User talk:John Foxe/Archive 5

Could use a cool head...

Could use a cool head at The Family: A Proclamation to the World. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm. Looks like everything useful has already been said.--John Foxe (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello John Foxe,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, automated friendly notification. Good electrons to you!--John Foxe (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

pointy comment

Mr. Foxe, this comment does nothing to further the discussion. Yes, there's a lot of water under the bridge. I'd recommend you simply revert the comment before it gets replies and focus on the discussion, not the individuals (Alanyst or yourself). tedder (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

edit warring

Please cease edits to the lede of Joseph Smith, Jr. immediately. tedder (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Our messages to each other seemed to have crossed. Your reputation as an honest broker is confirmed.--John Foxe (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they did, thanks for the acknowledgement that you got the message and also that I'm doing my best to walk a fine line. tedder (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I just closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: moot) (it looks like the bot tried but failed to notify you). Please be more careful - further edit warring is likely to see you blocked. As a recommendation (not a requirement, just a recommendation), you might consider taking a week off from editing this article, concentrating instead on reaching consensus at the several talkpage threads. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am unclear as to the status of the above report. In any case, you would be welcome to add your own comment to that report and agree to wait for consensus before making any further controversial changes at Joseph Smith, Jr.. If you continue business as usual, I suspect that further admin action awaits. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk)

For practical purposes, I'm the only non-Mormon editor at Joseph Smith, and a lot of folks there would rejoice with exceeding great joy if I were to be blocked.--John Foxe (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not all of us. You're a literate, even-tempered contributor and your skeptical perspective on LDS topics is valuable even if one disagrees with it. But when you stop treating Wikipedia as a collaborative effort, then the potential harm from losing those positive aspects of your involvement is outweighed by the real harm being done to the encyclopedia. For my part, there would be more joy in seeing the problem solved by your voluntarily adopting a more collaborative approach than by sanctions imposed due to obstinacy.

What I don't know is whether you feel your behavior ought to change, or if you think the problem is largely external to yourself. Maybe you regard your actions as a necessary and proportionate counter to the LDS POV, and that to yield would essentially be to let the bad guys win since no good guys would be left. Is there any truth to my conjecture, or am I wildly off base? alanyst 06:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about you, alanyst. I do feel a certain responsibility to represent the non-Mormon position, though it's not fun to play the black hat on such a regular basis.--John Foxe (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Your email

Thank you for the private message. For the record, I am now satisfied that WP:COI is not an issue after all, based on your assurance that it is not, and I will speak in your behalf should anyone assert otherwise. Please forgive my erroneous assumption about "U.S. Southern evangelical"; I meant it to characterize the BJU position more than you personally, but evidently it's a mischaracterization. My apologies for speaking from ignorance in that regard. alanyst 03:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. You were simply using logical deduction based on the Deseret News article. (On the fundamentalist/evangelical side of my Wikipedia editing, I'm often assumed to be a Baptist—and I'm not that either.)--John Foxe (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BJU reversion

In regard to this edit, I think you should consider the previous user's point. You are correct that it is referenced material, but is it necessary? I've very little experience with university articles, but it seems like quotation of both the mission statement and creed might be nonessential. I have no strong feelings on it and therefore will not revert your edit, just suggest consideration of removing those sections and/or merging them into the history of the school. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 21:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That arrangement's been in place for years—maybe before I even got here—and I can't remember anyone complaining about it before. But I think you're right. I've dropped the mission statement and subheaded the creed under the "Religion" section. What do you think?--John Foxe (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that works very well. I don't think there was anything seriously wrong with the previous arrangement, but changing it was good. Thanks for being open to the suggestion. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverts on Joseph Smith, Jr.

Be aware that following my recent block of Routerone, your reversions on LDS articles are coming under heightened scrutiny. I'm not comfortable with your recent reversions on the eleven witness materials. While I can understand (and basically agree with) your reversions, the material is not so flawed as to warrant removal on any kind of emergency basis. Reverting it again prior to a discussion period will result in you being blocked.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, and I'm happy to have you scrutinize.--John Foxe (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Itchy trigger finger, John? The habit of instinctively reverting those whom you regard as opponents may be interfering with your attention to detail. Take a look at who was adding the term and whose revert removed it, and re-read Adjwilley's edit summary without assuming any motives on their part. alanyst 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. It's always better to read before you revert.--John Foxe (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I should have been less snarky in my message alerting you. A simple "You probably didn't intend this" would have sufficed. I apologize for being rude. alanyst 02:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't even think about it being rude. I thought about me being dumb.--John Foxe (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you continue to slowly edit war over the folk magic/Christian revivalist wording in the lede despite the clear consensus against you. You have not gained any favorable comments for your position in the RFC (which in fact is about the treasure seeking sentence you want to add and not about rewording or removing the existing sentence), so on what basis do you claim preeminence for your preferred wording, or for removing the sentences completely? alanyst 14:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've not gained any favorable comments because all the comments until a few hours ago have been made by conservative Mormons. I've been hoping to attract enough attention to bring some non-Mormons into the conversation.

