JJH405

February 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at First Congregational Church of Albany. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Meters (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can claim that this does not involve the church. The perpetrator was the church's Deacon, the victims were being mentoring for confirmation, the deacon's parents are senior members who attempted to influence the outcome of events, and the pastor left over the affair. You have broken WP:3RR over this. Take it to the article talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, the majority of information in the article was the result of the minister in question having been let go by the church prior to this incident. The author of the article was also a friend of the minister. The eventual charges were changed, as was much of the case. (JJH405 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC))

If you can provide sources for this, please do (And are you Puritan327, perchance? If so please read this, ASAP. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No... Different user and the sources do exist but are of legal nature and not something that can or should be posted on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJH405 (talk • contribs) 13:39, February 26, 2016‎

It raises concerns when a WP:SPA account with an obvious WP:Conflict of interest in an article stops making contentious edits to an article and a new WP:SPA account appears and immediately starts making the same edits. If you are involved in the church you have a conflict of interest. If you know Puritan327, who self-identifies here as the current Pastor of the church, you have a conflict of interest. If you are here because Puritan327 asked you to get involved or pointed you to this article this is considered a type of sockpuppetry. Per WP:MTPPT "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining."

You reverted that material five times in four hours. That's more than enough for a WP:3RR block. I gave you the benefit of the doubt since you were a new user and did not ask for a block. Puritan237 also reverted the same material five times. I think there's enough here to support taking this to WP:SPI but, again, I have given you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not experienced at how to deal with legal charges, and resultant plea bargains in Wikipedia articles. I clarified it by specifying what the deacon actually plead guilty to, but it's possible there is too much information in the article dealing with the charges he was arrested for. As I said on the article's talk page, look at the guidelines and make your arguments there. Meters (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe me, truth is I'm actually not the same user. I DID register as a new user because I read the article and felt it had the potential to significantly increase the damage to a church in the process of trying to get its act together and move on from a horrific experience. Anyone turning to Wikipedia to read about this historic building will end up focusing only on what happened (it's true) and the whole idea of promoting appreciation of a hisotorc resource will be lost to another "this is why people don't like religion" and THAT'S what everyone will take away from it. Yes I did try to keep changing it but once I was told I was at risk for being blocked, I actually read the rules about editing and realized that I wasn't getting anywhere... And once I had three admins basically telling me I'd never succeed in changing things, I realized it's a no-win situation. I've given up because there's nothing I can do. I've also stopped looking to give input on anything on Wikipedia for the same reason ... It feels like a no win situation. With all due respect, I've spent lots of time in the past 48 hours trying to explain why I think the material is overly damaging at this time and I'm right where I was when I first saw it. That's why I've stopped trying to change it... I'd just end up blocked anyway. I'm not the Puritan user nor do I know them ... Just someone who was trying to help out.