Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Grounds for SPI?

Just curious if there is officially any grounds for asking for a SPI based on Fearofreprisal's earlier statements to the effect that he has been an editor here for several more years than that account is active and that there is I think some grounds for thinking, giving the nature of this particular username, that it may well be an alternate account of an editor who wishes to not have these particular edits associated with his/her other username. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, that still borders on fishing. NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

New parties?

I noticed Kww was recently added as an involved party. I'm not sure if other editors knew about that. More importantly, Robert McClenon has added evidence against uninvolved editor IseeEwe which has been brought forward to the workshop. This editor should be added as an involved party and notified accordingly if this is going to be allowed. Ignocrates (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, what's going on with admitting this evidence? This person has a right to defend himself in arbitration and the evidence page is closing in two days. Also, since Kww is now considered an involved editor are you going to move his opening statement to the main page from the talk page? Ignocrates (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I do not see any point in adding the Kww statement to the main page, but I did add it to the evidence page.
• Kww was added to the list of named parties on 24 October, only one day after the case pages were created.
• I asked @Robert McClenon: to inform @IseeEwe: and will be lenient regarding the evidence closure date
• I do not believe it is our usual practice to treat every editor mentioned in the evidence phase as a named party. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. I agree with your last point, but I decided to say something when the evidence was brought forward to the workshop. Ignocrates (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Iban between Ignocrates and John Carter modification

For the limited scope of this case the interaction ban between these users is loosened. They can comment on each others proposals in constructive and idea based ways. They should still avoid commenting on each other outside of this case. All in all use good judgment, and if not sure, ask me. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Misread WP:BANEX to think that it applied to "legitimate dispute resolution" in general, perhaps involving both individuals in a related dispute resolution not related to the ban itself, not just specifically to interaction bans. Sorry about that, but thank you for the exemption in this instance. John Carter (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

PD Date

As a general note, I may be 1-2 days late with the PD. I'll be travelling until the very beginning of december, and it may take a bit longer than 2-3 days to assemble a PD. We will see. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't see any valid reason for anyone to complain if you do take a little longer than usual at this time of year. Thank you for taking on the case, and all the cases you arbs have to take on, in any event. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Root of the problem

As this case moves forward to an imminent proposed decision, I'm struck by how much of this dispute boils down to bad faith on all sides. This is seemingly the meaning behind all the accusations of bias, trolling, vandalism, etc. What is different about this case is the assumptions of bad faith are almost intrinsic, or, to put it in plain language, that bad actions are the fruit of bad people. The intensity of the underlying mistrust and hostility I see here is incredible. I tried to boil this down to a single principle, but I couldn't find the right words in Wikipedia policy to do it. If the Golden Rule was a Wikipedia policy, I would apply it here. Ignocrates (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Another problem, particularly from one editor, Kww, is so far as I can tell a question of as I've said before what seems to me to be basic competence. There seems to be a strong indication from him, throughout the history of his recent involvement in the topic, that he thinks because it is possible that different religious groups would have different opinions about this subject, that such different opinions must exist and that we are required to reflect them all. Unfortunately, as someone who might be perhaps more familiar with this topic than a lot of others, I think that the Christian community internally over the time probably has more demonstrable disagreement over whether Jesus ever existed than any other groups. Docetism comes to mind here. I have seen no real evidence yet put forward to suggest that there actually are different views of the historicity of Jesus among the non-Abrahamic religions of the world, and, honestly, I have trouble seeing the assumption of there existing such different views hard to credit, given the sometimes remarkable differences between different groups within those traditions, and even whether there might be any consistency to them. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you recall any prior cases where CIR has been used as a principle? If you can cite one that would be helpful to demonstrate how it applies to editor conduct. Ignocrates (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw, the essay WP:CIR was used as a proposed principle in the workshops of the Austrian Economics case and the American politics case, but these were drafted by editors. I couldn't find any examples where it was included by the arbs as a principle in the final case. Ignocrates (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ignocrates, I think it would be more appropriate to say that there was bad faith extant, but it is overreach to say all sides. It is for ArbCom to determine where the bad faith resides, and that is not from "sides" but from individuals. And not all bad behavior stems from bad faith. Even then, I myself positively reject the notion that bad actions are the fruit of bad people, here, and everywhere. One of the problems I see sometimes in various disputes is this tendency to paint with too broad a brush. ArbCom is here to discern and separate, the very opposite thing. Evensteven (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying there is bad faith on all sides was my way of declining to weight where the bad faith resides. I completely agree that "It is for ArbCom to determine where the bad faith resides", and I probably overstated the intrinsic nature of it. It's just that the intensity and persistence of the bad faith shown throughout this proceeding is striking to me, especially considering what ArbCom can do to every person involved. Ignocrates (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ignocrates: Saying "there is bad faith on all sides" may be your way of "declining to weight where the bad faith resides," but to me it sounds like tarring all the participants in this arbitration with the same very wide brush. It seems unlikely to help the ArbCom arrive at a fair, well-informed decision.

