Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive871

I am very sad to report that

1. In 2009, the community discussed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Away team. The result was "No Consensus (default Keep)". In that discussion, one editor, User:EEMIV, voted delete.[3]
2. An hour after the AfD closed as keep, User:Untick correctly disambiguated the title and moved "Away team" to "Away team (Star Trek)", which is where the title should appropriately reside.[4]
3. Eight hours later, EEMIV unilaterally moved the article back to "Away team". This showed very poor judgment on EEMIV's part, as there was already an Away team (disambiguation) page, and his move made the article a primary topic when it never was to begin with. Although his incorrect move should have been reverted, it never was.[5]
4. Fast forward to 2011. EEMIV once again acts unilaterally, this time to redirect the entire article to Star Trek: Away Team.[6] There is no evidence that the video game is the primary topic. In fact, quite the opposite.
5. This blatant, glaring error remained until 2013, when Miyagawa figured out there was a problem and attempted to redirect the primary to the dab page.[7]
6. Instead of helping to fix the problem listed above, JHunterJ stepped in and reverted back to the incorrect target, claiming the guideline as his enforcement mechanism.[8] As you can see from the above, this is manifestly false.
7. A requested move discussion was started in January 2015. While ongoing, the results are a snow move, because most reasonable people recognize the problem.[9]
8. Unfortunately, JHunterJ is not one of those reasonable people, as he continues to repeatedly add the incorrect target and enforce EEMIV's previous, erroneous unilateral action.[10][11]
9. JHunterJ then uses his admin tools to enforce an incorrect redirect and move against any kind of community consensus or evidence supporting
   WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
   . His page history deletions removed the original page history and split it into two different articles, making more work for other admins to fix.

   15:08 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(housekeeping)

   15:08 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) restored page Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(7 revisions restored: article history)

   15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Away team (Star Trek term) to Talk:Away team over redirect ‎(rv move)

   15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Away team ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move)

   15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) moved page Away team (Star Trek term) to Away team ‎(rv move)

   15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) restored page Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(82 revisions restored: redirect history)

   15:06 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(temp delete to split history)

10. When asked on his talk page why he continues to do this, he cannot give an actual answer. When he is informed that there is zero evidence supporting his actions, he claims that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy and the rules must be followed. When he is pointed to
    WP:NOTBUREAU, he ignores it.[12]

In short, JHunterJ used his admin tools in a dispute about a disambiguation page to enforce the single, solitary view of one editor who made the sole dissenting delete in a discussion that the community closed as keep. Several editors attempted to remedy the problem over the years, only to be reverted. JHunterJ has made the problem worse by using his admin tools. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The "single, solitary view" stood for over two years. Actual answers have been provided. All that Viriditas need do now, now that they have finally opened the RM, is wait for it to finish. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism can stay in an article for two years. Should we leave it there because of that? The RM is a snow; there is nothing to wait for here, just like there is no reason to wait to remove incorrect info from an article. Your recent use of the admin tools up above split the page histories into two articles. What would motivate you to make this problem worse than it already is, and why can't you fix the problem that the community already recognizes? Finally, why would you repeatedly restore an erroneous primary topic target to a dab page without the slightest bit of evidence supporting it?[13][14][15] Clearly, the outcome of the move discussion has no bearing on your edits here, so please explain your actions. I've asked you this over and over again for several days, with no answer. Why do you continue to restore an erroneous link to a primary topic? Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're using that argument again? Blackmane (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't call good-faith edits vandalism. I was not the first editor to point out the RM path. Now that you're on it, there's nothing to do but wait, since no one has yet closed it as a snow. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has called good-faith edits vandalism. You keep appealing to ignoratio elenchi and refusing to answer a direct question. Again, why do you continue to restore an erroneous link to a primary topic? Your answer will of course, have no relevance to either 1) the length of time something remained inaccurate, or 2) the status of a requested move discussion. Regardless of the snowy outcome of the RM, the problem has been explained to you many times. Even before the RM, you reverted other users who attempted to fix it. You keep trying to play the bureaucracy card to protect the opinion of one user against community consensus. To make matters worse, you used your admin tools to separate the page history of the target, compounding the problem. You are not helping to fix the problem, you are making it worse. Can you explain your actions? Please don't point to the outcome of the RM discussion, as it has no relevance here, and please don't point to the actions of other users who made the same mistake as you. Why did you repeatedly restore a redirect to an article about a video game when 1) there is no support for such a primary topic redirect, and 2) the community disagrees with this redirect. Surely, you must have a good reason for making these edits? Since you can't point to a community consensus or PRIMARYTOPIC support, what is your reason? Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Good-faith edit that you called spam. My answers, of course, reflect my weariness at your assumptions of bad faith and lengths to which you will go to accomplish, what, exactly? You've ignored or waved away all direct answers, but let's revisit the main:

WP:MALPLACED. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 22:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You have never answered a single question about why you created a redirect to an article that is not the primary topic. You never provided an answer as to why your actions went against community consensus and against the PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines. You never answered why you disrupted Wikipedia by splitting the page histories, so that now the original page histories are fragmented. You never answered the question as to why you think bureaucratic processes supersede immediate action to correct inaccuracies, per the cited policy. In short, you have never answered a single question about your bad behavior. This is precisely why I am requesting administrative intervention. You are editing with impunity, against community consensus, against the first and fifth pillars enshrined as policy, and against the best interests of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably because I didn't create the redirect. But I've told you that before. Since I haven't engaged in any bad behavior, you are correct in that I haven't attempted to explain any bad behavior. No edits against consensus have been made by me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't quite figure out what it is you are trying to say. As you have already been informed in this thread, we know who created the redirect, and they have backed away from it, admitting that it was likely erroneous on their part. Why would you repeatedly revert to restore the original version of a dab page? And why would you add the Star Trek video game as the primary topic when there's never been any reason to do so? I'm sorry, but your edits simply make no sense. You prevent other editors from fixing a problem but then claim you weren't responsible for the problem. Do you see how crazy that sounds? Let me make this very clear: There has never been any need for a move request nor for any administrative action. Anyone can change the redirect to the correct target, remove the erroneous primary topic from the dab page, and then request a simple housekeeping move to fix the titles on the backend. In this particular instance, the user experience is preserved, even if the title of the dab page is incorrect. NOTBUREAU is the reason why policy does not trump improving the encyclopedia. Contrary to that policy, you have argued that we should keep erroneous redirects, targets, and dab pages until special procedures take place, and hinder the user experience on the frontend. That's not how Wikipedia works. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Block request

The original editor who created the redirect that JHunterJ continues to restore has admitted that there is no rationale for its continued existence.[16] Therefore, I would like to request a block on JHunterJ to prevent continued disruption, as every attempt to fix this error has been reverted, and he has recently used his admin tools to split the page histories, making the problem worse. When asked, JHunterJ cannot provide a rationale for his edits, and can only point to the actions of the original editor, an editor who has now admitted that there is no rationale. While one could certainly argue that JHunterJ is incompetent, I think we're dealing with a strong bout of

Your IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses to the reasons repeatedly given don't amount to my IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It is not my fault you disagree with