That was a good summary of the controversy, by the way: "Foxe's idea is regarded as undue weight for the lede by the other editors here, but Foxe is dissatisfied with this outcome and seeks outside input to overrule the local consensus." You just didn't mention COgden or that the "other editors here...the local consensus" is completely Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My reading is that COgden actually favors the sentence that mentions both Christian and folk magic influences (which also has the support of most LDS regulars) but has not explicitly supported the additional treasure seeking sentence. alanyst 17:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say. It depends on what he means by the "above language." But even if he's supporting you rather than me, that would still make a totally Mormon consensus. Grab any ten non-Mormon Wikipedians at random, and they'll side with me. I'm patient. We'll get there eventually. But I may have to whistle and rattle pans occasionally.--John Foxe (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, you've intertwined several separate disputes into the RFC and that makes it hard to gauge who's in agreement and who's not. It seems to me that there's general support among the Mormon regulars for a sentence that mentions both the Christian revivalist and folk magic influences (or, indeed, practices). If your concern is to ensure that folk magic be mentioned in the lede, then you have achieved that. If you dislike the mention of Christianity in that sentence, then please open a separate RFC on that. If you think that the mention of folk magic doesn't go far enough and needs another sentence to elaborate on the treasure seeking, then make it clear at the RFC that that's what you're aiming for. But please don't imply that by opposing your extra sentence about treasure seeking, the Mormons collectively are trying to eliminate the mention of folk magic altogether. alanyst 18:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If we don't get enough non-Mormons involved on this round to get a change in the lede, you can frame the question on the next round if you'd like.--John Foxe (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

opening synopsis

From a new editor on wikipedia I have a couple of thoughts about your joseph smith article. first, shouldn't that fact that he was a wanted criminal suspect many times over be mentioned in the summary section? When I look at the wiki entries for any celebrity or politician who had any criminal or suspected criminal dealings, be they HR Haldamen, richard nixon, charles manson, bill clinton, oj simpson, martha stewart or what-have-you, they all, regardless of their guilt or innocence, have a note about it in their summary paragraphs. Shouldn't the same be true of J smith if this article is to be fair and balanced (to quote the old attage)? the second thought I had was when I ran across this sentence: "Some secular scholars argue that the witnesses thought they saw the plates with their "spiritual eyes," or that Smith showed them something physical like fabricated tin plates, or that they signed the statement out of loyalty or under pressure from Smith." why are the scholars referenced as secular? if they're reputable scholars shouldn't it just read, "scholars argue" rather than "secular scholars argue"? Firstly, I highly doubt the only people who question the validity of the twelve witness' signatures are secular. I'd be willing to bet that some are christians, muslims, jews, et al. I don't see why this concern has to be relegated to secularists only. in fact I would say that to claim the scholars are secular requires proof in and of itself. Also I thought of a third thing while I was writing this regarding the synopsis again. shouldn't it mention that he is also an insurrectionist? he did try to overthrow the government according to the facts established in your own article.

thanks for listening to the thoughts of a noob. ttyl scottdude2000 —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Scott. If Joseph Smith, Jr. were truly my article, it would read much differently; but at Wikipedia, articles are cooperative pieces, especially those that concern controversial figures like founders of religions. Furthermore, unlike the political or cultural figures you've mentioned above, articles about religious figures tend to attract believers in significant numbers. (Few people would stake their soul on the testimony of Richard Nixon, plenty would for Mohammad.) So, at some religious articles, believers outnumber non-believers (which is the case at Joseph Smith), and this tends to slight negative aspects of the subject.

Nevertheless, all things considered, the Joseph Smith article is pretty evenhanded. Mormons complain that that the article's too anti-Mormon, and non-Mormons complain that it's too pro-Mormon. That's a pretty good sign that the article is relatively neutral in its point of view.

If would be fine if you'd like to join the conversation at the Joseph Smith article, but I usually recommend that those new to Wikipedia start editing at a fairly non-controversial article, like the one about their home town, until they feel comfortable with Wikipedia rules and procedures. Doubtless, wherever you live, you can find errors in the information or writing style in the Wikipedia article about your town or city.

You can sign your posts (rather than have a bot have to do it) by typing four tildes (~) at the end. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:LDS

Hi. Long time no talk. Why are you not a participant in WP:LDS? Tom Haws (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me. I've added my name. Good to see you back at Wikipedia. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

synopsis round 2

I took the time to learn the ins and outs and familiarize myself. I'll be glad to join you on making joseph smith more honest in the future. for now I'm going to make minor edits here and there! Scottdude2000 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good. I find improving Wikipedia articles—especially obscure ones—a satisfying hobby. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith article - July 6th

Read your comment - found the footnote - You're right, no need for it since it's further down - I'm sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian.schanner (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. A couple of weeks ago I argued the case for a citation at exactly in that place in the lede, but no one else seemed to care for the idea.--John Foxe (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Antiestablishmentfigure (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the thought. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal

I need to let you know that someone has proposed banning you from certain pages for one month; please go to WP:AN and see the section entitled "Proposed community topic ban on John Foxe". Please understand that I'm not the one who proposed it — that's ARTEST4ECHO. I'm only telling you this because ARTEST4ECHO didn't follow the instructions that say that the subject of a discussion must be notified. Nyttend (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor Olive branch

First, I am taking a Wikibreak to try to give some time to cool off. I admit am a bit upset about this our issues. So I will not be responding your to post or any mediation request until Monday.