While I may disagree with them on specific issues, I have sensed no bad faith in this arbitration from Evensteven, Kww, or Tgeorgescu. And, though I have accused some editors here of misbehavior (supported by diffs, by the way), I think it would be unnecessarily hostile to characterize them as "bad people," or paint them with a generalized accusation of "bad faith."

Finally, please clarify where I have acted in bad faith. I can't effectively respond to innuendo or conjecture. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll pass on that opportunity. I struggled with how to word this as a principle, since AGF is a guideline and it has its limits. If you can think of a way please include it in the workshop. Ignocrates (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I can find no way to word your "bad faith on all sides" statement as a principle that isn't antithetical to the WP code of conduct. Maybe it's because I'm missing something, but it sounds like you're trying to say that everyone here is acting out of malice. And that doesn't seem right. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, you are correct to state it's not the case that everyone here is acting out of malice. That was not my intention. In your case, the problem is, and always has been, your attitude; specifically, a predisposition toward intolerance and a lack of respect for the opinions of others. Imo, this causes you to become convinced of the rightness of your own position and to see the consensus position of others as merely an obstacle to be overcome. That said, people with such a disposition, while infuriating at times, can be paradigm shifters by challenging the assumptions behind the conventional wisdom. Ignocrates (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Ignocrates, I have not meant to cast a shadow on your intent or good faith in making your statement, but only to challenge some of its content as it stood. To me, it seemed easily capable of being interpreted in an unhelpful way, and uncharacteristic of your other statements in this arbitration. Evensteven (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, fwiw, you and Tgeorgescu are both impeccable editors and a great asset to the project. My characterization was overly broad and I didn't mean to impugn your reputations. Ignocrates (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No apology necessary for my sake; I did not take it as directed towards me. "Overly broad" was exactly my point though, as it could be taken to mean anyone. I think you were generalizing and summarizing and just got carried away. Easy to do, but uncharacteristic. And this is not the place where we would want to leave stray misunderstandings in play, so I thought best to address it. And thanks for the kind words. Back at you. Evensteven (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a stab at incorporating AGF as a proposed principle. That apparently hasn't been done since the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Case in August 2007. Still, I think it's important to capture how making assumptions about other editor's motives and intentions adversely affected the editing environment and contributed to the escalation of the conflict. Ignocrates (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Evensteven (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I included more early evidence under Assume AGF in the workshop, and it was enlightening to say the least. I was either unaware of or had forgotten about the details of how this conflict began. Ignocrates (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful also to include all the instances of repeated provocation on the talk page that provide the context to these few posts, but I guess that would have included almost all of archives 34 & 35, and quite a bit of archive 33. Wdford (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wdford: You've excortiated my contributions at Historicity of Jesus, yet, you've not provided even one citation to show what I've done wrong. It's really hard to respond to innuendo. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I do have to say that I find myself quite resentful of having my competence and good faith questioned. My stance through this has been quite consistent: the sources we are able to find do not reflect the demographics of either the world population of people or the world population of historians. They are heavily concentrated in a group with a bias, with a small halo effect in related groups. That doesn't mean the sources are wrong, but that biased demographic needs to be noted in the article and we can't use descriptors that would imply that the broader group is in agreement with the narrower group. There's nothing either incompetent or in bad faith in that stance.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:GREATWRONGS more or less explicitly covers those points. And it is rather clearly a violation of WP:OR for you to say "sources we are able to find do not reflect the demographics of either the world population of people or the world population of historians" unless you actually produce specific evidence to the contrary, something you have so far as I can tell never done. You have repeatedly made assertions with no evidence to support them, in violation of policies and guidelines, as indicated above. and then attempt to say that you alone are apparently in a position to tell others what would be required for the reputable academic sources to meet your personal opinions of fairness. When someone places unsubstantiated personal opinions before policies and guidelines, and persists in doing so even after it is pointed out to them that the opinions are not supported by policies and guidelines, that is more or less inherently problematic, as it is in general both disruptive and, after the lack of required independent sourcing for the assertions made has been pointed out, rather clearly tendentious as well. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No, John, it has nothing to do with WP:GREATWRONGS, nor have I made any arguments that lack evidence. WP:OR doesn't apply to editorial decisions, and, when applied to articles it doesn't apply to simple math, such as "nearly half the world is Hindu or Buddhist, while exactly none of our sources are either".—Kww(talk) 21:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But WP:TE and WP:DE, as well as WP:POINT, do. Your repeated insistence on your personal criteria being met in the matter of the academic field of history, demands that somehow history, which is a discipline unto itself and has its own methods and procedures, as has been said repeatedly recently, is extremely problematic. It would be extremely easy, particularly given your refusal to provide any sort of support for your arguments, to come to the conclusion that your conduct has rather clearly been in violation of WP:POINT for some time now, and yes, that you may well be incompetent as per WP:CIR to attempt to make any sort of judgments regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not participated in tendentious or disruptive editing, attempted to apply my own personal criteria on the academic field of history, or refused to provide support for any of my arguments. Perhaps if you focused your attention on anything I had actually done, we could find a common ground for resolving our disagreements.—Kww(talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, you have done, so far as I can tell, nothing but repeat opinions which you apparently deeply hold despite no evidence anywhere to support that they have any basis in academia, or, for that matter, reality itself. Your comment above which I reproduce here "nearly half the world is Hindu or Buddhist, while exactly none of our sources are either" seems to irrationally insist on a false dichotomy in the field of history which you are apparently wholeheartedly committed to, despite, once again, a profound lack of any evidence in any academic literature to support such a claim. This irrational and I believe incompetent insistence that content on academic subjects must reflect the rather random selection of groups whose differences, in this case religious ones, are completely irrelevant to the topic, and your persistent seeming obsession with this frankly irrelevant and dubiously rational possible distinction within religions being acknowledged and indicated in some way in the article, shows a remarkable inability to understand the basic subject matter of this topic. The topic in this case is, of course, the academic study of the history of one religious figure. Religious opinions on that religious figure, and by extension academic opinions tainted by possible religious preconceptions or bias not directly relevant to the topic itself, are an entirely separate matter, and are irrelevant to the topic. Your clear inability to acknowledge or even understand those distinctions raises I believe very serious questions as to whether there is any reason for the community here to trust your judgment in any other areas as well. You have, in fact, produced nothing by way of evidence to lead anyone to think that the difference in opinion on this matter which you are so singularly concerned with exists anywhere expect possibly within your own mind.

And, having reviewed the relevant highly-regarded academic sources available to me, as well as JSTOR, ProQuest, and other selected databanks available at local seminaries and university libraries with graduate degrees in religion, I can't find anything in them to support this apparently original opinion of yours either. As I indicated earlier, I have checked the most exhaustive and recent reference works known to me regarding this topic. Among others, the Brill Encyclopedia of Buddhism is roughly half again as long (8 volumes) as the Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity (5 volumes). No mention is made in it of any questions regarding this matter. The 10-volume Encyclopedia of Hinduism published earlier this year also contains no content regarding this subject. The "Jesus" article in the Encyclopedia of Religion does include quotes from Rabindranath Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi, which seem to indicate belief in his existence. Nor did I find anything in the rather comprehensive recent Religion Past and Present regarding this matter. On the basis of all of the above, I think it is reasonable to say that what you call "our differences" are in fact your personal differences with pretty much everything available in the relevant academic literature, and, possibly by extension, with the academic community itself. If that is true, there are very, very serious questions regarding your capacity to contribute to what is basically an academic work, which encyclopedias implicitly are, regarding this matter.