WP:D when including entries that don't link to articles at all. This block request is silly. If a block is needed, you should be blocked for repeated failing to file the RM and failing to wait for its conclusion. I have spent more time than necessary cleaning up your mistakes here and educating you about those guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 12:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I most certainly filed the request for move, but that has nothing to do with the substance of this report, namely 1) Away team (disambiguation) still lists "Star Trek: Away Team" as the primary topic, and "Away team" still redirects to "Star Trek: Away Team" contrary to PRIMARYTOPIC. When asked why this is, you have never addressed or responded to the question. When I and others have tried to fix it, you have reverted it. Now, why would you add "Star Trek: Away Team" as a primary topic when it's placement was never based on any policy or guideline to begin with? That's pretty strange behavior. And the fact that the original editor who created it has admitted there's no rationale for it should give you a big clue. So, you've disrupted the efforts to fix this problem all along. And 2) you fragmented the page history of the original article on the subject of the "Away team" so that it now exists in two different locations. Why would you do this? Please answer those questions. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

JHunterJ has not only met, but far exceeded the requirements of

Your assessment is deeply wrong. The diffs up above show that JHunterJ advocated implementing, with multiple reverts, an erroneous redirect and disambiguation page that isn't supported by PRIMARYTOPIC or even by the original editor who created the redirect! Other editors tried to fix this problem and they were reverted. Recently, for two days, I also tried to fix this problem, only to be reverted by JHunterJ for no reason. Your recent comments in this dab discussion indicate that you don't understand what is being discussed here. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "fix the problem" when you mean "create a

WP:MALPLACED", and "I tried to fix the problem" when you mean "I kept trying to skip the fix, but I finally opened the RM, but have been too impatient to wait for it to finish." -- JHunterJ (talk

) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's your misunderstanding. The outcome of the requested move discussion is independent of the status of the primary topic. It's currently a video game for no reason, and the person who created that original target has said that they had no rationale and supports a correction. Instead of allowing for this correction, you continued to point to the video game, again, for no reason. This fact exists independently of the move discussion, which has nothing to do with the video game. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is yours. The article reached by the base name is the primary topic on Wikipedia. Instead of following the repeatedly-given guidance to use

WP:MALPLACED, you continued to insist that guidelines you disagree with are merely bureaucracy. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 03:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:
  WP:MALPLACED prohibits pointing a bare "Foo" title to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title because such redirects give the false impression that "(disambiguation)" is required because the "Foo" title is occupied (presumably by a primary topic). If an editor believes that the "Foo" us ambiguous, then the proper course of action is to request that "Foo (disambiguation)" be moved to "Foo". This also prevents an unexpected spike in the number of incoming disambiguation links, as steps can be taken to tidy these as the discussion progresses. An action that prevents a "Foo" title from redirecting to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title is correct. bd2412 T
  20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, but that's not the subject of this dispute. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  The dispute arose because you insisted on it instead of agreeing when I fixed your

  WP:MALPLACED mistake. -- JHunterJ (talk

  ) 03:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Viriditas: No offence intended, and just a passing observation. I've noticed that you seem to be involved in a fair few number of high-drama threads in the last couple days. On first blush, many of your posts are coming across as a bit confrontational and argumentative. I'm hesitant to start linking to boomerang essays, but perhaps returning to article work for a bit would be the best recommendation I could offer. Just a thought you may want to consider. — Ched :  ?  00:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• This thread was started because JHunterJ was interfering with content work related to a dab page. BD2412's explanation up above covers one part of the technical reasons for this interference, but doesn't address why "Star Trek: Away Team" is still listed as a the primary topic on the dab page, nor why "Away team" still redirects to it. There has never been any evidence that the video game was the correct target. None. And there has never been any forthcoming evidence that it was the correct target. To drive the point further home, the editor who created this original redirect has backed away from it, and admits that there is no good rationale for it. More recently, there is a snow reqmove discussion supporting this position. JHunterJ's continued insistence that this link be listed on the dab page, that the redirect point to the video game, and that we must wait for a procedural close of some kind to change any one of these things, is not supported by policy. Most important of all, no policy or guideline was ever used to establish this primarytopic. That's a really important point, and it's the one JHunterJ continued to avoid addressing. He's implementing a solution that nobody actually supports. This is a blatant violation of
  WP:NOTBUREAU. Finally, he split up two page histories for no good reason, fragmenting the history of the creation of the original article. This is bureaucracy in its worst form. Viriditas (talk
  ) 01:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This concerns editor Ubikwit. On the page Soka Gakkai. The Soka Gakkai is a lay religion based on the Buddhist teachings of a 13th century monk. It was originally aligned with – though a separate entity from – a clerical sect called Nichiren Shoshu. The latter excommunicated the Soka Gakkai in 1991, and there has been no connection since.

At issue, currently, is the content of placement of the “Beliefs and Practices” section of the entry. The administrator, Shii, along with 4 other editors (plus myself) agree, at least to some extent, that there is sufficient scholarship supporting the independence of Soka Gakkai belief; and that, as a consequence, it’s “Beliefs and Practices” subsection can precede the “History” subsection, in which its former relationship with Nichiren Shoshu is covered.

This would be consistent with Wikipedia’s treatment of other newer religions.

Editor Ubikwit reverts every attempt to change the content of the positioning of this subsection. He does do with nodiscussion of the issues[page], and has been asked numerous times by various editors to refrain from doing so – to no avail. The last time he reverted with no discussion (January 18th) I undid his revert and asked him point blank on the Talk page to discuss before he reverted again. He did not discuss, but once again reverted and left me a "warning" on my Talk page.

He is accusing me of advocacy, but the Advocacy guidelines indicate that advocacy can mean hoping to portray something in either a positive or negative light. The Soka Gakkai entry was, at one time, heavily negative. What I (and some other editors) have tried to do is achieve balance, using acceptable and credible academic sources. The information that reflects negatively remains, but positive information has been added. Ubikwit seems to be of the opinion that negativity is "neutral" while positivity is "advocacy". However, the administrator has expressed satisfaction with the changes that have been made in recent months. I have tried to discuss this with Ubikwit, but have received no response, other than his insistence that my sources are being self-promotional.

The current discussion of this on the Talk Page is in the subsection “Citation Has Gone Missing”. An earlier discussion of the same topic is still active in the subsection “Another major reversion”. In the Archives (18), here, there are two subsections on the issue: [and Practices First]”, in which, btw, the administrator states “We already had a discussion about this and I believe Ubikwit is in the minority. There is no clear format among religion articles, for example, Bahá'í Faith and Christian Science have beliefs sections first, while Scientology has it otherwise. In the SG article there is a good argument that SG beliefs are unfamiliar enough that they can be explained first and may help provide context for the History section. Shii (tock) 19:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC”. But it had to be addressed again in the sub [of Subsections]: started by still another editor.

It was also addressed here (17) in [and Practices Again]”; here (16) in “[Stab At Beliefs and Practices]”. And [[21]] (15), I think, is the first attempt, on August 26th. You will see in all that discussion very little of Ubikwit, and many mentions of his un-discussed reversions.

We have a consensus among a vast majority of active editors. We have sources that support what I am trying to do. We have made arguments for the changes, and there have been no academic arguments made against the changes. Yet Ubukwit keeps reverting the changes. He ignores others’ comments, and he doesn’t seem to care about what the consensus is. He just keeps reverting, over and over, with no regard for what research has been done, what other editors say, what arguments are made on the Talk page.

What can we do to ensure the best Soka Gakkai page we can? Can we stop this disruptive editing?

