number of articles about various cults, brainwashing, etc. These articles appear to be dominated by cult members and/or their supporters. They are not NPOV. My article is just one on the list. Wikipedia has a sordid history of Scientology staff editing its content along with other cultists. This is the problem when you have an open source website that allows anyone to post anonymously. The diehard POV editors know how to game the system. I don't think playing with them endlessly when I have a busy work schedule is meaningful. There are more important things to do with my time.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think Jbhunley is giving you good advice, Rick. Taking your case to Arbitration Enforcement would mean a good chance of more admins looking at it — whereas on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard I've noticed with regret that it tends to be much the same people as at the talkpage of your bio. Not that there's anything wrong with those people coming there, but I would have liked to have seen more new, fresh eyes as well. WP:AE tends to attract a different crowd, and specifically admins, who hopefully aren't as busy in real life as I am. Regrettably I have to pretty much bow out now — RL stuff has come up. I realize I've been a disappointment to you, Rick, I'm sorry. Obviously, going the way Jbhunley recommends would mean more time expenditure for you, and you'll just have to consider whether it's worth it. Note for the talkpage stalkers: I've had some e-mail discussions with Rick Ross over the past month. Please note that that was on my initiative, not his (i. e. he was in no way forum shopping or admin shopping). Bishonen | talk 20:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC).
- With all due respect for Bishonen (and that respect is big, as Bish knows), I don't think taking this to Arbitration Enforcement would be a good idea now. As Jbhunley says above, "in my firm opinion, none of the editors who you have accused of bad faith have done anything remotely close to being sanctionable," so taking this to any board concentrating on behaviour of editors (WP:ANI; WP:AE; WP:ARCA; etc — we've all been there) is more likely to create big muddles than bringing content disputes (which this is, essentially) to a more appropriate conclusion.
- Keeping the discussion as close as possible to the article's talk page seems like a good idea to me. An excursion to WP:BLPN, like the last one that was initiated there, might be helpful occasionally. That last discussion there (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive233#Rick Alan Ross (consultant)) would probably better not have been closed without outcome by one of the most active editors of the Rick Alan Ross article, but there we are, as Jbh says, nothing remotely close to being sanctionable.
- As for attracting attention of more editors and/or admins to the article: the last excursion to BLPN seems to have worked well in that respect. Another idea: conducting content WP:RfC's at Talk:Rick Alan Ross may be helpful in attracting outsiders, but over-all not so sure that would be a good idea either, so I launch this idea only tentatively. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Francis Schonken. The last edit process went from the talk page to BLP to NPOV noticeboard. This worked out. Though I hope everything can be resolved at the talk page. As one editor noted there are quite a few "nutters" that may pop in at my bio. But recently we managed to resolve an edit within Wikipedia guidelines. Hopefully we can continue and I posted a suggestion about that.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think Jbhunley is giving you good advice, Rick. Taking your case to Arbitration Enforcement would mean a good chance of more admins looking at it — whereas on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard I've noticed with regret that it tends to be much the same people as at the talkpage of your bio. Not that there's anything wrong with those people coming there, but I would have liked to have seen more new, fresh eyes as well. WP:AE tends to attract a different crowd, and specifically admins, who hopefully aren't as busy in real life as I am. Regrettably I have to pretty much bow out now — RL stuff has come up. I realize I've been a disappointment to you, Rick, I'm sorry. Obviously, going the way Jbhunley recommends would mean more time expenditure for you, and you'll just have to consider whether it's worth it. Note for the talkpage stalkers: I've had some e-mail discussions with Rick Ross over the past month. Please note that that was on my initiative, not his (i. e. he was in no way forum shopping or admin shopping). Bishonen | talk 20:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC).
