This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 01:16, 5 September 2014 (→Misconduct in the Christianity topic: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: update tally). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Misconduct in the Christianity topic

Initiated by Ret.Prof (talk) at 05:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ret.Prof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

• John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Eusebeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ignocrates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5
• diff6
• diff7

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk page Gospel of Matthew #1
• RSN
• Talk page Gospel of Matthew #2
• FTN
• ANI
• Mediation

Statement by Ret.Prof

"There are gangs of editors who protect themselves & their friends, & I don't know what can be done about them. I wish these groups didn't exist, but they do & there is little interest in controlling them."

This quote from Admin. Llywrch best summarizes why I am requesting arbitration. At first glance this appears to be about whether an ancient historical statement by Papias re Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is fringe. However the subject of this Arbitration has little to do with content but rather in what circumstances can a large number of user accounts overrule WP core policies.

This Anti-Fringe patrol is made up of two admins, five user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts. (See WP:POV Railroad) It formed several years ago and their stated purpose is to remove “fringe” They have deemed me "an incompetent editor who pushes fringe," and therefore I must go. More recently my "deficiencies as an editor" have been expanded to include rudeness, self-aggrandizement, arrogance and disruptive editing, along with general attempts to undermine my personal integrity. I have been increasingly harassed, bullied and belittled. I believe the following observations to be true:

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3

The following diffs are to illustrate specific instances of the problem. I am prepared to back them up with substantial evidence.

ANI:Icompetent editor who pushes Fringe

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5
• diff6
• diff7
• diff8
• diff9
• diff10
• diff11
• diff12

ANI against Ret.Prof failed and everyone proceeded to mediation. After successful mediation I decided to stop editing articles altogether and draft some "proposed" edits on my userspace. The response was to follow me onto my userspace where I was further bullied and belittled. The attempt to blank my userspace diff1 was clearly out of line. diff2 The intention is clearly to WP:HOUND me everywhere I work until I am driven from this encyclopedia... unless arbitration puts a stop to it.

• diff13
• diff14

@ Roger Davies: This request for arbitration has everything to do with bullying, belittling and WP:HOUND. I believe the offending parties diff1 are in serious breach of Misplaced Pages:Harassment, and warrent a being banned from editing 'Jewish or Hebrew' Christianity (30 CE to 90 CE) for a minimum period of three months. Of course you are right that "incompetent editor who pushes fringe," would constitute a personal attack...on me. If one looks at the diffs closely, it has been a theme over the past two years on notice boards, talk pages, etc. It was also the "title" chosen for the ANI against me. If I am an "incompetent editor who pushes fringe," who is rude, illogical etc., etc., then I deserve to be banned. On the other hand, if the "personal attacks" are false and constitute harassment, then Misplaced Pages:Harassment states those who made the attacks should be banned and also arbitration is appropriate.

@ Dougweller & Black Kite: Rest assured evidence shall be provided!

@ Ignocrates: I think most of us on both sides of this dispute agree with your statement, "I strongly urge that the case be accepted to resolve this long-term disruption to the encyclopedia." - Ret.Prof (talk)

@ Robert McClenon: For the recent event that resulted in this filing, see diff.

@ Ignocrates: Wow. Striking your support for arbitration really made me rethink my position. Also on my talk page the mediator Andrevan advised against my to going to ArbCom. He stated, "I think we can definitely solve some of these problems through frank discussion and maybe some informal mediation." Therefore I am willing to go in that direction and drop my request for Arbitration - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tgeorgescu

As the diffs claim, Ret.Prof cited some authors, A, B, C and D in order to show that they would support the Hebrew Matthew hypothesis. The problem is that none of the quotes he used explicitly claim this. Even worse, A, B, C and D have openly rejected the Hebrew Matthew hypothesis, and often they have rejected it in the same works Ret.Prof was quoting from.

The Hebrew Matthew hypothesis is regarded as fringe in every major US university. Only fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals still support the Hebrew Matthew hypothesis, because they hold to the now debunked view that the New Testament gospels were written by apostles and companions of apostles. Of course, according to WP:FRIND it is a notable hypothesis, but it still is fringe. To be sure, it is notable as apologetics, not as scholarship, since no scholar from a major US university would support it as scholarship. Biblical inerrantists claim that support for the Hebrew Matthew hypothesis would amount scholarship and they (and Ret.Prof) advocate views similar to those of Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, who don't pass for mainstream scholars in any major US university. As the diffs imply, many editors were angered by this relentless pushing of this fringe view, because after repeated patient explanations and repeated debunking of his original syntheses they came to see his actions as trolling.