Here [[22]] are the changes I made, starting with "Soka Gakkai believes..." Here [[23]] is the current entry after Ubikwit's latest reversion - nearly half way down the entry.

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What is a "lay religion"? Is that not a contradiction? BMK (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Close, but not always. In this case it more or less means that the group was founded in a schism from the ordained priesthood, and that none of the members are necessarily priests or clerics. John Carter (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Learn something new every day. BMK (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hokkeko. There is no such thing as a "lay religion", only lay groups associated with an established religion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑}

00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a huge mess that will not see resolution and I doubt any of the overworked admins here want to step in. If anyone wants to understand what the problem is, I left a message at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Dorje_Shugden_controversy about why these kinds of articles are likely to decrease in quality over time owing to a lapse in academic standards. I won't be repeating that here.

Ubikwit and I, the two long-term editors involved with this page, are basically no longer engaging with the large-scale rewrite by SPIs that uses academic but incomplete sources. Indeed, I don't think there is anything we can do about this article within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Ubikwit has simply resorted first and foremost to revert warring, and I have basically absented myself from editing. RIP Wikipedia Shii (tock) 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is bit of a joke to accuse Ubikwit of disruptive editing. I do engage on the talk page just like on the Ikeda page … I do no large edits unless SGIists go ab bit too far. I said often enough that on the quality scale the article is deteriorating big times. The sock puppet issue does need to get tackled. As soon as debates and controversies get heated some editors vanish and a new one appears out of the blue. Strange indeed. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I would refer to reverting the attempts to restructure the article in a wholesale manner so as to promote the SG to Wikipedia refers as "revert warring", but I have reverted such attempts, twice now, to preserve NPOV, etc. It should be noted that there was a discussion after the first attempt, but then Daveler attempted to go against consensus and try to restructure the article in exactly the same manner, and subsequently reverted my restoration of the consensus status quo.

There are a number of advocates operating on the article, attempting to promote SG in an outreach manner, appropriating Wikipedia to that end. I would be in agreement that there is sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on, but like Catflap, the amount of time I have to devote to this article is very limited.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the problem continue, I really think that this case, and the other one Shii mentioned, and maybe a few others could all be presented to ArbCom for if nothing else discretionary sanctions. The biggest problem areas we have, at least to my mind, are, pseudoscience, new religious movements (broadly construed), and modern scientific or minority scientific views of early history and religion. John Carter (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No doubt. I wouldn't mind seeing a boomerang for the preemptive strike Daveler16 has attempted here, though. The statements he makes above about consensus, for example, are diametrically opposed to the facts. Not only is he pretending

not to hear

, he is misrepresenting the state of affairs in an attempt to unduly influence the content dispute.

In my opinion, he should have been topic banned long ago.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to more clearly propose sanctions in a subsection below, maybe particularly indicating the specific nature of sanctions proposed and the reasons for them, such a proposal may get enough input to generate some sort of positive results. Personally, I have to agree that some sort of boomerang is possibly called for here, but am not myself sure just what terms should be applied. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the major problem with this group of SPIs is that they are adding large amounts of reliably sourced (by strict WP standards, although lacking in a bigger NPOV perspective) material that supports their bias, which has led to an overly long, messy, and barely coherent article. The material is not bad per se and they are not generally removing critical material, as an earlier, far worse editor did. Nothing they have done merits a topic ban or block, although this continues to be a contentious discussion with too much reverting. Shii (tock) 15:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be excusing the blatant attempts to convert the article into a promotional pitch for the Soka Gakkai that the "group of SPIs", as you call them, are engaged in. I certainly hope that you are not referring to my reverts of the multiple attempts to place the "Beliefs and Practices" section before the "History" section.

Moreover, there have been continual attempts at obfuscation and deletion of critical material over the past several months, including the reference to "brainwashing", for example. To counter that I had to order two out-of-print books in Japanese online and post text from them. And it currently appears that a similar effort may be underway at the Daisaku Ikeda page about the Ogasawara incident ("Raccoon dog" priest incident), which Catflap informed me of. I posted Japanese text related to that under the relevant Talk page discussion, because there appear to be sourcing issues, though I don't have time to go through that material in detail.

Who knows where all of these SPIS SPAs come from, but they certainly have much more free time than I do, and there appear to be multiple distinct groups of SPIS SPAs covering different but related articles, such as those on the Soka Gakkai article and those on the Ikeda Daisaku article. Who has time to investigate such ongoings? Apparently that is not something that admins are tasked with, and regular editors like myself and Catflap do not have the time to engage such a large "group of SPIS SPAs".

It is clear that Daveler16 and Brandeburg have been continually engaged in advocacy, and in some cases going against consensus; here, accusing me of violating consensus is an underhanded tactic that I would think should amount to some sort of violation. It was totally retaliatory after I left a warning about

WP:ADVOCACY

on his Talk page. It's a false accusation about my conduct made with the intention of getting the upper hand in a content dispute, which they have lost (i.e., consensus is against them) and refuse to acknowledge. They haven't started any RFCs, etc., and are simply trying to game the system.

For any uninvolved admins looking at this, here, for example, is a list of five freshly minted SPIs working on one of the articles at issue, since December

Elemential1

Basicallyyes

Findemnow

TokyoSunrise

LovLove

Daveler16 along with BradenburgG are the two main SPIS SPAs working on the Soka Gakkai article, while BrandenburgG has been editing the Daisaku Ikeda article as well, but has made 90% of the edits on the Soka Gakkai article since December. Daveler16 recently attempted to carry out a major refactoring of the article against consensus by slipping it among the recent flurry of incremental edits by BrandenburgG. That had been reverted before and discussed, and consensus was clearly not for such a refactoring.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I continue to hold that these SPIs [edit: SPAs...] are acting in good faith and simply don't realize that they the article that results from their efforts is an imbalanced and essentially biased one. If I were being paid hourly to edit Wikipedia I would happily engage with them and formulate a new policy in order to get this article under control. But we do it for free... Shii (tock) 17:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Shii may well be right. The reason I mentioned pseudoscience, new religious movements, and modern politics and economics as being among our most problematic areas is that those seem to be areas where

WP:TRUTH, in one sort or other, most often arises. People who are, sometimes for good reason, very, very interested in something in which they have very strong beliefs, of whichever sort, and want to tell the world about how wonderful it is, are among the most frequent newer editors at such topics, and, in those cases where they have read everything published by (for instance) SGI but nothing from any independent sources, they also tend to think that they are among the most and best informed on the topic. Convincing them to the contrary is often extremely difficult, if not impossible in some cases. John Carter (talk

) 17:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

While I don't doubt that those areas are problematic for the reasons mentioned, there are policies, and some of those have been referred to repeatedly.
That is partly why, unlike Shii, I don't see all of the editing at issue as being done in good faith.
This issue started way back in early October, and much discussion had taken place before the most recent repeat of major refactoring and subsequent revert, which was a replay of October. The following is a collection of some of the representative moments and comments pertaining to the content dispute and conduct, starting with October.
Way back in October, Daveler16 revealed a plan
My comment in response
Followed by Shii
first reversion of BOLD major refactoring of article (moving Beliefs & Practices to top) without consensus
1st Talk page discussion following BOLD edit and revert
relevant comment by John Carter
followed by WP:OR comment by Daveler16 revealing his overall disposition
Daveler16 removes RS-sourced material, replaces it with POV promotional text
Daveler16 misrepresents source in trying to decontextualize Beliefs & Practices section
Discussed here on talk page Daveler16 failed to address misrepresentation
Then he leads one to believe that he didn’t read the edit summary in which I state the page number, even after I challenge him on the evasion
from “Another major reversion” Talk page section, all of which should be read
BrandenburgG makes a comment providing historical context to refute me
I reply
Finally, this section “Big Problem?” should also be read
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with some of the statements above. I believe Daveler's description and complaint are 100% valid. I don't think Ubikwit and Catflap recognize the extent that their personal lenses affect their contributions.