Second, I am not a Mormon. If you truly want Non-Mormon opinions the mine and the other "Non-Mormon" should matter. I will be honest with you. As a former member of the LDS Church, who now do not consider himself Mormon, just like other groups who are different, Mormons get a lot crap like what I see one Wikipedia because they are different. Religious tolerance doesn't seem to apply to Mormons. Mormons being told that they all stick together or are always bias is just another way people insult them. Even as an Ex-Mormon or a what I like to call a "Atheistic Mormon", I am obliviously very passionate in my belief in Religious tolerance, and I feel you crosses the line.

However. I am offering a minor Olive Branch.

A Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, requires that "all parties agree to mediate" of "mediation cannot occur". "If one party refuses to participate in mediation, then it is impossible to mediate the dispute." mediation wont happen."

I do not feel that mediation is useful because oft the comment you have made. I don't see this a content dispute, I see this a personal attack under "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

However, in exchange for agreeing to a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and to not included any elements of "Religious tolerance" in that mediation or on the discussion page itself, will you agree to drop the use of the word apologetic and to stop making statements like:

• It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Mormons have worked in lockstep to defeat every compromise I've tried. We need to move to a different forum where we can get non-Mormon opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• until non-Mormons agree that I'm wrong, I'll continue to take this point up the Wikipedia ladder of dispute resolution unless we can agree on a compromise.--John Foxe (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I, and probably all the Mormon, find these statement to be very very, let just prejudicial and word apologetic is often used implying that any Apostolic group somehow are a bunch of lairs. That my be your intention or not, but that is irrelevant.

I am not asking to change the over all opinion about Mormons or Apostolic groups. I am only asking you to not make the actual statements or find a word that imply the same thing as Apostolic instead. Say something like like:

• It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some additional opinions. or even
• It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some supplementary opinion. or even
• It's time to take this controversy to a forum where we can get some more impartial opinion.

Again, the same message is applied, that you feel that those who have edit are not "impartial", but the statements remove the "because your a Mormon" element that I, and alot of other find disturbing.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 23:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an after thought, while not part of the agreement, I would like to suggest that you, as a gesture of good will, also agree to a Cooling-off period" on this page until Monday. The page is protected so your edits are safe. I think it would show a true willingness to cooperate as you claim. However again, if you don't, it doesn't matter.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 23:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize I am violating my own COP, but I got thinking and concerned that you would think that I was including Perego's Mormon status. I am not. Even I would see that as an unfair, so I would expect you to reject this, if that were an issue. That is all.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 04:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your writing, and I want to assure you that I bear you no personal ill-will. What you did yesterday was so foolish I felt sorry for you.

I think you've misunderstood me. When I asked for non-Mormon opinion, I wasn't suggesting that Mormon opinion should be ignored but that other Wikipedians (who are overwhelmingly non-Mormon) should have their fair say. There will always be Mormons editing at Wikipedia articles about Mormonism. Finding non-Mormons who can be interested in contributing to those articles is harder. Sometimes I have to bang my pans together to get their attention.

As an old guy, old enough to be your father, I'd also like to proffer two pieces of personal advice:

¶First, you need to think through your religious beliefs so that you don't appear to be lending support to ideas you reject. (What you might call "cultural Mormonism" is what I'd call hypocrisy.) If you're a former Mormon, you should openly reject the foolishness you've been taught by the Church, as for instance, that Joseph Smith received golden plates from an angel which he then translated into that wretched, unreadable book called the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, if these words are offensive to you, maybe you're still mentally captive to the Mormon system, incapable of bearing truthful testimony to your friends and relations. In any case, you need to clear the cobwebs out of your head and learn to articulate your beliefs about the most important questions faced by all men, those on which, I believe, eternal destiny depends.

¶Second, you need to write less and think more. I apologize if English isn't your first language, but you need to better order your grammar and syntax if you expect others to take you seriously. I'm not talking about misspellings. I'm talking about prose so convoluted and confusing that I've had to reread it several times to try to make sense of it.

Finally, if I can be of any personal help, please feel free to write me an e-mail. I always tell folks that I'm not a very good counselor, but then that makes me less likely to whack folks with pat answers.

All the best, John Foxe (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment here only show how little you know about me and show your own anti-Mormon bias. I do not find my actions "Foolish" only misinterpret. My intent was not to win a content dispute but to put an end to your blatantly biased comments, which I admit didn't come across that way or that wouldn't have become the focus of the ANI. I don't see how "Mormons have worked in lockstep to defeat every compromise I've tried." can be misunderstood as to meaning anything else but what it is, an assumption at all Mormon's are wrong. It's no different then writing, "Jews have worked in lockstep to defeat every compromise I've tried."