Lastly, your comment quoted above seems to indicate that you personally see Buddhism and Hinduism as in some way monolithic, as you seem to be implicitly indicating that one Buddhist or Hindu academic could ever be speaking for the Buddhist or Hindu academic community as a whole. Unfortunately, even a brief review of those topics would show to anyone that the internal differences among Hindus and Buddhists worldwide are even more pronounced than the internal differences among Christians, and that on that basis there is no reasonable basis for assuming that any of them would be capable or even interested in speaking for their religions as a whole. That rather obvious logical non sequitur raises still more questions regarding your basic competence as both an editor and as someone who is trusted to apply policies and guidelines which are generally written to be broad and open to logical interpretation. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My point has always been that there is precious little information on this topic from sources that are not Christian or Muslim. Thank you for finally admitting that that is, in fact, the case. The idea that a belief that someone is divine doesn't create a bias towards believing that he exists is so obviously false that it doesn't bear further comment.—Kww(talk) 19:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, you seem to ignore the matter of Judaism (you did know that is a separate religion, right?) and the fact that several Jewish scholars also have studied the period and have not raised significant questions regarding the matter of historicity, and you also apparently haven't bothered to check exactly who wrote any of the content I mentioned above but feel free to cast judgment anyway. Admittedly, I haven't myself checked for their beliefs, because, I guess unlike you, I tend to place academic opinions before my own. You also seem to arrogantly ignore the fact that the majority of Buddhists do not think anyone is divine, and that many if not most Hindus do not necessarily think anyone within the historical era was necessarily divine, but I guess there is no reason to believe that someone who is so clearly driven by his own presuppositions would bother to know anything about a topic before he starts to engage in criticism of it. And I thank you for your own statement above which I think would clearly indicate to anyone other than yourself that (1) you remain adamant in your refusal to acknowledge that the matter of historical methodology, which is in fact the basis of the modern study of history, is relevant to this article which clearly relates to the modern study of history, and that it does not necessarily believe that the factor of the faith traditions of the academics involved is relevant, (2) your rather clear statement indicating that in fact WP:GREATWRONGS is in fact relevant to your opinions, as you seem to be indicating that you as an individual have the right to determine when and if the relevant academic community can be trusted based on your own apparently rather ill-informed opinions, and (3) as an self-professed atheist, that basically you, as an individual, have decided, apparently based on your own atheistic opinions, and I think rather clearly not based on any particular understanding of the modern academic study of history, you are personally competent to judge whether or not highly-regarded academic sources are or are not reliable simply on the basis of your own atheistic convictions. I can think of no editor of a broadly Christian belief system, or for that matter any other non-atheistic belief tradition, who has recently had the gall to make such statements, and I find it very hard to imagine a more clear and explicit statement of violation of POV pushing by anyone anywhere.