Let me get personal here because I've been mentioned several times. I consider myself a new editor to WP, about a half year. I am being accused of being a SPI or a SPA and frankly I don't know what they mean.

I've been working hard on this article and I believe I deserve some credit for my time and efforts. I consider myself to be sincere, hard-working, reasonable and honest. I recognize my biases and faults. I believe some of the descriptions of my work above are mean and discouraging.

However, my motivation for working so adamantly is traced to when I came across the SG article. Frankly speaking, as a SG member I was horrified. It was not NPOV by any means!

• For example, the accusations that the SGI was a cult appeared 4 times in a single article, starting from the opening paragraphs. This is quite horrific especially when the entire scholarship about cults has discredited the notion that there is any such thing as a cult.
• People like Toda and Ikeda were treated in ways that ignored their contributions and grossly exaggerated their faults.
• The beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai were explained in ways that were unrecognizable to SG members.
• Scholarship from the 1960s and 1970s was predominating and used to describe the current organization; recent and emerging scholarship was being ignored.

As was mentioned above, I have added sources and have not deleted anything to the best of my knowledge. I believe the sources I have used are excellent and complete. Where I have used scholarship improperly please notify me and I will immediately apologize and edit.

I do agree with the above editors on two points:

1. I admit to working too fast and furious. This was only pointed out to me by Catflap a couple of days ago. I recognize her point here and understand that such a pace makes it hard for others to critique and I apologize. I must tell you that my wife fully agrees with Catflap on this point.
2. I agree that the article is too long and has many stylistic issues.

The solution that I would like to propose is drawn from conflict resolution techniques. I recommend that two and only two editors work on condensing the article and making sure the resulting article is balanced. This work could take place on someone's Sandbox. The two editors should represent different points of perspective to assure balance. BrandenburgG (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no "blatant attempt to convert the article nto a promotional pitch for the SGI". For a very long time, the article was little more than a hatchet job on the SG, with nearly every other paragraph containing phrases like "brain washing cult" and "fascist" and "cult of personality" In fact, this is an international, widely respected movement(with critics, yes, which no one is denying) that has established educational institutions in various countries, has partnered with the U.N, the Simon Wiesenthal Museum, Morehouse College, and others, on various projects. None of that would be possible were the SG as sinister as Wikipedia formerly made it out to be. The SG's honorary president has carried out dialogues with Arnold Toynbee, Rene Huyghe, Aurelio Peccei, Linus Pauling and others - people who are not easily duped or brainwashed. To introduce balance - reflecting that, perhaps, some writers have perceived the movement as positive is not "self-promotion" or "advocacy".

Likewise, until a few months ago the Beliefs and Practices of the SG were depicted solely in terms of how they relate to other secyts of Buddhism - especially Nichiren Shoshu. Just a little research found that the SG has beliefs are separate from Nichiren Shoshu's, and always have been, and that these separate and original beliefs are what motivates its practices. There is no reason whatsoever that the B&P section should begin "Until the 1991 split with the Nichiren Shōshū, Sōka Gakkai existed within the Shōshū framework...", especially since about a fifth of bthe "History" subsection is taken up with the former association - and it's constant history of disagreements.

"Advocacy", remember, can also be negative, and that is what seems to be going on here. There seems to be a faction that wants to ensure that the overall impression of the Soka Gakkai gleaned from Wikipedia is that it's sinister in tactics annd derivative in doctrine, and that's why reverts continue in the face of scholarship and consensus.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, this is a content issue rather than a conduct issue, but one of the odd things about this case is that any sect claiming to be the "true Buddhism" ideally should be "derivative in doctrine". Soka Gakkai, in contrast, has a large number of interesting new doctrines aimed towards turning lay believers into practitioners. Hence the confusing term, "lay religion". Shii (tock) 02:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I will like to agree on what you said and this falls on cultural and education movement of Soka Gakkai. I will like to provide my view on this moement.

If Soka Gakkai is an "brain washing cult", "fascist" or "cult of personality" organisation, why did Singapore and Malaysia approve SOka Gakkai to establish the school in the country.

Please bear in mind that Singapore had one of the most restrictive law when it come to human right. They have managed to ban many extremist organisation as well as terroist in their countries. Among them are

ISIS. How come Soka Gakkai was not charged under Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act

for being "brain washing cult", "fascist" or "cult of personality" in Singapore. Instead why did the Singapore government every year keep inviting SGI to participate in the National Day Parade performances.

There is a reason why there are too many citation in Soka Gakkai as well as Daisaku Ikeda. It is because there are some editors who like to reverts all the contribution which do not have any reliable source at all. One of them is Scandiescot (talk · contribs).

There is one more editor who also refute Catflap and Ubikwit quite a lot of time previously and the person is Margin1522 (talk · contribs). Kelvintjy (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Might also point out that Ubukwit has participated more here in 2 dayys than he has for a month on the relevant Talk page. Catflap earlier mentioned Ubikwit on the NPOV Noticeboard, and this was one of the replied: "Looking at the article, I am seeing a considerable amount of verified content being deleted and then restored (1, 2), as well as a good bit of discussion on the talk page. Questions about sources should be taken to WP:RSN. I only see one comment on the talk page by the above editor, but many comments by User:Daveler16; this causes me some concern.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)"/ That's [[24]], btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs)

Since my name has been mentioned, maybe I could give my perspective. I arrived at the article by chance, answering a request to fix an

AGRL on the talk page. I was rather shocked by article, which struck me as a blatantly POV attack page. Readers were complaining. After fixing the AGRL, I made one edit trying restore some balance to the description of the organization’s founder. It was immediately reverted (diff

), which was one indication of where the problems were coming from.

As background, this is an organization with many political and religious enemies in Japan, especially on the extreme right-wing fringe. There is an anti-Soka Gakkai industry with its home in the tabloid press – about as far as you can get from reliable sources. To the extent that the article uses those sources, it’s going to be biased and not up to WP standards. For a while, while I was contributing to the article, my main focus was trying to get rid of the worst of those sources, by explaining on the talk page how bad they are and replacing them with better ones. It was like pulling teeth. Once, in the only time that I have ever resorted to dispute resolution, I asked for a third opinion. The decision (here) was to remove the source. Since then the source has been restored, as if the 3O had never happened, and we are back to where we started. But I’ve left it as it is and haven’t pursued it further, because I think there are bigger problems.

The biggest, IMO, has been edit warring and reversions. Especially by Ubikwit, who must have dozens of reversions in his edit history, usually with nothing more than a curt edit summary. However, it’s better than it was. I’ve spent a lot of time arguing on the talk page that all editors should be allowed to contribute, and in fact all participants are now able to contribute. I don’t support any kind of ban on Ubikwit. He has shown many times that he will accept edits and suggestions as long as the sources are good enough.

