User talk:Averykrouse/Jesus Conflict

This page contains all the comments referring to the conflict on Talk:Jesus that lasted from January 2006 to March 2006. All deleted comments have been restored and archived. This page will be watched for revisions, but new and additional comments are, of course, welcome.

Re:Robsteadman rebutall

Thank you for your praise of the extended Robsteadman rebuttal that I started and others followed. archola 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Rhetorical vampire"—I like that. I simply figured that the best way to refute Rob's assertion that Theism is inherently irrational was to engage him in rational philosophic discourse. Philosophically, it all comes down to whether or not you accept God as an axiom. There are other editors involved who are much better rhetoricians than I am, but at least I created the framework. Arch O. La 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) PS: If Rob is a pseudoskeptic as I suspect, than he may never back down. Arch O. La 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT a pseudoskeptic - I consdider myself to be a rationalist, a bright, someone who demands proof and logic. Please don't throw around labels in a bizarre and, I guess, insulting way. Robsteadman 08:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Rob. It always helps to know what each other's worldview is and the description fits as far as the article goes. However, you may run into trouble when you demand proof for something that may simply be beyond our present knowledge (in a naturalistic sense). Arch O. La 09:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If it cannot be proved it cannot be stated as fact. That is my whole problem with the "jesus" article. Robsteadman 10:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Praise be unto thee for this. Arch O. La 00:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman Comments

Please leave any comments about the recent comment I left on Rob's talk page here. I prefer not to have to have ten people editing and commenting on his talk page simply because it would get cluttered and someone would say something I wasn't intending, quite easily. I look forward to reading any commentary from anyone, positive or negative, and from both sides of this conflict. --Avery W. Krouse 00:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Avery...your attempt at peacemaking is appreciated, but my gut feeling is that Rob will not take it in the spirit it is offered. He has a monumental misunderstanding of WP policy and what seems like an almost deliberate ignorance of historical scholarship, and is (as you recognize) committed to his own POV, regardless of the opinions of academia. He has presented little evidence for his perspective, and is by definition a troll. When you can review WP:DFTT and, to understand what it is he's up to, check out WP:POINT. I can only hope that he alters his course and decides to work with the community and not against it. Thanks for your efforts...KHM03 00:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And the `POV warrior continues throwing around insults - thansk for further evidence by the way. My edits are to attempt to achieve a NPOV on this, and other, articles - a shame the same can't be said of those busily protecting "their" article to make out that some things are factual contrary to verifiable evidence. Robsteadman 08:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, from your viewpoint many of us are trolls. Don't feed us either ;) Arch O. La 13:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, my comment is above (under "rebuttal.") I certainly recognize the need to consider all views and the utility of the devil's advocate. That said, Rob reminds me of St. Thomas combined with General Patton. Arch O. La 00:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa....just, just whoa :/. I didn't agree with everything there, but that certainly had to of taken a whole lot more effort and thought than I would of been able to figure out :/. Homestarmy 02:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Avery, sometimes when someone has a strong bias and does not understand our policies, it is a good idea for many different people to try different approaches communicating with that editor. I have seen problem editors really come around through such a process, to become valuable editors. In this sense, I appreciate your comments to Robsteadman because they could work where others have failed. That said, I personally doubt that they will. He is a troll. I have continuously asked him for verifiable sources for his claims and he has never provided any. Most recently on the talk:Jesus page I picked three specific comments of his that I think are at the core of his POV and asked him for sources, and he continues to refuse to do so. Personally, this is the approach I think is most elegant: stick to our policies, ask the person to abide by them, and give them very clear, specific opportunities to do so. Your apporach is more personal. Well, good luck! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for yet more evidence. I think I will soon be able to file my complaint with no risk of it being rejected. Lies, smears and defamation - brilliant. What a gem you are. Robsteadman 16:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think anyone in an arbitration request or an RfC is going to see the brilliant prose Avery wrote as lies, smears, and defamation? Homestarmy 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to Slrubenstein's post not Avery's which I just find a baffling and long winded strangeness. Robsteadman 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Ann

