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: 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

---

• Jebbrady (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

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.

This dispute centers around Herbert W. Armstrong. Jebbrady feels that he is fighting against an entrenched Wikipedia bias toward religious discrimination. To this end, he has:

• removed cited material (including information about Armstrong's second marriage and divorce),
• declared that he will not allow unapproved sources to be used,
• posted very long messages on the talk page, frequently of little direct relevance to whatever point he's addressing,
• reverted attempts to summarize his and others' messages concisely
• taken attempts at using the dispute resolution process as personal attacks ("vicious complaint", in one case)
• very frequently forgotten to log in while editing from two different locations, so his contribution history is split between two IPs and an account
• not consistently signed his talk page posts, and has changed the timestamp after the fact (he's gotten much better about this)
• rarely used an edit summary
• threatened to take content disputes to the highest levels of Wikipedia
• and more, to be detailed below

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.

My desired outcome is that Jebbrady accepts that he cannot dictate the content of Armstrong-related articles, that he must engage in true dialog with other users, and that he refrain from violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

{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.}

• Summary by SarekOfVulcan

Jebbrady started editing on October 28, 2006.[1] Over the course of 2 days, he systematically removed negative material from the Herbert W. Armstrong article, and added his own uncited material.[2].

Two weeks later, RelHistBuff, who had previously worked on the article, came in, saw the state of the article, and reverted, leaving a note on the Talk page requesting that any major changes be discussed there first, and that he would be citing further sources.[3] Without responding, Jebbrady (editing as an IP) not only restored his preferred version, but also added an extensive digression on the history and beliefs of the Sabbatarians.[4] After a several reverts back and forth, coupled with two requests by RelHistBuff to discuss on Talk, Jebbrady finally posted a long response, complaining about the POV of the new edit ("The record now speaks on that issue alone, and I have no concerns about anyone agreeing with me in my assessment of the NPOV of your edit there."), criticizing his "wholesale deleting of other's contributions", informing him that he didn't have the proper background to understand the material, ("I am not alone in straigtaway recognizing in this statement by you a lack of familiarity with and understanding of Armstrong's writings and the old WCG doctrines"), and threatening to take matters to the "appropriate Wikipedia authories". Should RelHistBuff not comply, he would "do my utmost to keep this reply visable to all if I am forced to by your actions"[5].

RelHistBuff responded that the new version read like a tract, and offered to remove objectionable material from his version and work forward from there. Jebbrady came back asserting that it would be like a Mozart article focusing only on the scandals in his life, rather than his unique contributions. He told RelHistBuff that "you project your own lack of NPOV into the work of others" and "your additions strike me as arguably the most obvious in the axe-to-grind-department that I've ever seen".[6] He then performed 10 more edits tweaking the wording, adding a few words/characters each time. RelHistBuff responded that he had removed language that Jebbrady had objected to, and adopted Jebbrady's characterization in other place, and called on him to reciprocate, stating that he was trying to cooperate with him. Jebbrady responded, "I'mn not seeing in you tone the making of an honest debate: I don't think my detailed criticism amounts to "accusations" any more than your first making sweeping, broad assertions that changes I was involved in "read like a tract" and tha tthe article is "filled with POV"."[7] This was followed by nine more revise-and-expand edits, some of which went back to comments that had been responded to already.[8] RelHistBuff offered to work forward from a completely-stripped-down article: Jebbrady offered to consider only revisions to his version.

"If you wish to make specific suggestions for alterations to the article version that you changed, the one that was cleened up and rebuilt these past three months and stood unchanged for abvout 7 weeks until your massive edit last week, I will be happy to implement them the most effective and fair way I can, as long as they are NPOV, logical, fair, proportioned, appropriate for an article on Armstrong as opposed to the WCG, and if they meet the overll criteria of professionally serving peoples' curiosity--without manipulating it-- curiosity about his teachings, booklets, the scope of the work, and even his overall moral prestige or lack thereof (if you choose to "go there") by focussing on what has been cleary established. A new order has come to the plains."[9]

(I recommend reading the whole response.)