Nor do I support any kind of boomerang against Daveler16. Thanks to his contributions, the article is far better balanced than it used to be, and complaints are down. The point of this discussion is whether the section that he contributes to should come first in the article. He’s argued for that many times on the Talk page, and tried to execute it, and been reverted every time. My own opinion is that I’m not against it, although it would require a major rewrite of the article. IMO this kind of major restructuring needs consensus on the Talk page, which may never come. So my advice is to just accept that and concentrate on making the "Beliefs and practices" section as good as it can be. There are many other associated articles and no lack of work that needs to be done.

As for the content, I agree with Shii that the article is getting very long. Although the contributions from the new editors are welcome, I'd like to ask them to realize that they may not all survive, as is, in some future version that will fairly represent all of the many points of view that exist about this organization. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This ANI filing seems a bit like a content dispute. And would people please for heaven's sake wikilink the wiki acronym
  WP:UNDUE weight placed upon the criticisms. I do find it a bit odd that the word "cult" is in the lede three times, which seems a bit prejudicial. Also, I think the article needs to differentiate better between SG in Japan and SG outside of Japan. Right now it doesn't do that well, and most of the criticism stuff seems to be about SG in Japan, which to my mind shouldn't be conflated with SG in the rest of the world. Softlavender (talk
  ) 06:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is probably the case that most of the material in English relates to SGI, not SG. Breaking the present article down into two separate articles might be something to consider.

The word "cult" appears three times for sound reasons. The first mention documents that is a frequently found attribution; the second is a recent attempt to describe the group in related terms and deny the attribution (included per NPOV at the insistence of pro-SG editors); and the third relates to the role of Ikeda as a charismatic leader of the group(s). I don't see anything prejudicial there.

The article is not "mind-numbingly long" because Nichiren is the largest religion in Japan (a spurious claim), it is too long because it has been bloated with fluff that has been inserted in a manner such as to obfuscate central points and subvert the encyclopedic quality of the article for the promotional purposes.

Here is a concrete example of recently added text that could easily be removed from the article, and has a promotional bend.

Ikeda promoted the Soka Gakkai as an institution promoting culture through his own personal initiatives, the Min-on Concert Association, and massive cultural performances. The emphasis on participatory culture underlies the idea that by improving oneself, one also improves the world.[118][119] In 1971 Ikeda began publishing his poems including an ode to mothers entitled "Mother," the nature-themed "Pampas Grass," and "The People," a Whitmanesque tribute to the common person.[120] Many of these poems were included in a 1978 volume translated by Burton Watson.[121] His essays and addresses moved from doctrine to contemporary themes and using Western references.[122][123][124] in the 1970's Ikeda claims he took up the hobby of photography.[125]

Clearly, a single sentence would be more than is merited by the material as part of a "History" section, and the entire section could be retitled "Buddhism Humanism", but there seems to insufficient RS material on that, as the pro-SG editors have been challenged on the Talk page to produce it in the past when trying to assert that "Buddhism Humanism" was a doctrinal "belief" or the like. For that discussion on that one has to start with Archive 15.

In that section, called "Beliefs and Practices", because it addressed material being inserted into the corresponding section in the article, there was the following exchange.

1. Daveler16 asserts that I didn’t explain why I undid his edit, which implies he didn’t read the edit summary
2. I post excerpt of relevant passage in reply to Daveler16’s assertion
3. Daveler16 replies
4. I reply to Daveler16

So the insertion of the above-quoted passage and section seems to be an attempt at a workaround simply with the aim of ADVOCACY. The above-passage itself, which is part of a section that was created in its entirety by BrandenburgG over a period of a couple of days starting with this edit from January 17 is

WP:UNDUE

, and what might merit being included in the article should be integrated elsewhere, even in the preceding section, for example. I hope that this illustrates an aspect of the problematic.

This problematic relates to a conduct issues falling under

WP:IDHT, etc., and not a content dispute.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑}

07:33, 09:51 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to say "ugh" at that vacuous, almost meaningless and promotional passage, and if that is an example of what the

WP:IDHT editors and editing that are occuring there. I salute Ubikwit and Shii for having had the stamina to deal with it this long. It's time they got some support, especially admin support, whatever form that takes, which might include topic bans for the worst offenders. Softlavender (talk

) 10:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So show me how to write it better instead of trying to cut off my hands. BrandenburgG (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think BrandenburgG's comments might be a little hard to follow if you don't know the history of the article, so I'll try to explain it a bit here. (1) The greatest source of friction in this article has been the term "brainwashing cult". If you scroll down the bottom of the same talk page as the exchange that Ubikwit quoted above, you'll find the section titled Brainwashing cult and James R. Lewis. That's where I make a 7-point argument for getting rid of it, as the most offensive term in the article and also one of the most dubiously sourced. The response, mainly from Ubikwit, is essentially

WP:ADVOCACY in that passage, and (two) that everyone needs to calm down, be polite, and listen to what the other side has to say. Let's try that first, before talking about boomerangs and topic bans. – Margin1522 (talk

) 17:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The post by Margin1522 requires this to be taken even further back into August of 2014.

In the same Talk page archive to which Margin1522 refers, there is a thread preceding the one Maring1522 referenced that addresses the use of “brainwashing cult”, but I guess that Margin1522

didn't read that.[25]

response to inactive SPA (2 NRUs) FetullahFan that they take it to RS/N

With respect to Margin1522 attempts to dismiss RS based on its publication thirty years ago, see the following comment, which was made prior to Margin1522’s comment in the aforementioned preceding thread.

replied that date of Yanatori publication was largely irrelevant regarding attempts to dismiss it

I subsequently acquired both the books by Furukawa and Yanatori in Japanese, and posted the relevant portions on the Talk page here

Margin1522, who also can read Japanese, responded somewhat glibly with basically dismissive comments referring to “hyperbolic language”, and goes so far as to misrepresent what Yanatori says regarding Ikeda's encounter with Zhou Enlai (Yanatori basically relates the opportunistic photo op, etc., as having been used in SG educational/recruitment material for brainwashing purposes (i.e., for inculcating adulation for Ikeda in the minds of SG adherents)) here.

In short, with respect to the "brainwashing cult" characterization, as the current lead shows, there are at least 7 cited sources, including English and Japanese from the 1960s and 1970s. Obviously that represents a notable POV that must be represented in the article according to

WP:WEIGHT.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑}

18:38, 19:11 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel inferiority here as a newcomer, I see a steep learning curve about WP terms. Albeit, I think Margin1522 frames my opinion well. The "brainwashing cult" accusation in the opening paragraphs is harsh and insulting. It is a nuclear option given that the entire science about "brainwashing" has been discredited (see "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control#Legal_issues.2C_the_APA_and_DIMPAC" for a start) and that the references are so skimpy. Ubikwit, perhaps you and Margin1522 can read Japanese, but 99% of we WP editors on the English site can't. Your source belongs on the Japanese WP page where it can be fully vented and analyzed for accuracy.

I want to address Shii now. I have had several candid interchanges with you on Talk pages. I respect your dedication and neutrality. I have always given careful consideration to every one of your suggestions and I think I have followed through each time. If you felt I was too OCD, I believe a mention of it would have served me well. Further, when there was a lot of debate on the opening paragraphs--and I think this was right around the time I started editing--you were the one who gave wise counsel to start with the article and then return to the opening paragraphs. I've been merrily doing that ever since and I should have been cautioned that I was going too fast. As a lead editor I feel that was your responsibility to do so then and there instead of publicly questioning my sincerity on this administrator's noticeboard.