P.S. I repeat, as I have said elsewhere here, that the topic is treated to a separate article in the two editions of the Encyclopedia of Unbelief, although, as I said above, not in any other reference works with which I am familiar, including reference works independent of any religion or belief systems, which I believe rather seriously indicates that the belief in the non-historicity of Jesus is a article of faith of at least some members of the atheistic community. We would not accept as indicators of reliability any such statement from an adherent of any other belief system as necessarily carrying any authority, and I cannot see any reason to believe that you are personally in a position to determine that we should do so here. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S. (e-c) You also seem to be more or less completely ignorant of the fact that most specialist reference sources go out of their way to cover any topic of relevance to that broader topic which is a subject of concern within that topic area to good length, to ensure that the controversy is presented fairly. That being the case, the fact that this topic is not mentioned in apparently any sources other than those written from a clearly atheistic perspective and more than somewhat aimed at the atheistic market indicates even within the Buddhist and Hindu and other religious communities the topic is considered of dubious if any relevance or significance, and that would not be the case if there were any degree of controversy regarding this topic in those communities, which there would be if anyone in those communities thought there were any significant points of dispute in the matter. Christian reference sources aiming at comprehensiveness that I've seen, for instance, do discuss the questions of the historicity of the Old Testament and even Zoroaster, the latter of whose existence is discussed in them but is more or less completely irrelevant to the topic of Christianity in general, because those broader topics have some degree of relevance to the main topic of that work. So, in effect, in this case, silence in those specialist sources indicates that the people in those fields see nothing of importance in the debate of the historicity of Jesus to be discussed, and it is all but impossible to believe that they would do that if there were any controversy about this topic in those communities, or, basically, outside of the specifically atheistic community. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never asked that Christian sources be treated as inherently unreliable. I have never asked that their contents be excluded. I have merely stated that they need to be treated as being biased. Being biased is not a bad thing: it's a natural occurrence, and it's an issue that needs to be properly dealt with in all articles. Most topics have a group of sources that have some level of inherent bias about the topic being dealt with, and it is our role as editors to weigh and balance those biases appropriately. Personally, I think it more likely that Jesus existed than that he did not, but my opinion isn't what the article should be about.—Kww(talk) 21:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) And you also seem to be more than willing to paint with the broadest possible brush all people who are not atheists now, or have not always been atheists, as "Christian". Bart Ehrman, a self-professed agnostic who now no longer believes in Christianity, being a case in point. And you also seem based on history not to believe that apparently life-long atheists, clearly more devoted to their belief system than Ehrman himself was to his, should receive the same treatment. Most people would actually contend the opposite. It is also relevant that the idea was first broadly discussed relevant roughly 30 or 40 or 50 years ago based on what was known and thought at that time but which has, in the light of subsequent developments, been more or less rejected by the relevant academic communities. Or, basically, that people are arguing seemingly at least in part on the basis of discredited or no longer broadly credited beliefs. The fact that the subject is not covered to any degree, so far as I can see, by anything but rather clearly pro-atheistic sources says, basically, that there is no controversy on this topic outside of that field. This is even despite the fact that, given that some Hindus quoted above clearly believe that Jesus did exist, it would be to some degree relevant to the topic of Hinduism and related reference sources if any Hindus thought there was anything meriting and worthy of discussion there. It would probably be covered in the content of those sources directly relating to Christianity. And, if the topic is basically ignored, or dismissed as not at all relevant, by virtually any and all sources outside of a specific belief community and academics tied to either fringe beliefs related to that community and/or specifically to some parts of the atheist community, there is no reason to give the subject any particular degree of weight in the main article on this subject. It could however be very relevant to Atheism and Christianity, or similar articles, although apparently those involved never thought that far. But, apparently, a few problematic editors, not including one apparent atheist or agnostic who has been one of the recent developers of the article in its stable condition, Martin, don't seem to be able to believe that even he is capable of as much clarity and objectivity as they themselves are. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman's one man, saying "all serious historians agree with my position", which is another form of bias. "If the topic is basically ignored, or dismissed as not at all relevant, by virtually any and all sources outside of a specific belief community" does summarize the study of the historicity of Christ fairly well. It's ironic that you meant it in the opposite direction.—Kww(talk) 00:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Both reinforcing my point here. Just to be clear, when I mention bad faith above, I'm referring to an assumption of bad faith on the part of others. Ignocrates (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no real question in my eyes of good faith regarding Kww. I think he is acting in good faith. However, there does seem to me to be an extremely relevant question regarding whether his actions in good faith are motivated by even basic competence in the topic areas, which is more or less assumed in most cases. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My preference is to not interact with John Carter, as I expressed in other pages of this arbitration ([1] and [2] within collapsed section), and I've requested a temporary injunction banning him from this Arbitration, and at least a temporary IBAN with me.[3]). Yet, I can only stand by, mute to John Carter's attacks against Kww, for so long.

In Ebionites 3, John Carter was sanctioned for personal attacks. He's apparently learned from that experience, and now, rather than questioning other editors' sanity, or calling them delusional or paranoid [4], he just calls them incompetent. [5] [6] [7] [8]

My viewpoint is that calling someone incompetent is pure incivility. The term's negative connotations so outweigh its denotation that only a person who is incompetent in the English language would think it might be perceived as anything but an attack by its recipient. (Irony number 1.)