After some more back and forth, RelHistBuff requested a third opinion, and Amatulic came in. He criticized RelHistBuff's apparent sense of ownership and some of his non-constructive criticism, but endorsed the idea of working forward from a minimal version.[10] Jebbrady wished he had stopped short of recommending a particular version, and accused him of not having read his comments ("I will in good faith cahnge the article from October with what you said in mind, but I guess I wouldn't mind if you reread my comments on the discussion page one more time.")[11] RelHistBuff again offered to let Jebbrady delete objectionable material from RelHistBuff's version and work forward: Jebbrady rejected this, complaining about the "ridiculous, negative innuendo", the "thinly veiled digs throughout" and the

"NOT A SINGLE MENTION of anything positive Bold textArmstrong was ever involved in. When you edited, you easily could have left the mention of such things there or splice things in elsewhere to at least balance out the article, and make it less embarrassing to the Wikipedia community, but did not."

He further stated "Good faith is assumed but trust can be broken at some pointcan it not?", "I did ask you to specifically spell out your problems with the Mid-Oct version, and you never did, but instead brought in a third party as a hail-mary it appears", "the importance of the issue of length pales compared to the other issues here", "the third party doesn't see how out of proportion the negativity in it is probably because he is not aware of all the honors Armstrong received", and "People familiar with the history of the WCG are also better able than a nuetral third party to see all its other biases and innaccuracies as a whole, and I will be happy to point all of them out to the Wikipedia authorities"[12].

In mid-January, Jebbrady edited the Armstrongism article, changing this text:

• Armstrongism refers to the doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). Some of the doctrines can be found in other religion groups including, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and Baptists while others are attributed to Armstrong. The church that he founded has now rejected most of his own teachings, but Armstrong's doctines live on in the splinter churches founded by the followers of Armstrong who dissented with the WCG church leaders after Armstrong.

to:

• Armstrongism refers to the doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong, thought by him and his followers to be the true doctrines, teachings and Gospel of the Bible, and are expressed and explained in greatest detail in his Bible study course--the Ambassador College Correspondence Course and his book Mystery of the Ages. Armstrong was founder of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG).[13]

and stating on the talk page that:

"This statement was removed by me and will remain so....For anyone to continue to assert that he borrowed his doctrines from those churches, in the face of the facts I just presented which anyone can easily verify, would be tantamount to religious bigotry, something that of course has no place in Wikipedia."[14]

In February, Warlordjohncarter added some positive information to the page, along with a "Scandal" section, mentioning two lawsuits and his remarriage and divorce. Jebbrady promptly excised this section, with no edit summary or talk discussion.[15].

In May of this year, Wilburweber made a large number of additions to the article, including both positive and negative claims. Jebbrady promptly pulled out the information about predictions that didn't come true, and Armstrong's divorce. When Wilburweber inquired on the Talk page about the "curious changes", Jebbrady responded at length, saying

"Because of the sensative religious beliefs involved in such an article--as is the case with any article having to do with Herbert W. Armstrong--the good faith assumption is tempered with a grain of salt, as the history of these Wikipedia articles is that they have been used as platforms for religious bigotry, slander, ax-grinding from excommunicated members of the WCG, unfairness, silly but damaging innuendo, and of course lack of sholarly professionalism. I've spent months battling and cleening them up. The version you felt the need to change had stood for eight months unchanged, unchallenged , and widely repected."

He went on to say that "If you have the time, and you wish to add citations to passages that are already there, I certainly encourage you to do so", inquired "Why did you not complain about the abscence of those positive things he was involved in? Why did you not feel inclined to put them in?", again compared this to a Britannica Mozart article, informed Wilburweber that

"If you want to address, and think you can prove, the presence of legitimate and clear pattern of endemic, widespread, legiitmate hypocracy of attitude in his life-- if you can find it somehow (I have not)--you better bring it here first, address it directly, and provide the very finest source material (i.e objective sources which does not include WCG ministers who wrote books to defend why they: 1) took the church mainstream after Armstrong's death and 2) personally hoarded the 1 billion dollars of tithes and offerings that came into church coffers between 1986 and 1991 rather that put money into the work (as did HWA) and the humantitarian projects Armstrong started). Wikipedia is not a platform for character assination and innuendo"

(ignoring the conflict between his last sentence and the end of the previous one), declare that "Whether the former or the latter was the underpinning motivation, this was taken to an extreme in the articles that were cleaned up in Novemeber and no form of that will be allowed to return, even to the smallest degree." He also stated that

"Wikipedia supported my efforts to eliminate the bigotry and, regardless of your intentions good or bad, we will not allow bigotry through unwarranted negativity and innuendo ("He married a woman 40 years his junior") to be slowly re-intoduced through a gradual process. The wolves were scattered before and they will be again."

and that "Actually, your most innocent "contribution" as you glowingly put it, is too make the article unessearily long by Wikipedia standards--really by any Enyclopedia standards in terms of necessity of contnent", continuing in that vein for a while, calling Wilburweber's edits "tangantile or superfluous" and "longwinded".[16] The previous diff spans 46 revisions, but they're all incremental changes to his response except for one mistaken self-revert in the middle.