I have not see any real compromising from you, only attempts to look like your compromising. You cannot even compromise on what religion I am. To you I have to be one or the other, Mormon or Anti-Mormon, when I am something else. I have never used "cultural Mormonism" and I would reject that title, yet you call me that along with being a hypocrite.

The fact is, your assumptions are almost completely wrong about me, from my religion, to my personal beliefs, to my "first" language, even to my age. You have no way of knowing any of those. I would never ask for your help and your offer is blatantly passive-aggressive. You are attempting to appear to compromise, but you are not truly even coming close.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you change your mind, I'm willing to be of whatever assistance I can. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Smith Family Farm

Your input would be welcome at Talk:Smith Family Farm#Folk magic. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi540

Hi, John. What is the relationship (if any) between the User:John Foxe and User:Hi540 accounts? alanyst 04:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, Alanyst. Rather than take my word, I'd check crossover between those accounts to see if there's any sockpuppetry occurring.--John Foxe (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I perceive a connection between those accounts and thought I'd ask you directly rather than leaping to conclusions or requesting a formal sockpuppet investigation right away. It's how I'd wish to be treated if someone thought my account was connected to another. I would value your explanation of any such connection that might exist. Do you not wish to provide one? alanyst 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Foxe. Please comment there if so inclined. alanyst 23:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I welcome such an investigation.--John Foxe (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts & evading the community. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You had your chance to explain yourself before hand above so any legitimate excuse you had is going to make it harder to unblock you. I'm requesting that any admin considering an unblock contact me in this one for sure. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Disappointed with this. (situation, not block) You're a good editor, so I hope the time off gives you a little bit of space and you're able to come back with a fresh perspective. In the mean time, best of luck IRL. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words. All the best,--John Foxe (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dialogue

John, I would like to commence a dialogue with you regarding the sockpuppetry investigation and outcome. I do not wish to badger you but I think it would benefit you and the interested community to clear the air. I am still in doubt on some points and do not wish to assume worse than what has actually happened. Would you be willing to engage in a good-faith conversation on this topic? I do not intend for it to be merely an interrogation, though I expect initially it may seem so as I wish to understand better what actually happened. If you do not wish to have this conversation, I will respect that and will not attempt to re-initiate it with you outside of the context of a formal dispute resolution procedure. Thanks, alanyst 16:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that we were both surprised yesterday. I wasn't exercising bravado above. I really thought Hi540 and I had edited on only about the same number of pages as you and I have, say four, maybe six. So I was taken aback to see that the real number was 16. (That's a nifty tool.) Of course, I've also had dark thoughts about why after several years and some personal e-mail conversation, you would raise the issue now. I've been greatly outnumbered by Mormons at a number of articles recently, and I would have had every reason to enlist a puppet.--John Foxe (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me address your dark thoughts first as I think I can enlighten them. Forgive a bit of narrative about the timing of this inquiry.

I have known for several months of the existence of allegations that User:Hi540 was a sockpuppet of User:John Foxe, but until recently I did not give them much credence. It is common for editors to assume sockpuppetry when confronted with multiple accounts that seem to share the same POV and support each other, but often this conclusion is unsubstantiated. I think I found out about the allegations sometime early this year, either from the Deseret News article or from following an on-wiki reference to the FAIR wiki page. I was not influenced or guided to that knowledge by any individual in private communication, in case that is one doubt you have entertained. In any case, I didn't think much of it.

I took a break from editing Wikipedia after our confrontations at Talk:Joseph Smith in late June of this year, but have kept an eye on my watchlist. I don't precisely recall what triggered the mental connection that made me give new credence to the allegations, but it was probably seeing your contributions to Bob Jones, Jr. and noticing that Hi540 had recently edited it too. My curiosity was piqued and I did a bit of investigating.

My investigation led me to conclude that these two accounts were likely to be operated by the same real-world individual. But this did not entirely convince me. My choices were to ask you about it directly, start a sockpuppet investigation request, or to remain on my wikibreak and let the matter go. That last was actually a tempting option if you will believe it, as it would have consumed less of my time and there was little overt abuse at present by Hi540. What finally decided it for me was the concern that some other editors might encounter the allegations and uncritically repeat them on-wiki without proper evidence, leading to a messier dispute with less hope of resolution. In short, I thought I could do it the right way to minimize disruption to the encyclopedia and harm to your privacy. For reasons I have already expressed, I approached you first in case it could be resolved through voluntary means. I regret that it didn't happen that way.

The only communication I received in this process was after I inquired at your talk page about the nature of the relationship. I received a private email from User:Roger Penumbra that basically gave his opinion that my unvoiced conclusion was correct, and the reasons behind his suspicions. There has not been and will not be any coordination between me and any other individual or organization regarding my interactions with you; I have acted independently of anyone else in this matter and will continue to do so. I stress this point because it's common for people to suspect conspiracy in pseudonymous or anonymous environments like this.

I hope this satisfies your curiosity on these points, and apologize if this is much more than you wanted to know.