Throughout this arbitration, John Carter has repeatedly accused Kww of incompetence. Yet, rather than supporting the allegations with credible evidence (and diffs), and proposing specific findings of fact and remedies supported by proposed principles, he's used innuendo and unsupported aspersions, spread throughout the content and talk pages of this arbitration.

Yet, it's difficult to be certain what John Carter actually means. His writing is often effectively incomprehensible. Consider the last sentence of his most recent post above: On the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease scale (which usually ranges between 0 and 100), it rates a negative 10. No joke.[9] (One time, trying to figure out what he was talking about, I was so frustrated that I tried asking for a third opinion. Even that person couldn't figure out what John Carter was trying to say.[10])

So, here we are, with a person who sometimes has difficulty expressing himself comprehensibly in written English, attacking the competence of another editor. (Irony number 2.) And, to be fair, Kww is not only competent, he's often eloquent and sagatious.

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing John Carter of bad faith or incompetence. My opinions relate to his actions, not his motives. Though his motives may be pure as the driven snow, his actions here have been disruptive. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Should you make any effort to review academic literature in general, including specifically peer-reviewed English-language academic literature from India, you will find that the language in them is often garbled and confused. I say that from personal experience, and have indicated such concerns elsewhere before. Therefore, what you are doing in the above is not so much raising concerns over anything remotely like content of comments here, but rather the structure of comment, which seems to once again evade the real issues of the contgent of them. Also, I have for years more or less acknowledged that I write "on the fly," effectively mentally rewriting sentences while still typing them, and at times that does lead to less than coherent outcomes. I do not think I am the only one here on wikipedia who has said as much or done as much, and if you had more or broader experience of it you might know that as well. The history of your own actions, however, is to my eyes probably the most relevant here, and has been reviewed extensively already. In fact, it is what led to your current topic ban. And if, as you say, you want nothing to do with me, good. Frankly, your judgment and behavior is such I don't particularly want anything to do with you either. But a reasonable person would know the best way to do that is to stop attacking or belittling them, and you seem to have no inclination to stop doing that. John Carter (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, WP:CIR is an essay. Although editors have tried twice in arbitration cases to draft principles based on lack of competence (see my analysis above), ArbCom has never implemented a principle based on it, nor has a sanction for a lack of competence been enforced at AE (to the best of my knowledge). Therefore, the whole line of argument is unproductive and should stop. Ignocrates (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

However, there are more or less set rules for the conduct of administrators, and our policy WP:ADMINACCT specifically indicates that administrators who have, and I quote, "seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed." It also thereafter states "Repeated or consistent poor judgment" is one of the bases which has previously been found sufficient for such loss of confidence resulting in the loss of admin privileges. I think a very reasonable case can be made to indicate that Kww has displayed remarkably poor judgment on a repeated and consistent basis regarding at least this topic, and that the faith of the community in his judgment can be said to be seriously open to question. In that particular regard, as I think NYB, Beeblebrox, and Worm among others specifically know, there have been multiple complaints regarding Kww's conduct for some time off-site, and while many of those individuals are no longer members of the "community" here that is in at least a few cases because of their possibly voluntarily leaving the community. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, it would be helpful if a principle for admin conduct were drafted and added to the workshop along with a finding of fact supported by diffs. "Repeated or consistent poor judgment" per WP:ADMINACCT is usually understood as questionable actions in the capacity of an admin rather than as a content editor. Ignocrates (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You will find that even in other open arbitration cases sitting administrators do not necessarily in every case make statements consistent with the general rules. In this case, I think my statement there is more or less appropriate as is. The arbitrators, in general, are supposed to be able to be trusted to know how to assemble decisions without necessarily having everything spelled out for them. Although some of my comments here reflect my personal concerns regarding even the basic competence of Kww, which are very deep personal opinions but still basically only personal opinions, and I think it is reasonable for those concerns to be voiced somewhere, they are still at this point primarily personal concerns and I am less than sure that they necessarily should be included in the workshop as "proposed decisions", because I see this not so much as a proposal but a statement of concerns. Should the arbitrators choose in their own judgment to add discussion of such concerns in the proposed decision, I believe that there is sufficient basis for them to be able to rather easily put together the basic indicated material on their own, and that in fact most candidates for ArbCom understand that doing so is at least some times one of the requirements of the position. Of course, if such proposed decisions are offered, I would have no reservations at that time to assisting to indicate with diffs or links anything which seems reasonable for inclusion. Regarding ADMINACCT, as you say above, your grasp of that "understanding" is right, generally because we don't often find admins exhibiting extremely dubious judgment in application of content guidelines and policies to their own editing. People who display such poor judgment generally do not get to the point of ever being considered for adminship, let alone selected to be admins, and so in general it is not really an area of concern for admins. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Ignocrates (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempt at definition of the root of the problem

