User:Doug Weller/Requests for comment/Drnhawkins

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:51, 5 June2024 (UTC).

---

• Drnhawkins (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

That Drnhawkins will:

• Understand and accept the consensus interpretation of Wikipedia Policies on Original Research (WP:OR) and Reliable Sources (WP:RS).
• If no secondary sources exist, publish in a reliable vetted source before seeking publication in Wikipedia.
• Avoid lengthy discussion on talkpages. Discuss issues in a clear and concise manner.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Drnhawkins has been working on a series of articles relating the histories of the Hebrews and Ancient Egyptians. He does this using the primary sources of the Old Testament in conjunction with archaeology of questionable scholarship at best. He combines this into a synthesis to advance his own religious point of view. He also adds his arguments to existing articles and clutters them with large diagrams that illustrate his case.

The issues are further outlined in the Evidence of disputed behavior section below.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Wikipedia:No original research, especially
   • WP:PRIMARY
   • WP:SYNTHESIS
2. WP:RS
3. WP:V
4. WP:DIS
5. WP:MOS
6. WP:N
7. WP:NPOV

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Drnhawkins's talkpage

1. On Drnhawkins's talkpage, after Dougweller has pointed to WP:RS, John Carter agrees and explains further, pointing out WP:OR and WP:N. (19:33, 2009 April 25)
2. On Drnhawkins's talkpage, Quantpole points out the advisability of brevity in conversations, and again points the editor towards WP:N and WP:RS. (11:08, 2009 April 27)
3. Dougweller points out that sources have to state what is being claimed in the article: "sources need to discuss the idea".
4. Dougweller in a reply to Drnhawkins (advocating OR) comments, "...it comes down to our poliies and guidelines, and reliable and verifiable sources discussing the issue." (2009 April 27)
5. Edward321 explains why what Drnhawkins put in an article was OR and that it's against policy.
6. User:Peterkingiron gave the editor some good advice. (12:16, 2009 April 28)
7. John Carter pointed Drnhawkins towards some subjects he might be interested in editing, and offered his assistance in editing any of them.
8. Dougweller explained some problems with using work of Ron Wyatt as source material.
9. John Carter carefully answered several questions, explained policies, and laid out a lot about how we do (and don't do) things on Wikipedia. (08:21, 2009 April 30)
10. Peterkingiron gave a lengthy commentary with explanations of WP:POV/WP:NPOV and use of the Bible in WP articles. (09:07, 2009 April 30)
11. LadyofShalott and Peterkingiron [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drnhawkins&diff=next&oldid=287053697 made a suggestion about an appropriate way to contribute to Wikipedia within Drnhawkins's area of interest.
12. Athanasius1 gave a lengthy response discussing the Bible as a primary source and its historicity, and explaining some about WP:Fringe. (09:48, 2009 April 30)
13. TenPoundHammer gave a level 1 warning about OR. (08:26, 2009 May 31)
14. John Carter points out again relevant policies and gave suggestions about finding WP:RS to expand articles.
15. John Carter responded (and expanded thereupon) to some rather rude comments by Drnhawkins. (13:22 and 13:53, 2009 June 1)
16. LadyofShalott made a comment about references to Bible passages. (22:20, 2009 June 3)
17. John Carter made some observations and suggestions about Drnhawkins's contributions. (10:45, 2009 June 4)

WikiProject Christianity

1. A discussion was held at the talk page of the Christianity WikiProject about some of Drnhawkins's images. LadyofShalott notified Drnhawkins of the discussion and invited him to participate in it.

Talk:Joseph and Imhotep

This is the talk page of an article deleted via AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph and Imhotep, resurrected temporarily for the purpose if this discussion only and will be deleted again at the end of this RfC. The AfD discussion also gives background to this and since then there does not appear to have been any progress in the editor's understanding or behavior.

1. R'n'B gave several pointers about sourcing and style.
2. Dougweller commented again about original research and made a suggestion of a possible useful contribution Drnhawkins could make.

MfD compromise

1. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/Archives/Joseph and Imhotep are the same person the decision was made to let a page remain in userspace if Drnhawkins would not repost it in mainspace again. This was 2 years, 1 month, 10 days ago from the date of posting this RfC and it has not been edited by Drnhawkins since. The closing Admin's comment "The result of the discussion was keep, for now. However, if this lurks in userspace for a long time without becoming an article, then the consensus will probably change to deletion."

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

The discussions above show Drnhawkins' difficulties in listening to the advice of a number of other editors. Most of that discussion was approximately two years ago, anfter which Drnhawkins took a wikibreak. Upon his return, he went back to the same behaviors that prompted all of that discussion. Drnhawkins still includes his own WP:POV and WP:OR. The discussion on the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt clearly show an unwillingness to acknowledge that there is WP:OR involved. His list of deleted contributions is telling in itself.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. LadyofShalott 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
2. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. --
2. —

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.