Hi, Averykrouse. I was just about to reply to your message on my talk page when I saw your message to Str1977. In fact, what I was going to suggest was an RfC. I've been concerned at the number of hastily-filed, invalid RfCs in the last eight months, but I do think it would be valid in this case. The reason they were invalid was that there was no evidence of two separate people having tried and failed to resolve the dispute, through messages to the person on his talk page or on the article talk page. Sometimes people file RfCs quickly because they're so indignant at the terrible behaviour of someone, but unless they can show that two people sent him a message trying to persuade him to change his behaviour, the RfC gets deleted after 48 hours. An RfC with one certifier and 500 endorsers is invalid. And the two people have to have tried to sort out the same problem. The RfC is invalid if one of them asked him not to edit war and the other asked him not to make personal attacks (or whatever). A recent case is the one that SOPHIA filed against the admin who placed a sockpuppet notice on her husband's user page. She was, in my view, justified in feeling upset, but she was unable to show that two separate editors had explained to him that her husband wasn't a sockpuppet, and that he had continued to add that notice. In fact, when I removed that notice, it was never replaced. And the admin did apologize for the mistake, but she wasn't satisfied. Her RfC was deleted, which probably increased her distress.

I would strongly encourage an RfC rather than an RfAr, because the arbitration committee, before accepting a case, will look for evidence that a genuine effort has been made to resolve it by other means. But before filing anything, gather your evidence carefully. Find two people (I presume you're one?) who can provide diffs to show an honest attempt at sorting out the problem. Diffs which show something like, "Stop being such a jerk" won't do. Contact the other person to check that he's prepared to certify the RfC and not just to endorse it. I'm sure I could endorse it, but I don't recall ever sending him a message asking him to stop. The diffs could be a polite (not bossy) request to change his behaviour and/or a detailed explanation of why he is wrong in thinking that his wording is NPOV or that another wording is POV. Hope that helps. An alternative would be to have an RfC on the article, but from what I've seen it is related to one individual person, isn't it? I haven't spent a great deal of time studying the article or the talk page. I appreciate your efforts at keeping calm and civil. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 21:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I see that the signature of the person who welcomed you to Wikipedia wasn't coming out right, so I edited it. Hope you don't mind my tampering. There were problems a few months ago when the software was changed, and a lot of signatures came out all wrong on pages. AnnH ^(talk) 21:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

On RfCs and RfAs

I've taken it to the brink with these on one user, but never actually taken action. I would advise taking a breath here before doing anything.

First of all, he seems to be cooperating since the posting of the consensus paragraph.

Second, I'd advise a personal wiki inventory. For Christians, this is taking St. Paul's lead: "Look to yourselves, lest you be tempted." Look through all the posts that you've made that have been done in his presence or referring to him. Ask if there is anything you should apologize for (there may well not be, then again, who knows?) After all, "sins travel in pairs."

Once you've done that, and/or asked an admin to do it for you, break for a day from the matter.

Now, if you still wish to proceed, place a formal warning on his talk page, citing specific pages, dates and times of offending actions. Pick the most important issue and be sure you can back it up. Warn him not to do it further.

Then wait. If he does the same thing again, try to get an arbitrator to intervene personally. That failing, go for it.

I have been warned that sometimes these things can come back and bite, so be sure your relatively clean when you do so.

You then need two additional users to sign on.

Good luck!

Bob --CTSWyneken 21:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:The above: good advice. "Blessed are the peacemakers" and all that. Well, sorry several of us used your page as a battleground, but sometimes you just have to have it out, you know?

I've called for clarity and I've posted my opinion on the "request" subpage. Beyond this, I'm not sure what to do. I've tried to see both sides (it comes from being a radical centrist), but sometimes you're just trapped in your own subjectivity.

Several of Rob's comments make sense in terms of Bright-ism, but as I understand it that's a rather nebulous category beyond asserting neorational positivism. I hope I haven't done anything I regret.

Man, this comment seems disjointed, I must have used up all my rhetorical skills on the editorial. Well, keep the faith. Arch O. La

All I am trying to do is unsure a balance and NPOV on these articles. There is noticeable protectionism going on, puhing the "christian" POV whilst not accepting the verifiable facts or placing them in minor ways later in the articles. Please open your mind to the verifiable and accurate and stop POV pushing. Robsteadman 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder whether you will get your complaint in before I get my in about the protectionism? Robsteadman 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Meta:Rob

"Bright" is a political stance based on a scientific worldview and aligned against the Religious Right. They may be considered the Activist Scientific Left. I was very impressed with your attempt to get Rob to disengage, but it failed due to Rob's political convictions. Recognizing this, we can see why discussion on Jesus has disintegrated into political diatribe. We cannot "reason" with Rob on his politics (since politics is inherently nonrational IMHO), but I recognize that he makes some valid points re:Science and Semantics. I respect your desire to disengage from the war, but I'm somewhat of an activist myself and I'm trying to promote peace.