I believe the root of this problem is, basically, that individuals who seem to adhere to beliefs consistent with those of the modern atheistic community believe, based on some of the statements that have been made by leaders of that community in the past, many of whom have few if any qualifications in the matter of history in general or this specific era in particular, or even often in any other directly relevant academic studies, indicating that Jesus did not exist, that the belief of those atheist leaders is of greater academic weight and reliability than statements by any other academics who are now or have been in the past adherents, generally to an undefined degree, of belief systems which do not share the beliefs of the modern atheistic community. Historically, this has tended to be argued on the basis of the "independence" of the atheists from any belief system, although as time goes on there seems to exist some basis for thinking that newer atheists accept the argument as, effectively, an article of faith, much like Roman Catholics accept the Incarnation of Jesus. This seems to ignore the fact that many of the arguments put forward by those atheist leaders, in attempts to explain away anything which does not conform to those atheistic beliefs, such as Richard Dawkins and his Meme theory, may in fact have even less support in the relevant academic community than the religion-influenced beliefs that they seek to supplant. It also overlooks the fact that subsequent research has tended not to favor some of the then-current possibilities which seem to have been involved in the formation of that opinion at the time it was broadly publicized by atheist leaders. In essence, this arbitration is about the "science vs. religion" debate, and specifically includes the rather unfortunate detail of the "not-so-good science versus religion" component of that debate. Particular areas of concern seem to be whether the statements of atheists who often purport themselves to be driven more by "scientific" concerns should be given as much, if not more, weight than those of others who may be at least, if not more, qualified in their individual fields of study, but do not share that ideological bias, and who are often looked down on by those atheists because of their adherence, generally to a poorly if at all defined degree, of some belief system other than atheism. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I tend to agree that there has been argument at this article that amounts to the "science vs. religion" debate. It strikes me that the science advocates do not understand (or at least do not articulate) the nature of science itself, and its place in scholarly historical research. I think that when I have tried to point this out (as here), my comments were treated as suspect, perhaps because they came from a Christian editor (see the descriptive label here). However, my description of science is that of Richard Rhodes (see the link), who was highly praised by 7 Nobel prize winners for his writing. Whatever the "science advocates" purport to value, it is different from actual science, and John Carter is right that it amounts to an ideology and a bias based on a belief system. This idea also did not go over well on the talk page, there being much causal (not actual) promotion of "objectivity". While I have tried to point out that there are biases on all sides, Kww has always protested that there is only one side that publishes and that that constitutes proof of bias of that one side. But in the same edit Kww goes on to say that because he makes a talk page argument, that it is now required that others find sources he has been unable to locate. This claim underlies his repeated demands on the talk page, and represents at best a false understanding of responsibilities among editors, and an inappropriate (might I say incompetent?) approach to editing. Evensteven (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Also worth noting in that comment from Kww is the statement that only one side publishes. It seems to be a rather obviously unfounded assertion, as no foundation for it is even apparently attempted, and a rather clear statement of at least implicit bias. It also seems to rather explicitly assume that there are other "sides," even though apparently even Kww can't find sources to even verify the existence of one or more of the other "sides." That seems to demonstrate a rather clear unfounded assumption on the part of that editor, and an attempt to use that unfounded assumption as a piece of evidence to support his own conclusions. It is hard to imagine that such unfounded assertions of fact would be viewed favorably by anyone seeking adminship. Such conduct in "regular" editors might lead to some form of sanctions. When conduct of admins in particular is apparently below that which would be found acceptable among non-admin editors, there are not unreasonable questions regarding how to effectively deal with such problematic editing. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone understand what John Carter is trying to say here? Seriously: I've tried parsing it out clause by clause, but I can't even get past the first (99 word) sentence. Perhaps I could post an RfC, and try to get some linguists to come here and see whether they can make sense of of it? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It is worth I think mentioning that the only other person I know of who has so consistently criticized and refused to even read comments made by others is the now-banned User:PassaMethod, who has a long and significant history of sockpuppetry on this site, and also remarkably showed a great deal of interest in the broad topic area of religion and promotion of what others tend to have considered minority or fringe views on those topics. Very recent discussion regarding the potential attempt of this editor to return to active editing on this site can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#WP:Sockpuppet master User:Pass a Method having changed his username across Wikis. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying really hard to read and understand your comments here, but, like you've said: Competence is required. The first sentence of your "attempt at definition" essay above is 99 130 words, and has a SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) grade of 28. I'm just not competent enough to read at the 28th grade level. But then, I don't know anyone who is: I sent a copy of your essay to a friend who has a PhD in theoretical linguistics from Georgetown, and he just laughed.