These being said, at the present time there is no conflict in respect to inserting this fringe view in the mentioned articles and banning committed editors from these articles would open the gates for fringe pushers to fill these articles with fringe views. I have not rejected inserting fringe views because I would be member of gang of editors who harass outsiders, but because I am committed to the scholarly standard set forth by WP:RNPOV. And I assume that others did it for the same reason. In fact User:PiCo has almost quit editing because he had to counter time after time fringe pushers and got fed up with it.

The word "incompetent" has the meaning explained in WP:COMPETENCE; it is not a personal attack. In this case severe doubts have been expressed about Ret.Prof's competence to analyze the views of mainstream scholars (like Ehrman). I have even claimed that he was misquoting Ehrman, but in fact he was quoting Papias's view quoted by Ehrman and posited it as Ehrman's view, which is highly misleading. Ret.Prof performed WP:OR upon some quotes which some mainstream scholars used in their works, he took their remarks out of context, i.e. suggesting that Ehrman regards all testimonies of Papias as reliable (which Ehrman doesn't). Those mainstream scholars quoted Papias's view, since it is notable, but only in order to affirm that Papias was wrong about the Gospel of Matthew. Ret.Prof misconstrued refutation as acceptance. Well, to every conscious editor this is highly problematic, and points to incompetence, as defined under Misplaced Pages:Competence is required#Some common types (factual incompetence and bias-based incompetence). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ignocrates

The locus of this dispute is Ret.Prof and his relationship with a small group of dedicated editors within Wikiproject Christianity. It mostly encompasses articles related to Jewish aspects of Christianity, including the category of Jewish Christianity broadly construed. Various forms of the dispute have flared up over the past four years, each time Ret.Prof returns to active editing after a long break. The articles at the center of the dispute include in particular the Gospel of Matthew, the Hebrew gospel hypothesis, and Oral gospel traditions. The nature of the dispute is over who controls the article content in this category and the means by which it is controlled. Whether this dedicated group consists of editors sharing a common interest who are acting independently and in good faith, or a posse dogmatatus is not something that, imo, should be prejudged. A conclusion about the group dynamics will emerge from a thorough and reasoned examination of the evidence. I strongly urge that the case be accepted to resolve this long-term disruption to the encyclopedia. Ignocrates (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on the opening statement by Ret.Prof so far, I'm provisionally withdrawing my recommendation that a case move forward. It sounds like a revenge RFA - bad people were mean to me at ANI and mediation. There has to be tangible evidence of disruption (so far, only from the opposition), and a recommendation of a remedy to prevent future disruption that ArbCom can actually implement. Maybe there is more to come... Ignocrates (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller, I can't speak to Ret.Prof's reasons for including you; however, you may want to address the reasons for the deletion redirect of this article, and other articles created by Ret.Prof, at the appropriate time during the evidence phase. I think the question more generally is whether an admin so closely involved in a content dispute, e.g., on Oral gospel traditions, which was reduced to a stub, should also be acting in the capacity of an uninvolved admin. Ignocrates (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof, it's your call on how to proceed. If you want to withdraw your request for arbitration, you will need to inform the Committee of your preference to withdraw. Btw, you can't refactor the request page. Please restore what you deleted and line out the text if the comments no longer apply. Ignocrates (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dougweller

Huh? I'm named here why? Hard to respond when I haven't the foggiest. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ignocrates. Anyone can do a redirect, with or without a discussion, it isn't an Admin role, although some people obviously think it is. I can see that I did it but don't recall the context. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by In Ictu Oculi

As regards the secondary problem, the content problem: namely that Ret. Prof's edits are a mix of fringe and synthesis, I defer to the clear and concise (as possible given the length and scale of these edits) statement by TGeorgescu which I endorse. As regards what is probably the primary problem in terms of actual disruption, the continual recreation of the same pet theory essay articles (or chunked seeding of paragraphs into other articles) as duplication of existing longstanding consensus/sourced articles, I think the representative housekeeping diff by otherwise uninvolved admin Dougweller sums up that side of the problem too. Contrary to claims above the language tone and approach to tens of thousands of bytes of repeated churning of the same theories on multiple talk pages over four years has been extremely mild. A long hunt for diffs (above) fails to show anything of the same level of language/attitude which is common daily currency at entertainment articles, for example. . In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