That's all I want to say for now. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

BrandennburgG (talk · contribs) If you feel that RS characterizations of the Soka Gakkai being a "brainwashing cult" are "harsh and insulting", perhaps your emotional attachment to the subject prevents you from editing in an objective manner according to Wikipedia's content policies.

I'm fairly certain that you have been warned about

reliable sources

.

While I don't have a problem with editors trying to add balancing material demonstrating positive aspects of SG, that must be done in a manner according to the relevant content policies. Moreover, ADVOCACY is prohibited, and there have been numerous warnings on the Talk page regarding advocacy and promotional material.

I think that you and Daveler16 need a long break from editing in this topic area.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Margin1522: Your statement at the beginning of your "7-point refutation" bears quoting here

On the question of whether to take this to the WP:RS/N notice board, I don’t think that’s the right place for it. Lewis uses the word "stereotyped", so I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't agree with this idea. But the dispute here is about whether reliable sources are being used responsibly, and that's not what WP:RS/N is about. Personally I don't think "brainwashing cult" belongs in the article at all, much less the lead.

As pointed out above with respect to your addressing of other issues, you appear to adopt a strategy of side-stepping facts in order to promote a POV not in accord with the sources. The simple fact here is that there are a total of 7 sources cited for the statements in the lead. I don't see where your attempts to dismiss any of them is based on policy. In fact, your statement that

"Personally I don't think "brainwashing cult" "belongs in the article at all"

sums up your emotionally biased predisposition toward the sources.

Like Daveler16 and BrandenburgG, it is obvious that you have an emotional attachment to the subject, and probably should abstain from editing it. Since you can't seem to resist the temptation to do so, maybe a mandatory break would be in order.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Break

This is, actually, about conduct; but I think content disputes explain the conduct and that's why so much has been written about content. For instance, the Lewis book says, essentially, "SG gas been accused of being a cult, but it is not" - but then is cited to support "SG has been accused of being a cult". Similarly, an L.A. Times article evaluates both sides of the Ikeda-as-cult-leader question, and actually contains these words from a religious scholar : "He is not a cult leader". But an editor made a choice about which argument to cite that article to support, and again, it was "It's a cult". This indicates an advocacy, or at least a prejudice that colors the eidting.

So to the matter at hand. Since August there have been 6 sub sections on the Talk page concerning "Beliefs and Practices" Here are some excerpts: [[26]]; Suggestion is first made, Catflap08 and I have a discussion about, and the only time Ubikwit's name appears is when it's noted that he reverted with no discussion. Later, he writes: "The reasons were explained in the edit summary".

Edit summaries are not really conducive to discussion. Also, by definitiion, they do not precede the revert, as discussions of reverts are supposed to do.

Later in that thread, I note that Ubikwit, on the one hand, supports the Lewis reference Mentioned above to affirm what it actually refutes, but does not think a statement about SG practices he does not like can be used to explain that practice. Again - evidence of bias, evidence, perhaps, of an agenda.

[[27]]: Administrator Shii wrote: “One way to address Daveler's concern could be to move the "history" section lower in the article, which might coincide with a larger rewrite. Up until the rewrite began I understood SG to be the result of a fierce split with NS. I now understand that post-1991, SGI thinks of its history primarily in terms of its three leaders, and its relationship with NS is something that is in the background and not as important to self-presentation (since SG was always keeping the faith when NS supposedly lost it). Accordingly, the messy "beliefs & practices" section should be rewritten to explain why people come to SG and the message it gives to its members.”

The next day he wrote: “There is no need to be so petty about this. First, I have already said, simply elaborating Wikipedia policy, that SGI sources are acceptable for self-description of religious views. They are not acceptable to define the narrative of SGI's history; we do not allow any religious group to determine history." I should point out that no one (to my knowledge) was trying to use SG sources in the History sub section. But there was objection to allowing SG to define its own doctrine. I think this is resolved, but, again - bias displayed against SG.

On October 20 Ubikwit was told: Let's not be overly historicist. If the major question people ask about SGI members is "what do they believe today?" then the answers to that should reasonably come first. Shii (tock) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And Margin1522 wrote, on another but related topic: “I also think the article is better than it used to be, and that we can start thinking about removing the neutrality tag. The obvious thing that still needs to be done is the words that some readers find offensive, especially "brainwashing" and "cult". There is no difference between "Ikeda-centric ethos" and "cult of personality", except that one is an insult and one isn't. Not that we can't mention this language, but we need to make it clear that this is language used by SG's enemies, whatever their agenda may be, and that it isn't endorsed one way or the other by Wikipedia. That in itself will make it less offensive and less likely to trigger allergic reactions."

[then here] Margin and I duscuss: He says "In principle I'm not opposed to having this section first. But the way it is written now presumes that a lot of information has already been introduced. The first sentence is "Until the 1991 split with the Nichiren Shōshū, Sōka Gakkai existed within the Shōshū framework as a hokkeko, a form of lay organization." None of that has been introduced yet. If we are going to go this way, I think we had better start with a summary of the basic tenets of Nichiren Buddhism and only then introduce what is specific to SG."

To which I reply "You're right" and say I'm undertaking that task. And after I do, there is this exchange: Margin 1522: "Well. You didn't get a chance to rewrite that paragraph, did you? I must say, you've displayed admirable patience through all this. As for me I'll leave it for another day. Better not to write in anger. – Margin1522 (talk)" Me: "Easily fixed. I see that, once again, for the umpteenth time, a major change is made without discussing it.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2014"

To summarize all this: As you can see, I'm not the only one who thinks it's a mistake to portray SG beliefs through the lens of another sect, and to bury that sub section after History. You can see also that there seems to be a rather strenuous effort to prevent this from happening, and in general to keep the entry negative.

A number of solutions have been suggested. May I add another? The "Beliefs and Practices" secti0on of the Soka Gakkai entry should be written to reflect the beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai, not of another sect, as they are now and have been for years. Then, let Ubikwit edit what I (or someone else) may write on that basis - not on the basis of reverting, or inserting the views of another sect. As I (and others) have found academic sources - of recent vintage, not the 60s - to verify the independence of SG doctrine, Ubikwit could find recent academic sources to argue that SG beliefs are derivative of Niichiren Shoshu - if that's what he wants to do. That would be so much better than merely reverting, and could (and should) lend itslef to productive discussion that will vastly improve the Soka Gakkai entry. --Daveler16 (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I'm not sure why
  WP:Primary
  etc., that pertain to the use of primary sources. In fact, Shii goes on to say

  For example, here's a really dumb question: the five concepts on this page seem to be key to SG's social message, but none of them are on this Wikipedia page. Has anyone seen a source out there that explains this? It would be way better to start the article with this religious message than with the history of the group.

The fact that the so-called "five concepts" and details about the writings of any of the leaders are missing from the article is a glaring flaw indeed, but I found Shii's statement about starting the article with the self-presentation of the "religious message" of the group to be highly unusual. And I will point out that Shii never objected to the reversions of the refactoring, nor was there any collaborative rewrite.

His comment was also way out of character considering the email he sent me on August 19, 2014, which I am prepared to post here (assuming, that is, that doing so wouldn't violate policy) or in a provide to Arbcom, whichever is appropriate. As an "Admin", one would expect Shii to be a little more circumspect and not to make statements on sourcing that appear to be prejudicial and possible contravening

WP:NPOV

.