I suspect it would be more practical for you to just explain what you were trying to say, rather than for me to chase around trying to figure it out.

With respect to it being worth "mentioning" PassaMethod: Why? Why is it worth mentioning a banned editor with a history of sockpuppetry? Are you implying that I am PassaMethod or that I'm a sockpuppet? Do you really think such innuendo is appropriate here? Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, considering neither of your comments in this section even remotely relate to the stated topic of this section, do you honestly think you are in a position to criticize others regarding what they add? Perhaps if you made more of an attempt to actually read what others say, as Evensteven apparently did before he made a directly relevant response, rather than instantly going to some offsite place to make "grades' of the comments of others, you might be more successful. Also noting that, for someone who wants nothing to do with me, you still seem to spend a remarkable degree of time attempting to basically belittle or otherwise denigrate me. John Carter (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm just trying to find out what you're trying to say. In a civil discourse, if someone doesn't understand what you say, you rephrase it so that they can. Seems like the kind of thing most people learn when they're about 2 or 3 years old. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I see what John Carter is getting at. I'm going to paraphrase John's first paragraph with some of the qualifying language stripped out and maybe this will make it a bit clearer: "the root of this problem is,... that individuals who seem to adhere to beliefs consistent with those of the modern atheistic community believe,... that the belief of those atheist leaders is of greater academic weight and reliability than statements by any other academics who are now or have been in the past adherents,... of belief systems which do not share the beliefs of the modern atheistic community. ... Particular areas of concern seem to be whether the statements of atheists... should be given as much, if not more, weight than those of others who may be at least, if not more, qualified in their individual fields of study, but do not share that ideological bias, and who are often looked down on by those atheists because of their adherence,... of some belief system other than atheism."

In summary (mine), atheist editors, or those sympathetic to the atheist position, give more weight to atheist sources than the sources of other academics who don't share the same ideological bias. Ignocrates (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well put, and my thanks. I did in the process of composing the original post add a number of possibly redundant or unnecessary qualifying phrases initially to prevent any sort of accusations of bias on my part. I might also add that there seems to be some sort of additional bias in some atheistic editors and authors assuming that anyone who does not explicitly say that they are atheists is a theist of some sort. While self-identification of author's prejudice is important, I am honestly aware of no other area of academic study where editors here place this degree of importance to it, seemingly at least potentially to the exclusion of any and all other aspects of the works in question. Also, there is at least a bit of apparent (not necessarily in all cases real, but apparent) bias on the part of some atheist editors and authors regarding the fact that at least some western atheists see the nonexistence of Jesus as one of the fundamental premises of their personal belief system. That being the case, apparently, there would exist a market for books regarding that belief, just as there exists a market for similar books regarding other belief systems. The fact of such books existing, and receiving significant attention and support in their individual target audiences, is nowhere else that I know of in wikipedia considered sufficient grounds to say that they are reliable in general. There does however seem to be at least a bit of bias regarding this particular topic among certain editors along strict lines of belief. And, yes, in some cases, there seems to be a bit of a bias among those editors to place that potential bias as the primary determining factor in their own conclusions regarding the comparative reliability of such sources. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)