Will you please clarify whether you, the real-life individual behind User:John Foxe, are indeed also the operator of the User:Hi540 account? Above you have continued to speak of Hi540 as a separate entity and this is the foremost point I ask you to be unequivocal about. The possibilities are:

• Both accounts have been operated by the same individual (you) throughout their history.
• Both accounts have been operated by the same individual (you) at some time in their history, but others have shared one or both accounts at times.
• Both accounts have been operated by distinct individuals who have a close relationship and whose identities are known to each other.
• Both accounts have been operated by independent individuals unaware of each others' identities. (I include this for completeness but regard it as extremely unlikely given the connections I have found between the accounts.)

Will you please elucidate? Thanks, alanyst 03:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Roger Penumbra is the editor and administrator of the FAIR Wiki; in 2009, he was presented with FAIR's "John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award," in part for his unsuccessful attempt to stem the erosion of Mormon POV at Joseph Smith. At least he ended up with an interesting job as the result of our late interaction.

In 2007 I created the Hi540 account as a pedagogical tool for an eponymous upper-level history course. The intent was a sort of privacy account in reverse with John Foxe being my private account and Hi540 being tagged with all sorts clues as to my real identity, including a dated childhood picture. Even the quotation is a give-away to folks who know me because I was a seasonal NPS ranger at Robert E. Lee's Arlington House for several summers. (I'd doubt many sockpuppet creators add helpful clues about their real identities to the home pages of their creatures.)

At first I thought my class in historical research and writing could share the account but shortly realized this plan was impracticable and possibly detrimental. (It never crossed my mind that such an arrangement might also violate WP policy.) Since that time, I've mostly used the account to post syntheses of student assignments as well as some images (which is what occurred recently at Bob Jones, Jr.). For the last couple of years, Hi540 has made sound, helpful, and very tame edits about obscure topics, a model of what I'd like to see more of in Wikipedia editing. One recent class assignment became the new article Chick Springs, which is the best description of that South Carolina resort bar none. During the past couple of years, I don't think Hi540 has been involved in any editing warring, attempts to avoid community scrutiny, "good hand" and "bad hand" editing, or anything else out of the ordinary. As you wrote in your sockpuppet report (with some surprise), Hi540 "actually makes positive contributions."--John Foxe (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a couple of minor points of clarification John. The award in 2009 actually had nothing to do with Wikipedia. It was my restructuring of the FAIR Wiki into its current hierarchical form over the previous year that was responsible for that. Most of the interest in Wikipedia came in mid- to late-2009. In addition, I'll point out that I didn't actually care what Hi540 did once it stopped editing LDS related articles (and, in fact, didn't even care if it did edit LDS articles as long as it was civil.) Roger Penumbra (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification.--John Foxe (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) John, thank you for your candor. What you have said aligns with what I surmised as the most likely explanation of the evidence. Summarizing the timeline of your two accounts, I see the following:

• 23 April 2006 User:John Foxe is created and begins editing on topics related to BJU and other aspects of Christian fundamentalism.
• August 2006 John Foxe starts editing Mormonism related topics.
• April 2007–September 2007 Escalating conflict at First Vision and other Mormonism topics between John Foxe and various (mostly Mormon) editors.
• August 2007 User:74s181 initiates Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Foxe. It receives comments through November 2007, most of which came in early September. Little to no input from uninvolved editors or admins, and no formal resolution of the RfC.
• 22 September 2007 User:Hi540 is created and begins editing on topics related to BJU and various geographical sites.
• 4 October 2007 John Foxe blocked for edit warring at First Vision.
• 3 November 2007 At Talk:First Vision John Foxe states: "And there will be no sock puppetry or meat puppetry on my part. It would be nice to have an ally occasionally, but I won't stoop to creating or recruiting them.".
• 3 November 2007 Second block of John Foxe for edit warring.
• 9 November 2007 Hi540 edits WMUU-FM, effectively reverting back to a version by John Foxe fifteen days prior. Revert was of User:Blueboy96's good-faith addition of uncited material.
• 6 December 2007 After being accused by User:74s181 of employing User:Duke53 as a meatpuppet, Foxe responds, "I admit that it would be nice to have a non-Mormon ally at Mormon articles, but I long ago promised long ago not to create sock puppets or attempt to recruit others to support my views. That's a promise I've kept and intend to keep."
• 15 September 2008 Hi540 begins editing Mormonism related articles. First such edit is at Joseph Smith with edit summary "I'm not going to get into an edit war with Mormons, but Foxe is right here".
• 20 September 2008 Hi540 creates section "Foxe's changes" at Talk:Joseph Smith to voice support for his alter ego. See Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 12#Foxe's changes.
• 22 September 2008 Edit war at Joseph Smith:
  • 14:36 John Foxe reverts.
  • 15:53 Second revert by John Foxe.
  • 16:49 User:A Sniper warns John Foxe about WP:OWN; Foxe acknowledges at 18:04.
  • 18:21 Hi540 reverts A Sniper back to version by John Foxe.
  • 18:27 Second revert by Hi540. This circumvents the WP:3RR policy.
  • 18:46 Third revert by Hi540.
  • 18:55 Hi540 reports A Sniper at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
  • 19:58 A Sniper responds to 3RR report and voices suspicions about sockpuppetry but does not follow up on them with a request for investigation.
  • 20:48 Hi540 and A Sniper both blocked for edit warring at Joseph Smith. John Foxe is not blocked.
• October 2008–November 2008 Hi540 avoids Mormonism topics while John Foxe continues to edit them.
• 7 December 2008 Hi540 returns to revert at Joseph Smith in favor of John Foxe.
• 7 February 2009 Hi540 takes a months-long break from Mormonism related articles.
• 30 March 2009 John Foxe commences editing of Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, related to Christian fundamentalism but not Mormonism.
• 4 April 2009 Hi540 joins in at Noah's Ark Zoo Farm. The two support each others' edits until 16 April when Hi540 makes his last edit to the page. John Foxe continues to edit the article until December 2009.
• 3 October 2009 Hi540 re-commences editing Joseph Smith.
• 29 October 2009 Hi540 makes his final edit to Mormonism related articles. It is a revert at Joseph Smith back to a version by John Foxe.
• November 2009–August 2011 Hi540 edits constructively in articles on historical and geographical sites, Christian fundamentalism, and people affiliated with Bob Jones University.
• 26 May 2011 Third block of John Foxe for edit warring.
• 20 July 2011 Fourth block of John Foxe for edit warring.
• August 2011 I inquire about sockpuppetry, and the rest need not be re-hashed.