Wilburweber defended his writing credentials and his lack of affiliation with Armstrong, and pointed out that Jebbrady had referred to the dispute as a "battle". When a IP third party chimed in complaining about the tack Wilburweber had taken, Wilbur again responded, triggering a long series of responses by Jebbrady, mostly retreading the same ground.[17]

In July, User:Lisasmall found the article, started cleaning it up, and then started adding carefully-cited information about Armstrong's family. Jebbrady, editing as an IP, removed the changes (without reverting), re-introducing several typos that Lisasmall had fixed[18]. Lisasmall, seeing the anon "vandalizing" the article, undid the changes, but posted on talk to find out if there was a reason for removing cited facts. Jebbrady removed the information again[19], invoking WP:BLP on Talk and stating that:

"Editors ought to think twice before they present any unsubstantiated charges against the man in any article or discussion page here. Also be advised that citations of web sources without scholarly credentials, a practice not even accepted in American Universities (I know because I have degree in history), will be deleted from this article along with the antecedent text.

"Edits with an unprofessional, POV tone that try to overcome that by citing mainstream sources like Time magazine, a publication which--lets be frank--has a well known, easily observed political and social bias will be regarded in the same way. Citations are supposed to be sincere attempts to improve the credibility of an article and to ensure accuracy. To uses them disingenuously with an ax to grind is against everything that Wikipedia stands for and If I catch anyone doing it with any article relating to religion, including any article about Armstrong, I will immediately seek to get that editor blocked.

"If an editor wants to bring in material facts about a biographical subject that reveals or are legitimately suggestive of flaws in that person, it will be done in a respectful, even handed tone, mimicking the professionalism of Encyclopedia Britannica-- especially when it’s a religious figure like Herbert Armstrong who had beliefs that not everyone liked. It should be put in a separate section entitled “Controversy” or something like it. The building of that section will be along process so put you seat belts on...."[20]

I'm going to stop here for the time being, as this shows Jebbrady fighting the same battle with three different editors. I may continue the narrative later, focusing on the events I was involved in after Lisasmall asked me to step in from WP:ASSIST.

(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.) (Diffs inline above. Should that text be down here?--SarekOfVulcan 20:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:AGF
3. WP:OWN

(provide diffs and links)

1) RelHistBuff requesting third party

Jebbrady calling it a "hail-mary", and ignoring the third party's recommendations

2) SarekOfVulcan opening an Article RFC

Jebbrady threatening to report me for lying in the RFC

My evidence of trying and failing consists mainly of discussion using the article talk pages first. Because Jebbrady used IP addresses for editing, I decided that the only way was to bring the discussion to the article talk page rather than a user talk page. When the discussion did not work, I brought in a third opinion. That did not work either. Please find below the evidence.

• The first edits by jebbrady removed significant parts of text (a whole section in fact) (see here).

• I first attempted to discuss the differences on the talk pages. I made initial attempts in October with a proper edit summary (see here).

• This was reverted twice without edit summaries. Knowing the 3RR rule, I did not go further. I next attempted to bring the dispute to the talk page. I made several attempts using edit summaries and article talk page discussions (see here).

The dialogue on the talk page began as follows:

• Jeb: (see here). This is his first recognition of my activities and he gives a long first response.

• Rel: (see here). In a short response, I make here a proposal.

• Jeb: (see here). Jeb does not like the proposal and make attacks.

• Rel: (see here). I make a short but courteous response, trying to cooperate.

• Jeb: (see here). He takes the proposal as an “insult to intelligence” and gives another long response.

• Rel: (see here). I make another short but courteous response. I ask to build the article together.

• Jeb: (see here). Still refuses again and gives another long response. It is clear, he does not want me to edit the article.

• Rel: (see here). I note that everyone is entitled to edit articles. Again a short, polite response and again I make a proposal to work together.

While going through this discussion, one can see that Jeb provided long-winded responses and shows evidence of WP:OWN violation. I do not react strongly, but I am always courteous. However, I realized the exchange was not improving the situation, so I contacted a third opinion. The dialogue continues as follows:

• THIRD: (see here). Proposes starting from my shorter (and older) text.

• Jeb: (see here). Believes the third opinion is “staff” and tries to change subject.

• THIRD: (see here). Explains third opinion position.