My sole comment in that thread, in reply, has remained consistent.

That would not be encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not intended to serve the aims of proselytizing for religious organizations. Furthermore, the beliefs and practices have developed over time.[28]

So, Shii, what have you got to say in response to these questions? You've been fairly quite during this discussion, with the possible exception of opposing BOOMERANG.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the issue here is not an NPOV one but simply about which subject heading serves readers more. There isn't a policy about whether history is more important than ideology, or what should come first in article sections. BTW, I won't be voting in these proposed resolutions unless if more than one uninvolved admin weighs in on this whole thing. Shii (tock) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue of "which subject heading serves readers more" is likely something that should be determined according to the prominence of views in reliable secondary sources. With a group as controversial as SG, and with a history that is obviously intimately connected to the controversy as well as the beliefs and practices, the issue should be relatively straightforward. It has nothing to do with how the SG decided it should conduct its "self-presentation" starting in 1991, though that in and of itself is a part of the groups history.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas for this POV, there are a large number of religious studies sources (currently being added to the article by BrandenburgG) that describe SGI as a primarily new, present-day phenomenon where beliefs and practices are more important than history. Now, I view this as scholarly approach being irresponsible, in slightly the same way that pre-1995 scholarly support for Aum Shinrikyo was irresponsible, but my POV doesn't matter Shii (tock) 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas? Did you just say, "Alsas"? Give me a breask. There are several holes in your reply.

First, any new sources that have been added were not there when you made the above-quoted comments in September.

Second, Those sources have not been evaluated.

Thirdly, as you point out, the sources relate to SGI (Soka Gakkai International), not Soka Gakkai.

Why haven't you mentioned the email you sent me in August? Do you think doing so will make it go away? Mr. Harvard Admin?

I'd advise you to measure your statements carefully, because this is going to Arbcom, and you're already sunk.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@ ShiiHold on – define the term “new”. Japanese new religions? Definitely one of them. Where in the time line you set “new”? SGI dates back to the 1930’s so there is quite a bit of history. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

To recap, there has been continual and unabated ADVOCACY through the insertion of promotional text and attempts at whitewashing any RS material critical of the SG or its leaders. The pro SG editors have consistently refused to engage in processes such as taking sourcing related questions to RS/N. Instead it can be seen with respect to two issues that they exhibit the same pattern of editing conduct repeatedly: first, there is the attempt to perform a major refactoring of the article against consensus and on the sly; and second, there is the attempt to promote SG as a promoter of "Buddhist Humanism" as a belief or practice without any concrete sourcing and in a manner that violates

WP:ADVOCACY

. There is also the third point about the two iterations of "cult" used to describe the Soka Gakkai by various sources. I take that to be a sourcing issue, and that the POV in both cases ("brainwashing cult" and "cult of personality") is self-evidently a POV that needs to be in the article based on the sources. Though the mention of those points is not made in an UNDUE manner, there have been continuous attempts to whitewash it and a refusal to take sources to RS/N. I would go so far as to suggest that the above-quoted promotional text posted by BrandenburgG itself demonstrates the type of adulation for Ikeda that is representative of the cult of personality surrounding Ikeda discussed by the sources, but this is not something that BrandenburgG has been able to recognize.

I'd like to suggest a

WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for Daveler16, and also for BrandenburgG, the main offenders. While Margin1522's disposition doesn't reflect a willingness to engage processes like RS/N, for example, at least he has not tried to flood the article itself with promotional material, so I will forego suggesting a topic ban for Margin1522.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑}

06:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I escaped nomination because my work on the article itself has mainly been confined to busywork in the footnotes. About RS/N, sure. This might be difficult for the other editors since two of the books are in Japanese. But if it would help I would be happy to translate the two passages that you were good enough to post, and we could see whether third-party editors consider those to be reliable sources. Lewis I think is an interesting case. When an academic quotes strongly POV sources, to what extent do we need to include the academic's own analysis and conclusions? That's a question that should be settled if it hasn't been already. (Note: these are all sources for "brainwashing cult".) – Margin1522 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to thank me. The purpose is to halt the disruption to Wikipedia caused by the promotional conduct, which violates numerous policies, as described in this thread.

The two Japanese sources are undoubtedly reliable sources, as they are by well-known authors, both investigative journalists, etc. They are both used on the Japanese Wikipedia article as well. Regarding Lewis, etc., that should have been taken to RS/N long ago, before FettulahFan disappeared.

Mind you that I would imagine there are other Japanese sources for the "brainwashing cult" description, but I haven't bothered to look--or even read the Japanese Wikipedia article (I just confirmed that Furukawa and Yanatori are used there). You have to realize that the writers in English that address the issue are picking it up from somewhere, and that somewhere is most likely Japanese texts. It is not clear that some of the authors writing in English are actually writing about SG as much as SGI, which probably encompasses the scope of their exposure.

At any rate, this is a Talk page discussion, not AN/I.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again I have to Ubikwit on his poor behavior. He sidesteps every point I make and then excoriates me on being an unworthy editor for other reasons. He refuses to acknowledge my charges that cult and brainwashing are extremely serious allegations (especially in opening paragraphs!) and should be substantiated by qualified sources. In order to move forward nothing else should be discussed right now besides the quality of the four sources used to substantiate the allegation: Lewis, Macioti, Furukawa, and Yanatori. A clip of Lewis was used to substantiate "cult" even though the entirety of his statement disproves that fact. A clip of Macioti was used to substantiate "brainwashing" even though the entirety of her book disproves that fact. Given the extensive literature on the SG the use of Furukawa and Yanatori is insufficient to justify a claim of brainstorming. I repeat, use them in the Japanese Wikipedia article where they can be publicly vetted; to substantiate this claim Ubikwit should be charged with finding other sources.

I feel bullied by Ubikwit. WP should be a safe place to work. I am making a very precise claim about sources and he responds to viciously attacking my capability to serve as an editor. To me this is killing the messenger because he doesn't like the message. BrandenburgG (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic bans proposed for Daveler16 and BrandenburgG

Indefinite topic ban for Daveler16 from all articles related to the Soak Gakkai

• Support As proposer.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The above discussion is
  too long and difficult to read. I won't support a topic ban based on walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk
  ) 02:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It is that. The incidents have there origins back in August, and are at least threefold. For an easy to grasp dimension of the problem, please read the comment in which the ce represented by this diff occurs.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. May need topic bans for (possibly all) other SPAs as well. I also recommend SPIs be filed against all the apparent sockpuppets (not saying they are his sockpuppets, but sockpuppets of each other) involved in editing the article. Possibly also a page semi-protection. And also reverting the page to a version before all the SPA POV bloat got added in. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Daveler16's contributions have been well written, well sourced, and IMO have improved the article. I'll add that he has displayed admirable patience and willingness to collaborate, which has been very welcome. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite topic ban for BrandenburgG from all articles related to the Soak Gakkai

• Support As proposer.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The above discussion is
  too long and difficult to read. I won't support a topic ban based on walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk
  ) 02:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. May need topic bans for (possibly all) other SPAs as well. I also recommend SPIs be filed against all the apparent sockpuppets (not saying they are his sockpuppets, but sockpuppets of each other) involved in editing the article. Possibly also a page semi-protection. And also reverting the page to a version before all the SPA POV bloat got added in. May need topic bans for other (possibly all) SPAs as well. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• No longer necessary - BrandenburgG has recused himself from the article. Shii (tock) 23:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I have recused myself from this article, let me point out procedural problems. I think they are important because I believe WP would want to narrow the gap between new editors and more experienced ones. In my case I never heard of Single Purpose Advocacy. Yes, there were discussions about advocacy and biases but they were among a million words, some threatening, that were going back-and-forth. I don't recall

WP:SPA

came up on talk pages. And I did not receive warnings from the page's administrator that my editorial privileges could be revoked for my behavior and what this all entails. Therefore there was no chance to reflect and/or learn. I received only one warning from Catflap08 that I was editing too quickly and I quickly responded and agreed to slow down.