Now for a few observations:

• The Good:
  • You have professional expertise in historical writing and research that is valuable to Wikipedia.
  • Nice quality work by both accounts on the geographical sites; you deserve to be proud of these.
  • Kudos for deciding in October 2009 to remove Hi540 from the Mormonism topic area, and sticking to that despite what I'm sure were many tempting occasions since.
  • Big respect for refraining from using Hi540 to circumvent the blocks of John Foxe in May and July 2011.
  • The worst abuse is now nearly two years past.
• The Bad:
  • Obviously the use of a sockpuppet to support your main account's edits in contentious arenas was a major abuse. The worst occurred at Mormonism topics but also in a couple other spots. The common thread seems to be your Christian fundamentalist POV, which influenced you to use Hi540 apologetically for BJU articles and Noah's Ark Zoo Farm and to attack a competing belief system, Mormonism.
  • Even your more innocuous edits as Hi540 were represented as those of a separate individual from John Foxe on pages that you both edited.
  • You never acknowledged or disclosed the link between these accounts until just recently and under duress.
  • You have a history of edit warring especially on Mormonism topics.
  • Hi540 was particularly incendiary at Joseph Smith with cutting remarks about the founder of Mormonism and his followers, which led to a lot of bad feelings among editors there and may have contributed to some editors giving up on Wikipedia. (That last is speculation on my part.)
• The Ugly
  • You simultaneously violated 3RR between your two accounts while accusing other editors of 3RR violations.
  • You created Hi540 in the midst of an RfC on John Foxe. A little over a month later you, as John Foxe, promised not to create or recruit sockpuppets. Six days later Hi540 reverted on behalf of John Foxe. One month after that you repeated your pledge not to use sockpuppets. Nine months later you used Hi540 for support at Joseph Smith.

Sanctions should be preventative, not punitive, which is why at the sockpuppet investigation request I recommended that your John Foxe account not be blocked. The biggest problem at this point is that you have betrayed the trust of other editors. Any voluntary commitment you make to avoid edit warring or sockpuppetry may be viewed skeptically in light of prior promises that you did not keep. But as I've said before, your Christian fundamentalist POV is a valuable one to have at Mormonism topics. I do not accept it as representative of the broader non-Mormon silent majority here on Wikipedia, but it helps keep the articles from skewing too far towards a pro-Mormon POV.

This, then, is the dilemma. I (and many others) don't want you gone. You cannot be wholly trusted to subordinate your POV to the policies of Wikipedia. Is there a way you can continue to contribute without risking further disruption?

As I have considered this question, the best thing I can come up with is an indefinite ban from directly editing articles closely related to Mormonism or Christian fundamentalism. This would allow you to contribute to the talk pages, which would preserve your voice and corrective influence, but obviate the risk of edit warring. You would also be permitted to suggest editing changes, either on the talk page (for small edits) or a subpage in your user space (for larger-scale rewrites), which would then need to be discussed and accepted by the editors of those articles. I would also recommend that you endeavor to recruit, on-wiki, other competent editors (neither Christian fundamentalist nor pro- nor anti-Mormon) to edit those topics in order to broaden the available viewpoints there. So long as it does not cross into improper canvassing I think this would be vastly beneficial.

This would also allow you to continue your excellent contributions in the history of various geographic locales.

An alternative is an indefinite 0RR or 1RR restriction in the Mormonism and Christian fundamentalism topic areas, but this would be much more difficult to patrol and it's often debatable what qualifies as a reversion. It's more likely to result in arguments and accusations in my opinion.

I realize this is a lot to digest, but what are your thoughts on all this? I will probably present this in a Request for Comment when your block is lifted or expires so that the community can decide what to do, but it's fair to get your reaction and input first. alanyst 17:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm greatly embarrassed about my behavior in editing with two accounts at Joseph Smith during the thirteen months between September 2008 and October 2009. It was especially painful to read my promise not to create a sock puppet nine months before using one. (At least the record bears out my memory that I created Hi540 a year before I actually used the account illegitimately.) I apologize to you personally and to the community at large.