• Jeb: (see here). Still objects to starting with the original October 27 version.

• THIRD: (see here). Suggested any other approach.

• Rel: (see here). I make a final offer (as there is no other option) and that is to start with Jeb’s text.

• THIRD: (see here). Third opinion confirms it is a good offer.

• Jeb: (see here). No response

• Jeb: (see here). Here Jeb starts to edit the article talk page but gives no response to the proposal.

• Jeb: (see here). On May 2007 he starts interactions with Wilburweber as described above by User:SarekOfVulcan.

Jeb has now completely ignored the third opinion, perhaps hoping that I will go away. Unfortunately, as my time is also valuable for other activities outside of Wikipedia, I did go away and I left the article to Jeb who obviously has more time to defend his point of view. --RelHistBuff 16:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting evidence that I have tried and failed:

1. From my very first day of contact with Jebbrady, he has been spiteful and perverse, see his declaration that courtesy is proof of bad faith. That ended any hope of being able to resolve issues through simple polite negotiation. He made a similar accusation on that talk page in December of 2006 against User:RelHistBuff. He has impugned the good faith of nearly every editor who has worked with him.
2. I requested a WP:ASSIST here on July 21. It has not helped; he takes it as "recruitment" instead of help. Meanwhile, the editor who responded is the editor who has filed this RFC/U. SarekOfVulcan has made heroic efforts to try to work with Jebbrady to produce a comprehensive NPOV article; these efforts have failed. In addition to this RFC/U, Sarek filed an article RFC August 10. It has not helped, and inspired the bluster that Sarek noted in his own evidence for this RFC/U above. I list this among my own attempts and failures because I'm the one who brought Sarek in via the WP:ASSIST.
3. Jebbrady made a request to admin Jossi for a month to edit the article. Without prompting, I stepped back from editing so he would have a clear field (at least, a field without me on it). As a voluntary courtesy, I posted on the talk page July 24 and July 31 that I would disengage while he planned to work on a comprehensive re-write. I used the time to contribute elsewhere; Jebbrady spent the time violating WP:ICA with allegations that I spent it adopting new identities to bedevil him.[21][22] Since July 31, I have not edited the article at all, and I did not rejoin the talk page until August 17, where I learned that no progress at all had been made from July 21-August 17 even on something as simple as adding marriage and divorce data to a biographical article. Twelve editors (named below) over four weeks could not even persuade him that far.
4. I have filed two formal WP:SOCK reports (in addition to one informal intervention between the two, when I was assuming GF) and offer the records there into evidence here via this link to the second case and this link to the first case. He was also warned about vandalism at one of his sockpuppets in March, see here. That's four major interventions without genuine progress. (At one point, he started manually typing User:Jebbrady as a sig, but continued to disperse his edit history among three accounts via puppetry; see the SOCK reports for details). There have also been numerous attempts by editors to address this in his talk page and the article's talk page. The conduct continues and the only thing that stops him from returning to his puppets is when they are formally blocked.
5. Every step I have taken in accord with WP:DR has failed. Even before locating SarekOfVulcan for the ASSIST, I appealed to a third party who also made no progress (Andrevan). I located the editor who had requested the first WP:THIRD (RelHistBuff). Though he has gotten re-involved in the article due to my request, this too has failed. I emailed an admin who had been involved with Jebbrady earlier; though Jossi graciously got re-involved, their participation has produced no change so this was another attempt of mine to make progress via a third party which failed. Yet another third party (SurrogateSpook) came in via my WQA and their overture failed to get a response; another failure. That's four. Adding Sarek who came in via ASSIST is five. Add to these the formal THIRD requested by SarekOfVulcan (and Jebbrady's hostile response detailed by Sarek above) and the original THIRD from December of 2006, and that's seven formal and informal third party attempts to work with Jebbrady. There is no hope that additional third opinions will make a whit of difference.
6. I filed a WQA in July which details and diffs his behavior which I incorporate here as evidence here via the link in this sentence. In the month that the WQA remained open, six editors in addition to myself commented about their attempts to work with Jebbrady. These include MastCell, EdJohnston, IP User 24.6.65.83 (who is now Pairadox), SarekOfVulcan, RelHistBuff, and SurrogateSpook. Other editors and admins who didn't comment on the WQA but have tried to work with Jebbrady on the talk page with limited or no success this summer include: Andrevan, Jossi, Cadwallader, Preekout, and "Jere" (IP User jere 71.203.211.107). There were others who tried to get cooperation and consensus around March 2007 and October 2006, but who have apparently given up. As far as I know, all of us are experienced Wikipedians and none of the twelve of us have ever worked together on anything before. There is no conspiracy about, or animus towards, Jebbrady, Herbert W. Armstrong, or any religion. Several of these editors were initially involved, or were brought back in after prior involvement, by me as attempts to bring in neutral parties or parties experienced with Jebbrady and so I list the failure of resolution even after their hard work and patience among my failures.
7. In addition to ignoring, rejecting, or attacking the attempts at conflict resolution, Jebbrady has repeatedly violated these policies as supported in the WQA and repeated here to show you in brief what the dozen editors who have tried to work with him in the past six weeks have been up against: WP:SOCK, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:EQ broadly and deeply; and WP:VERIFY, WP:NPA, WP:SKILL, WP:GF, WP:LAWYER, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:ICA, all of which are easily proved by the evidentiary links in the WQA.
8. Also named in the WQA is WP:MEAT. As that is not as self-evident as the other accusations, this link to the evidence is given in the WQA so that a reviewer may draw their own conclusions and is offered as evidence in this RFC/U as well. Since then, another unusual editor appeared who was not part of the initial MEAT query. I have tried and failed to get explanation of the first apparent meatpuppetry through the SOCK reports. Though notified, Jebbrady did not respond.
9. Jebbrady has appeared to boycott all the formal conflict resolutions attempted. Though given due notice of every process, he does not take advantage of the formal opportunities to present his own case. He is openly hostile to the RfC's and THIRDs and ASSIST on the article's talk page (see Sarek's evidence above or anywhere on the page itself) and its two archives.
10. Counting conservatively, but counting informal as well as formal overtures: There have been four interventions regarding sockpuppetry. There have been seven third opinions. There have been twelve editors giving time and talent to working with him, with no change in his tone and no willingness to move on very basic issues. This has been going on for six weeks this summer, and for ten months if you go back to the first dispute.
11. To quote what RelHistBuff said in the WQA re the December 2006 third opinion: "...jebbrady refused to cooperate. I decided to not take it up any further and let him keep the article in its current degenerate state. This is a terrible weakness in Wikipedia. A controversial article on a well known topic has the possibility of getting something resolved. Something less well known is left in a terrible state in the hands of a POV warrior who has a lot of free time on his hands." The evidence indicates that this state will continue unless firmer action is taken against the perpetrator. All my attempts at resolution have failed. All the attempts of others which I have witnessed have failed.
12. On request of the reviewers, I offer to go through the extremely long article talk pages and its archives and flag every violation of WP:CIVIL, etc. I respectfully hope this will not be needed and I could not get it done in the initial 48 hours of this RFC/U.

