User:Leadwind/LimaRFC

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.

I would like Lima to really stop violating guidelines and policies. I suggest an action that would really get his attention, as the Wikiquette alert obviously didn't work. But I have no idea what the scope of actions are. WP would be better directly and indirectly if Lima were banned. WP would be even better off if he would just play fair.

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.}

Lima promotes and defends a pro-Roman Catholic POV, and he repeatedly violates WP guidelines and policies in doing so. Despite numerous attempts to explain these guidelines and policies to him, he continues to violate them. His pattern of behavior is well-established over a year of editing on various religion-oriented pages: purgatory, original sin, baptism, history of the Eucharist, etc.

The particular case that prompted this RfC is on Baptism. Here, Lima mucked with referenced material that he disagreed with. I called a Wikiquette alert on the issue. Later, when I was no longer active on Baptism, Lima went back and deleted the referenced information that he'd been mucking with. Instead of addressing this deletion on Talk, he hid it under the innocuous edit summary "some corrections." When I asked him about it on his Talk page, he wouldn't own up to it. This sequence demonstrates that Lima is acting in bad faith. He's obscuring his edits because he knows the community is against them.

This particular case is relatively minor compared to the campaign of disinformation and obstruction that Lima has pursued on Purgatory and other pages, but it's a clear, concise demonstration of his bad faith.

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.)

1. Later, Lima is still messing with sourced information on the Baptism page and using primary sources (scripture) as comparable to scholarly sources. [1]
2. Here on Baptism he straight-up deletes a referenced sentence about Jesus not baptizing. He's deleting referenced information that doesn't square with his POV in favor of primary-source references, after the Wikiquette alert. [2]
3. Back when Lima was wikistalking me (which he admitted and attempted to justify in mediation), he edited the "lake of fire" page, generally making it less encyclopedic. [3]
4. On 1 Peter, Lima removes referenced information from the lead. [4]

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:V
2. WP:NOR
3. WP:SOAP
4. WP:DE
5. WP:POINT
6. WP:EQ

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. RfC regarding Purgatory. Talk:Purgatory#Request_for_Comment
2. Wikiquette alert regarding Baptism. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive33#user:Lima
3. Information mediation attempt on Purgatory. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28 Purgatory, Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28_Purgatory/Archive001
4. Many attempts by various users to engage Lima in productive discussion or warn him about problematic edits and behavior on his talk page.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
5. Many attempts by various users to engage Lima in productive discussion or warn him about problematic edits and behavior on article talk pages.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

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.

{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.