The statements by Tgeorgescu and In ictu oculi above fairly clearly describe the situation here Ret.Prof went to binding mediation regarding this topic and the result of the mediation was that he got little if any of the results he sought because none of them were supported by sources used correctly. Rather than acknowledge any error on his part, he has instead sought to create a rather paranoic belief of his being the target of some cabal out to hide his version of WP:TRUTH. His conduct in recent times has raised increasingly serious questions whether he even remotely meets the standards of competency as per WP:CIR. Personally, I don't see anything else which might require ArbCom's involvement. John Carter (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, I think "early Christianity" might be a better title. We have had, to varying degrees, problems for several years with individuals attempting to alter this content to conform to their personal religious or irreligious perspectives, and I myself would love to see the topic under discretionary sanctions, something I think I even mentioned before. But I think this proposed case is probably too limited for such to be a reasonable outcome here. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite

• "This Anti-Fringe patrol is made up of two admins, five user accounts and an undetermined number of alternate accounts." Yes, that's going to go really, really well, accusing the other editors of sockpuppetry without any evidence. I'd strongly suggest declining this, even though it is an editor conduct issue and not a content dispute. Arbitration tends to go badly against people who come out with stuff like ("Because the POV Railroad has abused this notice board in the past I request that the conflict be taken to arbitration and the ban against User:CheeseDreams, User:-Ril-, User:Cheese-dreams and User:John Carter be extended to include all remaining User Accounts from the Anti-Hebrew POV Railroad." ... Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Robert McClenon

The filing party should have read the boomerang essay before filing. It isn't clear what recent events have resulted in this filing. The previous efforts to resolve the issue that are listed by the filing party all were months ago, and appear to include successful mediation, so that I have little idea why the filing party has suddenly decided to request arbitration. However, this poorly presented request has to do with the general area of editing behavior in the early history of Christianity, which is an area where conduct issues (including battleground editing, personal attacks, accusations about cabals, and ranting allegations about conduct issues (which are themselves a conduct issue)) interfere with the resolution of content issues. For instance, there have been multiple noticeboard threads recently concerning Historicity of Jesus. I ask the ArbCom to consider opening a case (consistent with the revised title of this request) concerning editing behavior in the early history of Christianity. (There have been previous cases involving a specific area in that general area, the Ebionites cases, but they may have been a symptom of a larger issue.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Further Comment

On the one hand, I agree that this particular request should be declined as a matter of misconduct by the filing party. (The filing party is well off in that a full case by the ArbCom requires a large investment of its resources, so that the ArbCom does not invest time solely to deal with an incoming boomerang. The ArbCom has accepted cases that were incoming boomerangs, such as WP:ARBGC, but there had already been multiple noticeboard threads.) On the other hand, the ArbCom should be aware that there continue to be conduct issues that interfere with the resolution of content issues in the area of the early history of Christianity. The ArbCom may be asked in the near future to open a case involving the Historicity of Jesus. Some of the same cabal members (there is no cabal) may be identified. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Misconduct in the Christianity topic: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Comment Ret.Prof. Could you set out please precisely what you'd like a case to achieve? And clarify why this cannot be handled by any uninvolved admin or by the NPOV noticeboard?  Roger Davies 07:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ret.Prof Thanks for explanations. But why can't this be dealt with by any admin or at one of the noticeboards? On the other matters. I've changed the (temp) identifier to "Misconduct in the Christianity topic". Your original one won't do on personal attack grounds. I've added an {{anchor}} so that your notifications still work.  Roger Davies 13:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ret.Prof Noting your request to withdraw this, I'm happy to decline as moot,  Roger Davies
• Decline as withdrawn. Ret.Prof. should continue to think carefully about the comments he has received. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. T. Canens (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• I don't see anything left for us to do here. Decline Worm(talk) 09:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. Seraphimblade 13:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline. LFaraone 04:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Decline as withdrawn. I hope (continued) mediation manages to achieve something here, as the topic of early Christianity has been troubled by poor editing and excessive focus on specific theories or hypotheses, rather than the larger picture (i.e. overwriting and not enough focus on getting the balance right). That much is clear. Whether arbitration will be needed later is another matter. Hopefully not, but if this comes back here the underlying dispute would need to be presented in a far better manner than was done here. And arbitration should never be used as an end-run round a mediation process. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)