I hope this was the right place to present these links, diffs, and narrative. I affirm the evidence given by Sarek, who filed this RFC/U. I differ with Sarek only in what I think is the best outcome. I do not believe that Jebbrady can be rehabilitated and I believe a ban is the appropriate solution. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 20:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. RelHistBuff 21:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. LisaSmall ^T/C 19:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. EdJohnston 00:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

My response is to address a specific item of the dispute which I feel is unjustified and injurious. It reflects poor taste for editor Lisasmall to list my participation in the discussion amongst her grievances against editor Jebbrady. I am incensed by the implication of a meatpuppetry violation on my part, which is the only apparent reason for her to mention my participation under point 8, regardless of the disclaimer that I was not part of a previous query. An implication that strong requires substantial proof, which is not presented here. I am a member in good standing and the singular comment I made on the discussion page can in no way be interpreted as a violation of this policy by someone who isn't twisting it to further their agenda, explicity or implicity. I would appreciate if all reference to my involvement removed from this RFC. If that is executed, I will remove this comment. Otherwise I am neutral on this RFC.Wesleyk 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think several of these allegations are unfair. Being a relatively new member myself, I have only just learned that the issues of technical ettiquete even exist (having to sign in to make edits, adding a signature, edit summary etc.) and these are unreasonable grounds for such accusations. Also, some of the evidence cited is also surprising to say the least. The quote edit concerning the opening sentence of the article actually results in a more encyclopaedic tone. It is shorter, factual and does not claim HWA was the first person to come up with those dictrines as the citer obviously suggests. Also, it is actually less biased than the original one was. As for Jebbrady being unwilling to accept summaries of his comments, one only needs to read the discussion page to see that this is not true and that other users have consistently written lenghthier and more verbose statements. All things considered, these allegations are just unreasonable, and in most cases, false. Red hothead (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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.