User talk:Dirkmavs

Prestonwood Baptist Church

Please help me keep an eye out for WP:BLP issues on Prestonwood Baptist Church. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Graham (pastor)

Dirkmavs, per your request (00:00, 30 June 2008) I have added this to my watchlist, and I will observe changes to this page. Just from a perusal of past changes, it appears that the issue of support (or lack thereof) of 5-point Calvinism and/or hyper-Calvinism (which are commonly conflated) has been coatracked onto his page, and probably given undue weight, particularly since (from the text quoted) he uses the word 'hyper' and seems to be specifically targeting hyper-Calvinism. After some Googling, apart from some Calvinist/hyper-Calvinist blogs decrying his comments, it does not appear that his position on Calvinism is all that notable, and I'm not sure why it's even important to include in an article about him. Otherwise, we might as well go tagging folks as "not a Mormon", "not a female", etc. - what someone is not, particularly when it is not a significant deviation from the majority, is typically not notable.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct - it seems that one user in particular has an axe to grind re: any criticism against Calvinism. I have reverted the most recent change (a categorization) and tried to reword the section on Graham which was giving an undue amount of space to something that isn't key to his notability.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protectivism of Prestonwood Baptist and Jack Graham

It appears to me—based on your reversion of my additions and your previous activity on these two articles—that you are protecting Prestonwood Baptist and Jack Graham from edits that you yourself think paint both in a bad light. Please provide a detailed explanation for your reversion of my edits. Yayfrogs (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question I removed your edits because they were not factual and extremely one-sided. They gave no mention of Prestonwood denying these allegations repeatedly for a dozen or more years and this topic is 30+ years old and has been debated for years Dirkmavs (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dirkmavs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False Accusasations led to partial block. Dirkmavs (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per EdJohnston below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi can someone please review my account and help undo a partial block that I just found out was unfairly placed on me a couple weeks ago? I had never heard the term but was falsely accused of being a "sock puppet" and upon looking up this term it is 100% untrue. I also wanted to clarify that I do not have any conflicts of interest. Any help would be much appreciated. Dirkmavs (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relationship to User:Prestonwood and User:Johnb316? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relationship to those or any other accounts. Dirkmavs (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain, then, how this account and those two are editing on the same IP, within minutes of each other, and all editing the same articles in the same way? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question asked above by Yayfrogs on June 3, 2022. Are you here for any other purpose than reputation management for this church and its pastor? Cullen328 (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to answer that now. And to answer your question I'm not in the reputation management business for anyone Dirkmavs (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a detailed response in any way, shape or form to the question posed in June. Your entire editing history for 16 years seems to be devoted to making this church and its pastor look good. A successful unblock request will address the concerns with your edits fully and frankly. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I answered the original question from June by Yayfrogs above directly under the question a few minutes ago. Dirkmavs (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly will not unblock you if all you are willing to do is give perfunctory, evasive replies. You clearly have some sort of Conflict of interest that you are unwilling to discuss. I will leave your unblock request open, and perhaps another administrator will consider it. Cullen328 (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand i'm not trying to be evasive at all i'm trying to be very clear and have answered everything asked of me and I am no Wikipedia expert here by any means. I believe Yayfrogs made edits regarding an alleged incident from 1989 that were unfair, one-sided, factually incorrect, and gave undue weight to a 30+ year old story that has been covered on the talk page for more than a decade. And I also responded to the allegations that i'm connected to other users or have a conflict and directly answered "no" to both of those questions. Dirkmavs (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting frustrating for me but I will try one more time and then depart this conversation unless you give me a full and frank answer. Read WP:COI. Read it three or four times until you understand it thoroughly. Every one of your edits to this encyclopedia have been to try to make this church and its pastor look better. Also read WP:NPOV and add that core content policy to your answer. So, either make a full, frank and complete disclosure of your conflict of interest, with much more detail than you have been willing to offer so far, or I intend to recommend to other administrators that your unblock request be denied. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I await your ping. I'll be going to bed soon, but will watch this page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I think we need a complete answer to my question, and also to the very cogent question that Jpgordon asked above. I am increasingly concerned about the possibility of overt deception instead of misunderstanding and inexperience. Get a good night's sleep. Cullen328 (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the crux of the matter. All the content and sourcing issues are content and sourcing issues. And for something like this, it should be very good sourcing indeed. That's not the reason for the block. It is the glaringly obvious to a neutral observer connection between the two editors and the seeming connection with the subjects this editor has made the sole focus of their activity on Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend declining the unblock of Dirkmavs (talk · contribs). It is claimed that the church failed to report molestation by church staffers to proper authorities, and to do nothing to prevent transfer of the offenders to other churches. One of our articles links to this 2022 report commissioned by the Southern Baptist Convention itself but actually prepared by an outside firm, Guidepost Solutions LLC. With sourcing like this, it is hardly useful for Dirkmavs (talk · contribs) to claim that the church "den[ied] these allegations repeatedly for a dozen or more years", as though their denials ought to decide the matter. The church's response is not enough reason for Wikipedia to exclude these claims, even if the events reported go as far back as the 80s. Good-quality reporting on what really happened seems to be only now emerging. The firm who wrote the report, Guidepost Solutions, says "convicted molesters continued in ministry with no notice or warning to their current church or congregation". Now the Southern Baptist Convention certainly gets credit for investigating themselves properly, but the events reported are harrowing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is very telling, and thank you for pointing it out, EdJohnston. Cullen328 (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

I'll leave you the message I leave those with conflicts of interest, especially in an area as contentious as this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Editing on your own or someone else's behalf

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help for more information.

Wikipedia's policy on how to handle material about living persons, biographies of living persons, applies to every page on the project, including talk pages. If Wikipedia has published material about you, or someone you represent, and you need help, you can:

post a correction on the article's talk page and ask that it be implemented;
ask for assistance at the biographies of living persons noticeboard;
place {{adminhelp}} on your user talk page, which will attract an administrator;
contact the Wikimedia Foundation's team of volunteers at info-en-q@wikimedia.org, with a link to the page and details of the problem.

"All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."

Please discuss content and sourcing on article talk page and achieve consensus for any changes Please make WP:EDITREQUESTs on the article's talk page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 16:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]