Thankfully, I don't seem to have double edited at any other Mormon article, and I think my use of Hi540 elsewhere was more likely due to simple carelessness or the ironic result of trying to use my more public face at certain articles. Other than possibly at Noah's Ark Zoo Farm in April 2009, I doubt that my use of two accounts made any difference anywhere except at Joseph Smith. Nothing much happens on my long fundamentalist watchlist; it's a much quieter world.

I don't think it's your aim to deliberately humiliate me. Rather than asking for a formal ban on my editing Mormon-related articles, would I have enough credibility left to allow you to accept my promise to voluntarily withdraw from editing any such articles for a year?--John Foxe (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think John Foxe is being overly contrite. I don't think there's any cause for a year-long withdrawal, voluntary or otherwise. A two-week ban is a big enough remedy under the circumstances, and when it's over I think he is square with Wikipedia society, particularly since he has come clean and is a very productive and experienced editor. This is not the first time a distinguished editor has been found to have used a sock puppet, and there's no call for a draconian remedy. COGDEN 23:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe's and COgden's comments give me pause. I certainly don't mean to publicly humiliate anyone; I accept your apology and reciprocally apologize to you, John, if my inquiry has seemed vindictive or excessive. Nor do I wish to be draconian in any remedies I suggest. As I said, I don't want to lose you from the Mormonism topic area; I only contemplate an editing ban (direct edits on articles only) as a way to prevent future edit warring and article ownership concerns, while still preserving your valuable input at the article talk pages. (I am personally satisfied that the sockpuppetry problem is behind us.) I am admittedly uneasy that this remedy could swing the pendulum too far the other way; hence my idea about recruiting competent outsiders to diversify the viewpoints represented and help you feel that you're not the lone man in the garrison. I'm certainly open to less restrictive measures that will address these concerns.

But I am not the community and am not in a position to impose sanctions, receive assurances, or grant pardons. I apologize further if I have misrepresented myself as such. I don't want you to be pilloried before the community in a raucous RfC, which happens all too often here when the crowds smell fresh blood, but I don't want the matter to remain unresolved, dissolving into a lingering cloud of mistrust and suspicion.

I'm brainstorming here...perhaps the best way forward, as an alternative to an RfC, is to solicit the input of a few trusted neutral administrators like User:Kww, User:Tedder, and perhaps an admin who has not previously intervened in the topic area. They would represent the larger Wikipedia community in working out with you any conditions or assurances they feel would be appropriate regarding your editing going forward. This would avoid the public spectacle of an RfC and allow the matter to be resolved by those who have no dog in the fight. How does that sound, assuming we can find willing admins to assist in this? alanyst 05:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember ever being called "overly contrite" before. (You listening, Mom?) Asking the advice some of senior administrators sounds good to me. They might also have the best solution about the disposition of Hi540. I could easily see withdrawing from the editing of Joseph Smith for some extended period: that was both the sockpuppeting battleground and an article at which I've been blocked for edit warring a couple of times.--John Foxe (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm honored that my name was mentioned (I think), but I doubt I would be considered neutral by other parties. The Joseph Smith article (and especially the talk page) is a disaster in terms of POV and neutrality. Certainly Hi540 needs to go away- there are issues with "role accounts" and also with the sockpuppetry. The socking issues are old, but you have a history of blocks and conflicts, and your attitude about the Hi540 account before the investigation was unfortunate. tedder (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry and edit warring ought to be treated as separate issues. There are other editors who have been banned for edit warring on these articles, and others who maybe should have been banned but weren't. But bans for edit warring are not typically extended bans, unless something really abusive is going on. Edit warring differs from other Wikipedia rules in that such warring is conducted by people who care too passionately about Wikipedia content. We don't want to quench that passion. We want to channel it. The purpose of a short ban for edit warring is to give editors a stern reminder to follow the rules, but we ultimately want them to come back and edit the articles they feel passionately about. COGDEN 23:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Aside regarding class material

One other quick thought: if you are synthesizing student assignments to create or expand articles here on-wiki, I urge caution. If it's all your own words, disregard this; but if any of your students' work is being incorporated directly, there may be issues with copyright and proper attribution of their work. (I emphasize that I do NOT accuse or suspect you of willful violations in this regard; I only bring this up in case it is an unintended consequence of your good-faith use of that material.) alanyst 17:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Because of the way I handle the assignment, this is not a problem. To get decent topics, I have to do the research myself beforehand; and of course, I polish the collective result before I post—with students in class often correcting my typos and other gremlins. By the way, these are popular assignments. Students enjoy seeing some more-or-less permanent results and often send links to their family and friends.--John Foxe (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's great that you are helping students contribute to Wikipedia in this way, and hope you continue to do so. If the HI540 account is not permitted, then perhaps you can continue this practice simply with the Foxe account, or even better, select a student and help him set up his own account and make the collective contribution on behalf of the class. I believe that the use of HI540 vs John Foxe could arguably be considered a legitimate use of a sockpuppet: privacy. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A good resource for you, John, would be the guidelines on school and university projects, particularly the box titled "I want to do it without facilitators". It gives a good concise list of important considerations, including copyright and account sharing. Hope this is useful, alanyst 05:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding ethics of class material