- I have been in contact with administrators. Based upon my experience it seems doubtful that anything will be done. The rules are enforced selectively and randomly at Wikipedia. Cwobeel is an example. He is doing his best to edit the article as negatively as is possible and he has a few similar POV editors that jump in to help him. There are some NPOV editors, but they are largely ineffective at doing much if anything to enforce the rules even though I have cited them at the talk page when applicable and appropriate. I am increasingly skeptical about fairness and consistency at Wikipedia. I have read the rules, noted them and applied them regarding my posts at the talk page. This doesn't seem to make much difference. Again, I am leaning in the direction of using another forum outside of Wikipedia to draw attention to the abuses I have seen. Those abuses are fairly pervasive in a number of articles about various cults, brainwashing, etc. These articles appear to be dominated by cult members and/or their supporters. They are not NPOV. My article is just one on the list. Wikipedia has a sordid history of Scientology staff editing its content along with other cultists. This is the problem when you have an open source website that allows anyone to post anonymously. The diehard POV editors know how to game the system. I don't think playing with them endlessly when I have a busy work schedule is meaningful. There are more important things to do with my time.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Steven Hassan article
[edit]A very experienced editor (at least from their edit count, I have never enountered them) has started cleaning up Steven Hassan. You may want to take a look at what they are doing. Once there was some editing going on there it became much more likely someone would decide to clean it up since it started showing up on watch lists and logs. Cheers. JbhTalk 01:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have been working and traveling outside the US. Will be back soon.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Enjoy your trip. Safe travels. JbhTalk 01:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Some very important issues have not been addressed at the Hassan bio such as self-published books, claims without reliable sources, etc. Wikipedia standards are being ignored.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Enjoy your trip. Safe travels. JbhTalk 01:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have been working and traveling outside the US. Will be back soon.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Just to let you know I read your invitation. From the trajectory I described above it might be clear I have little natural interest in the subject of that biography, so somewhat unlikely I will get involved. If you'd return the favour and give a little assistance here that might be different. Anyhow, speaking in general, if your concerns regarding that biographical article can't get resolved via the article's talk page it would be best to post about it on a relevant noticeboard (don't know which one would apply best, WP:COI, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN, ... as I didn't read the stuff), anyway, far better than inviting individual editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will look over the boards to see which one seems most appropriate.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Rick Alan Ross
[edit]The content of the Rick Alan Ross article is now the subject of a Dispute Resolution notice. The mediator has advised that you should be notified, even though you are not an editor on the page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Rick Alan Ross
[edit]Re [7]: "I don't understand..." We've done far more than should be necessary to help you understand. Instead of demonstrating new understanding, following recommendations, or asking questions, you throw mud at the wall in the hope something will stick. Nothing is sticking. As I indicated, I don't think discussing it on the talk page further is helpful. As I offered earlier, if you identify a few sources (no more than 3 please) that you feel are he best, I'll review them in detail. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you but I do understand what is required. What I don't understand is your repeated statements that somehow "mud" was thrown. No mud was thrown. Reliable sources were identified, and provided in detail as requested. The suggested edits are well supported.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throw_enough_mud_at_the_wall,_some_of_it_will_stick --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources "reliable, third-party, published sources," "reliable authors,"mulimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party." The reliable sources I have properly cited fit within these guidelines, provide historical context and are not "mud." Wikipedia: Civility "ill-considered accusations" and "belittling".Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- It appears you don't understand the definition I linked, "Try the same thing (or similar things) often enough, and, even if the general standard is poor, sometimes one will be successful." No offense was meant. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I understand the words that can be read, but don't agree with you regarding their application here. The link you provided is not relevant to reliable sources or suggested editing here. And using negative labels like "mud" is not helpful to the editing process.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Instead of offering a few sources, you offered many. Instead of reviewing sources for quality, you appear to have just listed all you could find. That fits the definition perfectly.
