User:RobertMfromLI/RFC1

RFC1: Daenumen and Articles Homophobia & Atheism

Updated 23:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (final update)

Relevant Links

• The contentious proposed addition is located here: User:Daenumen/Homophobia_Classification and in diffs for Homophobia from 9/1/2010 onwards.

• Discussion has taken place on Talk:Homophobia and on the various editors' talk pages indicated below.

• The points in contention are discussed on the various talk pages:
  • Talk:Homophobia
  • User_talk:Daenumen, User_talk:Ctjf83#Homophobia
  • Ancilliary Conversations: User_talk:TechBear, User_talk:Ctjf83#Homophobia_Discussion, User_talk:RobertMfromLI, User_talk:Fastily
  • Editors involved: 90.206.186.26 (talk page) <-same user as-> User:Daenumen, User:Threeafterthree, User:TechBear, User:Ctjf83, User:RobertMfromLI, User:Henrymrx

• A breakdown of the issues one or more of us had with the use of citations here: User_talk:Daenumen/Homophobia_Classification

Violations of Rules and Guidelines I Noted

• The proposed addition by Daenumen has the following problems (and possibly others): WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, WP:ESSAY, WP:RS, WP:MOS, WP:VERIFY and WP:LIBEL and addition of proposed content would also turn article into an attack page.

• The attempts to continually revise the article after multiple warnings may also violate WP:WAR and shows Daenumen has also ignored WP:CONS

• In discussion, editor has (IMO) violated the following guidelines and/or rules: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:ESSAY, WP:APR, WP:COOL and possibly WP:DISRUPTPOINT

Breakdown in order listed above:

The Proposed Addition

• WP:OR Daenumen admits documented cases of homosexual rape are extremely minimal but uses his own justifications and judgment to claim otherwise with no supporting references. Daenumen uses multiple references for various premises, but references are unrelated to the premises he is trying to push.
  • UPDATE: Daenumen cites RELIGIOUS scholar Dailey as the source for conflicting numbers on homosexual rape. I have explained that a person who's expertise is religion is not a valid source for such information. 03:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV (and WP:WEASEL) Daenumen has written his addition (and added it to the article multiple times) in a fashion that is not neutral and gives it undue weight as indisputable fact, as well as the only valid answer to what Homophobia is.

• WP:BIAS Daenumen is using (for references) sites with definite biases to push and promote his own biases on the article (which if perhaps was done properly to indicate others points of view as points of view, may not be as bad, but this is in combination with WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:RS, etc).

• WP:ESSAY Though not nearly as major as the rest, proposed addition is written like an essay

• WP:RS Editor does not cite reliable sources for the premises in his proposed edit. Not including the biased nature of various of the refs, editor is using religious sites and others to cite medical claims and unproven statistics (or statistical claims the editor is making in violation of WP:OR).

• WP:MOS Various violations of WP:MOS guidelines. Welcome left on Daenumen's user page to help assist user in understanding such - apparently not read or ignored.

• WP:VERIFY Sources are not verifiable, such as Dailey (PhD in... something? writing for a religious site about homosexualism). Editor also mistakes linking regular words to Wikipedia entries (which he calls "tertiary linking") as a method of having additional reliable sources, and claims that since he's put in so many, it helps override the need for external RS.
  • UPDATE: Daenumen has provided a link to Dailey's credentials. His PhD and all further studies indicated are in religious studies and religion focused universities. 03:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:LIBEL Editor has worded his proposed inclusion in a manner specifically intended to demonize and criminalize homosexuals, including indicating that simply because they are homosexual it is their fault that homophobia (and related discrimination/reactions) exists; and such is stated as a fact as opposed to representing that there are people who believe such.

• WP:ATP Editor's proposed contribution would turn article into an attack page against a group of people, namely anyone who is homosexual, and anyone who is heterosexual but does not experience homophobia.

The editor's conduct in trying to repeatedly insert contentious content

• WP:WAR Editor performed multiple attempts to insert content in contention even while receiving 7 warnings, multiple notes and acknowledging they were aware of such messages.

• WP:CONS Editor has ignored consensus of other editors involved.

During the discussions with other editors (in my understanding of the situation)

• WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA & WP:APR "Yelling", making derogatory remarks, calling other editors names, implying uncivil things about other editors, labeling editors with terms used in a derogatory manner.

• WP:ESSAY & (possibly) WP:DISRUPTPOINT Editor writing massive walls of text to re-explain why his proposed addition merits inclusion as is (while engaging in behavior above and below)

• WP:COOL Editor asked to remain civil and disregards this guideline.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)