Regardless of the outcome my situation, I think senior editors should take more time, care, and patience in pointing out to junior editors how things work here. Otherwise there will be collateral damage: well-meaning editors who sincerely want to learn and grow will get pushed under the bus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if the topic ban will be of much use, the process to investigate sock puppetry is not an easy one either. In both cases the effects may only be temporarily. I would prefer

WP:PCPP--Catflap08 (talk

) 19:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Not needed as BrandenburgG has for now left the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose removing the contributions of Brandenburg16 and Davelar16. Ltdan43 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The fact that I am now on trial is ominous and Kafka-esque. I have worked hard and sincerely to create a BALANCED article. As a new editor I have shown a capability to grow whenever my faults have been shown. I cannot express myself yet through WP:THIS or WP:THAT so I have to use plain language. In casting your votes please answer the following Yes/No questions: ·The article before my entrance was seriously flawed and unbalance. YES/NO ·Since my arrival the article's balance has improved to the point that administrators removed it "article in dispute" categorization. YES/NO ·The description of an organization as "brainwashing cult" is serious and should merit the highest sourcing. YES/NO ·The four sources listed (Lewis, Macioti, and the two Japanese sources) were being seriously misused or are not accessible to English readers. YES/NO ·Ubikwit has been unprincipled and unrelenting on this matter. Furthermore he has sidestepped this specific issue whenever it has been raised (including right here) YES/NO ·All of my postings have been backed by highly regarded sources. YES/NO ·Bias is OK as long as it is controlled (i.e., Catholics can edit articles on Catholicism, Muslims on Islam, etc.) YES/NO ·WP readers right to a balanced article supersedes all other charges if an editor demonstrates an ability to grow. YES/NO

Therefore I am proposing that my rights to edit continue.

Is this real? I know it might take an entire weekend to read this whole thing, but I would like to hear from an administrator who has done so. Did I suggest a ban on Ubikwit? I don't think I did, and that is certainly not my intention. When did Brandenberg? I just want a stop to his disruptive editing. He has evidently chosen a very aggressive response, which does not involve any serious attempt to understand the problem, or to suggest a solution other than "my was or the highway".

I just posted on the SG Talk Page that other editors might want to check out this discussion, but now I regret doing so: is anyone who may think the SG entry is being kept deliberately negative going to be "banned"? If anyone disagrees with U*bukwit, is there going to be a "vote" on whether or not they can edit any more? Could we return to civility and try to solve the original problem?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Before everybody bans each other from editing. Why not close the article yet again for a period of one month? The most problematic issue here is that we do have editors working on the article that are adherents of SGI. I keep my own editing on the two, in my opinion, most problematic SGI related articles to a bare minimum – unless certain tendencies resurface to whitewash certain critical issues or discredit sources. It should also become policy that only registered editors, no novices and IP’s, should be able to edit the article. This would be a measure bearing fruit only in the future though. In the end the only solution is to raise certain protection levels indefinitely and have the article(s) more closely watched by admins. Yet again I have to repeat something I have been saying for years now – the fierceness with which editors with a more or less close affiliation to SGI agitate reaffirms some critics who say that SGI cannot take criticism full stop. I cannot see how the article is overly critical of SGI --- even the criticism section was binned by someone. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08's proposal is not a terrible idea (though a shorter period seems more appealing to me). However, editors have to face that there is such a thing as "negative advocacy", and that certain editors are guilty of it. I have seen no effort - none - to purge the history of criticism from the article. All I have seen (and done myself) are efforts to restore balance. It is that - saying something, anything that is in any way positive, or that cancels out the criticism - as "advocating" and "promotion". It only appears that way to you if you are advocating the other way - for negativity. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes get the impression that some believe the article is only balanced when criticism is absent. I do longer want to go on about that … but rather see an admin closing the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:BrandenburgG: Please go to the Special:Preferences page and fill in an email. Shii (tock) 20:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shii Have you just made public my email address to logged in users?--Catflap08 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be able to do that if I wanted to. Not sure what you mean. I just want to contact BrandenburgG privately about the tone of his posts on this ANI page. Shii (tock) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to apologize for some rash behavior. I just withdrew my request regarding Ubikwit. I was overly and needlessly emotional. Thank you to Catflap for coming up with some positive ideas.BrandenburgG (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: I have no idea who may have advocated all mention of criticism being "absent" before the article is balanced. Meanwhile, I'm going to heed Shii's advice below, and hie myself to the Talk page. --Daveler16 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is completely absurd

This is an article with few editors, all of whom are familiar with what collaboration means. Indeed, if you look at the talk page right this second, you will see there is very little disputation going on there at all, and a lot of good-faith collaboration. Most of the arguing at this point has started because this ANI was posted. It is exasperating to hear threats to raise this to Arbcom; it's like threatening to call the police when your kids argue with you. Let's use the talk page first and discuss specific issues for the article moving forward. Shii (tock) 20:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree the conflict within this article fills the respective archive(s). I have been around for quite a few years and due to my own former affiliation with Soka Gakkai have stayed clear to edit the article, and the one on Daisaku Ikeda, too much. I was always clear of that and now and again since we are as you said dealing with an “article with few editors”, I would actually like to know who is an adherent of SGI – funny enough quite a few editors have been silent about that. And as soon some fall silent other appears out of nowhere – focused on SGI and Ikeda. There is one guiding motive in the article in the last past moths and years – get rid of critical remarks and if unsuccessful negate the integrity of sources being critical. This worries me big time – and no I did not file this to Arbcom.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

But the question is, have other methods of dispute resolution failed? I say no. If everyone will agree to allow each other to edit, I think there are some big questions to look at which can be resolved in an open RfC. Shii (tock) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Active SGI adherents will gain the upper hand on the article and if that is Wikipedia’s purpose so be it. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. I thought we were editing - didn't realize it was an "upper hand" proposition. I like Shii's comments, ad will be seen next back on the Talk page. I started this is hopes of putting an end to disruptive editing and reversions; I had no idea it would turn into a book length jumble. I still hope that we can get a resolution, that I be allowed to edit as research leads me (and of course the same for everyone) and that consensus will be honored.--Daveler16 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing can occur from various angles. It may result in an article that is promotional and there are clear guidelines on that. Please also note

WP:SPA --Catflap08 (talk

) 06:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I wish the remaining editors my best. Overall I think we have done important work and I respect everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 13:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Amortias (T)(C) 23:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi

3 rev'dels please, [41][42][43]. (Last ones my own screw up).Amortias (T)(C) 21:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs)

-- Orduin ^{⋠Discuss⋡} 22:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.