- If think it appropriate to take words out of context to find an insult, then you need to rethink your entire approach to Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Reliable and directly relevant sources were reviewed, listed and organized properly with the kind assistance of a Wikipedia editor. They were then further condensed and listed per Wikipedia format. Wikipedia: No personal attacks "aruments should not be personalized."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- What was "done" was what I think fits the definition perfectly. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Other editors at the BLP apparently disagree with your assessment. One suggested edits based upon the reliable sources provided. Another organized those sources per format. I think the suggested edits should move forward.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am talking about the suggested edits recommended by editor Bishonen (April 28, 2016) and the organizing of and recommendations concerning reliable supporting historical sources (April 27,, 2016) by editor Francis Schonken [[8]]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. There's no consensus to do so, and the arguments for inclusion are poor, as this discussion demonstrates. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- We disagree. There seems to be a growing consensus at the Talk page that the edits suggested by Bishonen are reasonable, well supported and should be implemented.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. There's no consensus to do so, and the arguments for inclusion are poor, as this discussion demonstrates. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am talking about the suggested edits recommended by editor Bishonen (April 28, 2016) and the organizing of and recommendations concerning reliable supporting historical sources (April 27,, 2016) by editor Francis Schonken [[8]]Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Other editors at the BLP apparently disagree with your assessment. One suggested edits based upon the reliable sources provided. Another organized those sources per format. I think the suggested edits should move forward.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- What was "done" was what I think fits the definition perfectly. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Reliable and directly relevant sources were reviewed, listed and organized properly with the kind assistance of a Wikipedia editor. They were then further condensed and listed per Wikipedia format. Wikipedia: No personal attacks "aruments should not be personalized."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I understand the words that can be read, but don't agree with you regarding their application here. The link you provided is not relevant to reliable sources or suggested editing here. And using negative labels like "mud" is not helpful to the editing process.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- It appears you don't understand the definition I linked, "Try the same thing (or similar things) often enough, and, even if the general standard is poor, sometimes one will be successful." No offense was meant. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources "reliable, third-party, published sources," "reliable authors,"mulimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party." The reliable sources I have properly cited fit within these guidelines, provide historical context and are not "mud." Wikipedia: Civility "ill-considered accusations" and "belittling".Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throw_enough_mud_at_the_wall,_some_of_it_will_stick --Ronz (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.JimRenge (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Jbhunley pinged me on the Steven Hassan talkpage. I expect you remember that the last time we discussed WP:BLP discretionary sanctions it was about violations against your bio, Rick Alan Ross. It was a rather different case, and that user ended up topic banned from anything to do with you. But JBH is absolutely right that the way you've used primary sources on Talk:Steven Hassan is inappropriate. Please read WP:PRIMARY: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." My italics. I agree you stuck close to the facts, but summarizing a primary source, in regard to sensitive negative information about a living person, isn't something we can do, either. To summarize is to select; you need to refer instead to a reliable secondary source that does the summarizing. As for using copies of primary sources hosted on your own web site, it's sort of hair-raising. It would be a good idea for you not to edit Steve Hassan at all IMO, since you clearly have a strong personal angle there — positive or negative — why else would you be hosting such material on your site? That's my opinion, and just advice, of course. Please be careful with the primary sources. Bishonen | talk 22:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
- The court documents produced by the Massachusetts licensing board reflect historical facts. That is, Steve Hassan was prosecuted for unethical professional conduct and admonished for his behavior by his licensing board. There is nothing to interpret. But the bio does not include these historical facts. Also a quote from a book that contains criticism about Hassan's methodology published by W. W. Norton and edited by a psychologist who specifically has written papers on cultic studies for decades has been ignored. In my bio court records are quoted and cited. In my bio scholars critical of my work are cited and quoted. Why is the Steven Hassan bio at Wikipedia treated differently? I have never edited the Steven Hassan bio. Only offered suggestions based upon reliable sources at the Talk page. The court documents regarding Hassan's prosecution are online at the Cult Education Institute database. "CEI's mission is to study destructive cults, controversial groups and movements and to provide a broad range of information and services easily accessible to the public for assistance and educational purposes online through the Web." [9], That broad range of information made available online includes the unethical conduct of purported "cult leaders," their apologists and critics.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Quoted, as in your bio, is different from summarized, which I was complaining about. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
- The court documents regarding Steve Hassan are part of his professional history. The court record can be quoted and noted.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, no it can not.
"Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."
WP:BLPPRIMARY Jbh Talk 18:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)- I have not asserted anything on the Steve Hassan bio Talk page. The court record makes statements of fact not assertions.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- You have been told that what you want to include is against policy without reliable secondary sources. You have been notified about the discressionary sanctions related to living people. If you try to reintroduce the redacted material without proper sourcing you will likely be blocked or banned from this article.
Attempting to place negative information - or really involving oneself at all - in the biography of a rival is extremely bad form. Wikipedia policy does not prohibit it but it would be unwise to think that the slack shown you while dealing with issues on your own biography will be extended here. Jbh Talk 20:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- People were banned and blocked from my bio. One turned out to be a cult member. I am not an anonymous sock puppet. I have suggested well sourced relevant material be included at the Hassan biography. For example, a brief book excerpt published by W. W. Norton & Company. Very reliable source. For some reason this material has never been edited in despite the reliability of the academic source. Again, the court documents reflect history and are not assertions or summaries, the facts are self evident in the record.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- There really is nothing more that is constructive which I can contribute to this conversation. Jbh Talk 22:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Again, WP:BLPPRIMARY does not allow the use of court records or similar documents. Please see also WP:BLPCOI. JimRenge (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I made no "assertions" on the Talk page and I have never edited the BLP. The court documents simply represent the historical record that is omitted from the BLP. Also, there is a book excerpt specifically quoted about Steven Hassan published by reliable source W. W. Norton & Company. This book excerpt has been on the Talk page for months, but has been ignored. The BLP selectively omits historical facts and criticism and is not therefore either completely accurate or balanced.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Again, WP:BLPPRIMARY does not allow the use of court records or similar documents. Please see also WP:BLPCOI. JimRenge (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- There really is nothing more that is constructive which I can contribute to this conversation. Jbh Talk 22:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- People were banned and blocked from my bio. One turned out to be a cult member. I am not an anonymous sock puppet. I have suggested well sourced relevant material be included at the Hassan biography. For example, a brief book excerpt published by W. W. Norton & Company. Very reliable source. For some reason this material has never been edited in despite the reliability of the academic source. Again, the court documents reflect history and are not assertions or summaries, the facts are self evident in the record.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- You have been told that what you want to include is against policy without reliable secondary sources. You have been notified about the discressionary sanctions related to living people. If you try to reintroduce the redacted material without proper sourcing you will likely be blocked or banned from this article.
- I have not asserted anything on the Steve Hassan bio Talk page. The court record makes statements of fact not assertions.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, no it can not.
- The court documents regarding Steve Hassan are part of his professional history. The court record can be quoted and noted.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Quoted, as in your bio, is different from summarized, which I was complaining about. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC).
reverted
[edit]I reverted your edit to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines per WP:NOTAFORUM. You seem to struggle to be a useful editor. Venting your frustrations at a random talk page is not going to be tolerated. I think you would do well to quit editing Wikipedia per Wikipedia:NOTTHERAPY. Please find some other hobby. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry. That was posted here by mistake.
- I have no interest in editing at Wikipedia.
- Sadly, at times I am forced to participate because of my bio, which at times is a place for angry cult members and apologists using Wikipedia to retaliate regarding my work.