I will give you this one assuming good faith, but I feel I should question the ethical procedures in your assignment of class material. Are you being paid as an instructor? If so, I think a little clarification is in order as this is at best a gray area. As I see it;

For a non-paid instructor to require WP editing at an article where he is not involved (no problem)

For a non-paid instructor to require WP editing at an article where he is involved (acceptable, not preferable)

For a paid instructor to require WP editing at an article where he is not involved (no problem)

For a paid instructor to require WP editing at an article where he is involved (problem with both teacher/student ethics and WP balance)

I am sure that if BYU had a class requiring its students to edit at Joseph Smith you would have a huge problem with that. I would too. I think this might be similar. Please clear this up for me?--Canadiandy talk 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The articles improved or created by my classes have been largely historic sites such as Fort Stanwix National Monument; Metropolis, Nevada; Stones River National Battlefield; and Prickett's Fort State Park. We've also done a few obscure BJU-related people such as Samuel W. Small and Eunice Hutto. But my classes have never edited controversial topics. When your teaching goal is to illustrate sound encyclopedia writing, the last thing you want is a controversial topic. Of course, once Hi540 posted the articles in class, I put the articles on my watchlist; so in that sense I became "involved." Nevertheless, there's been little further activity at these pages: mostly format and stylistic tweaks, certainly no aggressive or unfriendly editing. You might want to try a similar assignment. The Vancouver Island article itself needs better WP:verification, and Port McNeill could use some serious work, unless you believe a list of all its shops—including three liquor stores and three pubs—is what outsiders should first learn about it.--John Foxe (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Modification of block and restrictions

Per request of one of the users above, I have considered a change to your block to 10 days. I am placing some restrictions on you though. These are not absolutely final, as if the community applies further restrictions/sanctions, I'm leaving that up to them with no objections. You are restricted from:

1. Using more than 1 account at any time or logging out to evade the community.
2. Reverting more than once (1RR) on any Morman-related (loosely constructed) articles for 2 years following the expiry of the block in place, to run concurrent to any community ban if placed, not restricted to modification by the community.
3. You are topic-banned for 1 week (loosely constructed) following the expiry of the block in place, not restricted to modification by the community.

Any violation of these restrictions, I'm recommend that the blocking admin increase from the 2 weeks I originally set. Again, the community can modify these at anytime. -- DQ (t) (e) 04:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Petty reverts

Aside from the numerical limits, you really should refrain from petty reverts like this one. It's a big part of the reason that people accuse you of attempting to maintain absolute control over articles, especially since I strongly suspect that you objected to the rephrasing more than the stated reason of "paragraph structure".—Kww(talk) 00:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm committed to being careful about my reverts. In any case, there's no way that I can (or ever could) maintain absolute control over articles significant to Mormon history; non-Mormons will always be outgunned there. For instance, FAIR maintains an in-depth critique of the Wikipedia article on Joseph Smith, which by its very existence encourages participation of the faithful.--John Foxe (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Violation of editing restrictions

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring in violation of restrictions you were informed of per discussion at ANEW. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions and not make edits in violation of your restrctions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I personally felt that it was more of an edit skirmish. I think we could have resolved our differences on the talk page, though I will admit I was getting a little hot-headed at the end. I hope it didn't seem like I was baiting you; if it did, please forgive me, because that certainly was not my intent. In your absence, I will refrain from making any substantive edits to Early life of Joseph Smith, and if I do anything at all there, it will only be to add citations to secondary sources that I find in my reading. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The block wasn't about you or our recent interactions, just the "gotcha" handiwork of a longtime Mormon nemesis, FyzixFighter. You certainly weren't baiting me. Please don't let my absence keep you from making substantive improvements to the Early life of Joseph Smith. There's plenty to be done.--John Foxe (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you. As you probably noticed, I proposed some substantial changes on Talk:Joseph Smith today, and in an effort for transparency, I thought I'd let you know that the timing was coincidental. I wasn't waiting around for you to get blocked before I presented it; It's something I've been thinking about and researching for quite a while, and today I finally had the time to complete my proposal. Anyway, I know you have strong feelings on the matter, and since I would like the changes to be permanent (and not just a lightning rod for further discord), if you have a strong opinion on some part of it, feel free to let me know here so I can take it into consideration. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that thoughtful gesture; but I'll wait until I've been unblocked to comment (if necessary) on the article discussion page.--John Foxe (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive me for making several changes at Joseph Smith during your absence. I know you have a lot invested in that article. Just so you know, they are all changes I would have made anyway, and I have been saving the major proposals, addition of new material, and trimming of the Lead for after your return. -- Adjwilley (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Several changes"? :-)--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose after today a better word would be "multitudinous" or perhaps "legion" (for they are many). I was trying to make each change separately with a clear edit summary so people could see exactly what I was up to. -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)