Peace. Arch O. La 22:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Exit, Stage Left!

I will be sure to let you know if your name comes up or if stronger action is neccesary against Rob. I think that Rob will calm down now that he's getting his point across, but if not I'll let you know. Please note, though, that I am disengaging from Talk:Jesus only to the point where I'm not pushing an opinion where I don't really have one. I'll still participate when I have something to say. Arch O. La 23:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

DO you expect your name to come up on an RfC or similar? I wonder why that might be? Robsteadman 07:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...

It just looks to me like this RfC or ArbCom request or whatever is losing focus, the thing with me is, my main method of debate begins and ends with...evangelism. It's very important :/. All these arguments over sources and scholarly work and whatnot, It's just not how I like to operate, and I don't really want to file an RfC or ArbCom request or whatever firstly because I am just too inclined to think evangelism is a better solution, and secondly because we don't have enough examples as far as I know of attempts to privately resolve this conflict. So I just don't get it :/. Homestarmy 20:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Enter, stage right?

I've posted a possible synthetic understanding, but I haven't proposed a new paragraph. I'm too irked at all the binary thinking to get involved in another vote right now. Welcome back, though. Arch O. La 02:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I should ask if you really think your extant contemporaneous vote will settle what the last ℵ1 votes have not? Arch O. La 04:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus seems to have been locked, which interupts the latest vote. Arch O. La 18:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems with the votes we have so far, we won't have a consensus, seriously, do we need an ArbCom request yet? Both Robsteadman and that new person are threatening to revert any and all changes that are not in line with their opinions regardless of how the vote goes, and Rob is still causing us to be unable to do anything but vote vote vote -____-. Homestarmy 19:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is untrue - I do not want votes all the time, particularly when they are being fixed by calling a quorum/cabal (including people who have not been involved but will support). I want a verifiable and accurate article - it's that simple. Robsteadman 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, to an outsider it must look like the debate has been politicized and polarized and that there are various factions demanding to be heard. (I tried to find a synthesis and was rebuffed). Quorum yes, cabal no. Even if there is a cabal, it will probably disintegrate once we move on to the next paragraph and try to resolve John 3:16 ;). Both I and Jim Wae have tried to move on to the third paragraph, and considerable work has been done on the Jewish views section. But, the debate over historicity slows progress, and hence is regressive. Arch O. La 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the work that we did on the Jewish view section was spiffy, even though I don't think I even technically made anyone see the reason for it, and I think they may of fixed the issue I had with it without even intending to. However, eventually, if we keep going on like we're going, I don't see how we can avoid an ArbCom request. Homestarmy 19:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If it comes to that, then sobeit. But anyone who has made every attempt short of ArbCom will be judged more fairly. Arch O. La 19:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus has been unlocked. That was a weird hour or so. But how much sturm un drang must we endure? Arch O. La 19:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the voting, but let me also express my hope that you succeed. The debate has been too much like the Battle of the Five Armies:the last survivors win. I fear any ArbCom request will be much the same. I like to think I'm like Bilbo Baggins. Arch O. La 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote Assistance

What time is that in US Eastern Time? I teach a college class tonight. --CTSWyneken 10:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that Wikipedia is six hours ahead of CST; therefore, it must be five hours ahead of US Eastern Time. Hope this helps. Arch O. La 12:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The comment line

It would have helped if I would have read the instructions before voting, but you will see that I have done just that, i.e. moved the comment down! Thank you for your kind watchful eye. I appreciate the extra mile you and the others are taking. I would also like to see them remove that unfair neutrality flag: it is a disgrace. drboisclair 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am grateful for the monitoring of the admins. I think that they do a good job. I noticed that one of the oppostion claims that there is a cabal of Christian editors seeking to pack the decisions. I think that this is unfair. The first thing that people that take on the task of editing should do is attempt to give the other editor(s) the benefit of the doubt. I would like to have taken back the negative characterization of "Jesus-Myth": I am willing to say that they have a legitimate argument and that they are not a pseudo-historical movement. I had been taken up in what I considered to be a universal modern consensus that Jesus was an historical person. I would like to offer olive branches to them to get them to work together with the majority. I imagine that that has been yours and ArchOLa's aspiration. I know it was CTSWyneken's. drboisclair 05:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Robeaston99