- I am restricted to the Talk page. Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Noted, but posting to random places like WT:Talk page guidelines is not useful in any way. You need to post your concerns to Talk:Rick Alan Ross, or the the talk pages of some other related article where something untoward is going on. If it seems warranted, use an
{{Edit COI}}template there. See in particular Template:Edit COI/doc § How to use. If you can prove that a policy is being violated in a way that needs immediate action (such as legally defamatory material being posted into an article), you could instead use{{Admin help}}(at the article talk page or your own talk page) to ask for administrator attention. But beware of making anything that could be interpreted as a legal threat, or you'll just get blocked (WP:No legal threats). E.g. "I believe this material "[quote here]" is defamatory" is different from "I'm going to take legal action against this defamation if it is not removed". If you want help with cultists and such writing PoV-pushing nonsense, you're going to have to be very, very clear about what exactly is wrong with what exactly one of them posted (not wrong as to your opinion, but wrong as to our content policies and/or wrong as to what is said in reliable independent sources). It's best to get familiar with the gist of our core content policies (or read the full policies in detail), and with how to create a "diff" of a specific edit so you can identify exactly which edit (and who posted it) is the problem to be addressed. Requests for help that lack sufficient information generally don't get acted upon, since we're all volunteers here and are not mind-readers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC) - PS: If you're restricted to not edit at Talk:Rick Alan Ross or even restricted to using this user-talk page only, then a
{{Edit COI}}or{{Admin help}}request posted here on this user-talk page could still work if it is clear enough. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)- Please understand that the post here was an error on my part. I thought I was on the Talk bio page. I am allowed to post on the Talk bio page, but not allowed to edit the actual bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Noted. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- Please understand that the post here was an error on my part. I thought I was on the Talk bio page. I am allowed to post on the Talk bio page, but not allowed to edit the actual bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Noted, but posting to random places like WT:Talk page guidelines is not useful in any way. You need to post your concerns to Talk:Rick Alan Ross, or the the talk pages of some other related article where something untoward is going on. If it seems warranted, use an
ANI
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
December 2023
[edit]I have blocked you from editing Steven Hassan and the talk page of this article. Your access to every other Wikipedia page is unaffected. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- My most recent suggestion there was over a well cited historical fact omitted from the bio regarding Steven Hassan's membership in the Unification Church, which was terminated before his "deprogramming" took place, per quoted statements by Hassan. That additional historical information is relevant and would be included in any serious historical account. Hopefully, you or someone editing, will do this edit.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you continue pursuing your grudge against Hassan on Wikipedia, then further sanctions will be imposed. Stop now. Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is the Hassan bio accurate? what has been left out? Are certain claims made true? That's the issue.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is an issue, and getting it right will be important, but two public figures with articles about them going after each other on the respective talk pages and misusing Wikipedia as a public forum or soapbox against each other is also a problem. (Not the first time; I can think of two professional pool players who also tried this; one of them stopped it, and the other would not and is now blocked from editing here at all. Guess who has the better-developed and more accurate bio here now.) It's an extra problem when it's just one of these figures going after the other with no input from the other in defense. To put it another way, it's important that the article be accurate, but you won't be the one to make it accurate; since you have an oppositional stance toward Hassan, we can't take your word for any of it anyway. Our editors are actually quite good at finding relevant sources, though how quickly this gets done depends largely on volunteer editorial interest (and that interest tends to go down the more there is lengthy drama at the article's talk page). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I told you to stop discussing Hassan on Wikipedia, and six minutes later, you discussed Hassan. Consider this a final warning. If you continue to harp on Hassan in any way, shape or form on Wikipedia, you will be blocked. I hope that is clear to you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I have never attempted to mislead anyone, but understand and will cease suggestions there regarding editing.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- It is an issue, and getting it right will be important, but two public figures with articles about them going after each other on the respective talk pages and misusing Wikipedia as a public forum or soapbox against each other is also a problem. (Not the first time; I can think of two professional pool players who also tried this; one of them stopped it, and the other would not and is now blocked from editing here at all. Guess who has the better-developed and more accurate bio here now.) It's an extra problem when it's just one of these figures going after the other with no input from the other in defense. To put it another way, it's important that the article be accurate, but you won't be the one to make it accurate; since you have an oppositional stance toward Hassan, we can't take your word for any of it anyway. Our editors are actually quite good at finding relevant sources, though how quickly this gets done depends largely on volunteer editorial interest (and that interest tends to go down the more there is lengthy drama at the article's talk page). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Is the Hassan bio accurate? what has been left out? Are certain claims made true? That's the issue.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you continue pursuing your grudge against Hassan on Wikipedia, then further sanctions will be imposed. Stop now. Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)