It seems all he's done is debate on the merits of removing the Robert Steadman page and vote here. A little odd, but what are you wondering about? --CTSWyneken 14:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There has also been a question raised as the whether new/banned users' votes should be counted. People are going to argue that there are voting irregularities, and the vote right now is pretty close to a tie. This is starting to remind me of the 2000 U. S. Presidential election, especially the Florida runoff. Arch O. La 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems quite likely that there is a connection between Robeaston99 and Robsteadman. However, I'm just a lowly admin: I don't have checkuser privileges. I'm just guessing based on the contributions Robeaston has made. In any case, my understanding is that users who haven't built up a record are not considered full members of the community. That's not meant to be unfriendly or unwelcoming, and is definitely not meant to be an insinuation that new users are engaging in any dishonourable or underhand behaviour. It's just meant to protect vote-rigging from people who might get their friends to join in order to vote (or to help out with extra reverts). You can count people's edits here; even users with blue-linked user pages may not have been here long. See also WP:SOCK, especially the section on meatpuppets. It's not meant as a nasty accusation or insinuation — but editors are not really "established" until they have a hundred edits. When new editors vote in Requests for Adminship, for example, their votes are often crossed out by other editors, who write "user's eighteenth edit" underneath. AnnH ♫ 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspected the link between Robeaston and Robsteadman too. I thought nothing of it because I didn't think Robsteadman would actually stoop that low, and also the evidence I gain from viewing Special:Contributions is circumstantial at best. Deskana (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I resent the above - particularly from DESKANA after his recent vandalism of my page ()be honest, you were responsible). I have no idea whjo robeaston99 is and I do not operate a sockpuppet. Now kindly retract your accusations and insinuations. After deskana's vandalism and the quorum/cabal calls and strangers turning up to supprt the unebncyclopedic version on the vote this is outrageous. And all a bit familiar from the way you all tried to get rid of SOPHIA. Robsteadman 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You resent the fact that I declared the evidence was circumstantial and thought nothing of it because it couldn't be proved? I wonder what you would have said had I been accusing you directly and saying the evidence did point to you using sockpuppets. Deskana (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me: 1) The speed with which Rob was judged 2) The fact that Rob was not allowed to confront the evidence (nor Gator nor me nor anyone else) beyond the edit histories that caused the suspicion in the first place 3) The alternate explanation that the "sockpuppets" were really friends, mates or students of Rob were not given consideration.

As you know I have also had issues with Rob in the past, but to me this is a clear-cut case of civil rights. Perhaps it is time that Rob be put on trial—if and only if his civil rights are respected.

Rob will undoubtedly be even more furious than he has been in the past. SOPHIA will likely have something to say, perhaps Alienius as well. In fact, even I and perhaps Gator are a little uncomfortable with the way this was handled today (it's still 11:19 pm here). I don't want to see Christians fed to the lions on Wikipedia, but neither do I want to reenact the Inquisition or the Crusades.

This is my honest opinion: proceed with caution. Rob may indeed be guilty, but due process should be respected. Arch O. La 05:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

IP: That might still be a friend or student. In fact, in some setups an entire network reveals only a single IP address to the Internet. Whatever you decide to do, be sure to respect civil rights and due process. That's all I ask. Arch O. La 05:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I try to be centrist, which is not exactly the same as being neutral. If Rob is allowed to defend himself (or to have an advocate) then ArbCom may be due. I'd like to hear what others have to say first, though. Arch O. La 05:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

re:Checkuser

Checkuser is in the hands of only an extremely few number of administrators and developers for this site. If you check the list near the bottom of this page under English Wikipedia, you'll see a number of folks that have this ability. See: [1]. I'll take a look at the situation tonight, but from a cursory peek just now, I'd have to say you are right.--MONGO 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus Vote

Nice try, but this is exactly what I feared. I think it's time we seek outside neutral help to settle this. Not against Rob, or against historians, Christians, Jews, Athiests or other, but truly neutral outside help. To continue my analogy to the 2000 election, it is time to appeal to the Supreme Court. Arch O. La 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian "Cabal"?

Is this wise?

BTW, Jim62sch and I are forming a centrist coalition. CTSWynekan and SOPHIA have also been invited. Arch O. La 06:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Avery, now that you're passing these invitations around, you're just confirming Rob's story. Do you want him to win? Arch O. La 06:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Parody it may be, get the joke not everyone will. Arch O. La 06:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you are "disgusted" with me I was surprised at your invite. As I've read the personal attack you left on Rob Steadman's page you are not the sort of editor I would care to associate with whether I was christian or not. SOPHIA 14:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Avery, all I can say is that you should have been more careful. Arch O. La 14:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)