User:Σ/Testing facility/TP/TpProt/202

Talkback
Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Very tedious job, so it's always nice to get positive feedback :-)  Serendi pod ous  15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can imagine. Tracking Twitter trends exposed me to a lot of music fan gushing that I wish hadn't eaten up as much time as it did. I'd be happy to never see another Excel spreadsheet but I know they are unavoidable. Your work is appreciated! Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Took your advice
I took your advice and went to WP:NPOV/N. Please keep a watch on Gospel of the Ebionites. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. It seems like you guys have gone round and round on these issues. I hope you get some definitive answers. Newjerseyliz (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am super-impressed with how professional the guys have been at NPOV/N. The feedback has been useful and at the very least it's due diligence for the next round of dispute resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tammy Duckworth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roger Waters
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roger Waters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Commentary
For what it might be worth, feel free to comment wherever you want. Ignocrates is going to Arbitration because of his really dubious history of conduct, including I think fairly clear dishonesty. So far as I can tell, Smeat seems to be dealing more with the "fringey"/minority view of the oral gospel tradition, which, as someone who hasn't myself checked the Coogan reference, published last year, I have to admit might not be as "fringey" any more. But, yeah, even academics, and highly regarded ones, have been known to be advocates of fringey beliefs, like Carl Sagan and global cooling, as I have already mentioned. There are questions of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and a ton of others which might apply here. As someone who is, primarily, these days going through the relevant reference works to see what they cover, and to what extent, I am pretty much only active onwiki a few days a week, because compiling those lists takes a loooong time itself. Those reference sources, particularly the most recent ones, taking into account any reviews of those sources or other statements in the academic literature subsequent to publication, are in general counted as being the best sources to indicate WEIGHT around here. There may be a rather valid case for increased coverage of the oral gospel tradition in some of our articles, I don't know. But it would definitely help if people actually discussed how to add or modify the content, rather than engage in basically useless talk page blather and threats, like Smeat and Ignocrates have in the really unusual stated "threat" of an RfC/U. IN general, as per the third pillar of wikipedia, we are an encyclopedia, and I think a review of the policies and guidelines would indicate that most if not all of them are more or less designed to convey the impression that our content should mirror the content of the most thorough and recent reference sources possible, making allowances if there haven't been any since a major finding. Particularly with the 2012 Coogan book, counted by the American Library Association as one of the best reference sources of 2012, I kinda doubt there are problems there, but I haven't checked the reviews to see if some articles or topics were seen as being insufficient or prejudicial coverage, either.

And, FWIW, like I think I told Nishidani elsewhere, what I am trying to do right now is to get together lists of articles in highly regarded reference sources for the various projects, and then, hopefully, when they're done (if I live that long) reviews of those sources, indicating their strengths and weaknesses. I think the likelihood of people being willing to help with the latter will increase if there are more of the former, but still think that having clear ideas of what is and is not included in reference sources is probably one of the more basic things we need around here, and something that still hasn't been done outside of one list of articles in Britannica. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have an opinion about User_talk:Ignocrates? Ignocrates (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You know, I'm embarrassed to admit how many years worth of argumentative posts I've read, going back and forth between you two. It was like watching a trainwreck and I was left wondering, "Why can't either of these guys just step back, shake the dust from their shoes, and move on? Are they actually getting some satisfaction from the incessant arguing? Are they enjoying it too much?"
 * This conflict has gone beyond reliable sources, it's downright hatred and contempt now. There is little pretense of actually listening to each other to negotiate compromises. There is too much bad blood, too much history and disrespect that has been shown.
 * I will go to ArbCom when this ever gets filed because I'm genuinely curious as to how the committee members will ever look through the dozens of diffs I expect will be posted, the voluminous exposition on how "disruptive" the other editor is being, that they will have to parse through. I expect that several other well-intentioned editors will get pulled into this as participants and will have to decide what they will say about this business which has gone on now for years.
 * John, I realize that you think this argument is about what is a reliable source. But that is just the hammer you are using to pound Ignocrates over the head. You have made some valid points and there have been intelligent editors & Admins who have agreed with you. But you dismiss Ignocrates' (and others) attempts to address your concerns. I sincerely believe that you will continue to obsess about this one article as long as Ignocrates participates in editing it. It will never be good enough for you because of his participation in the process.
 * I think you will find that the focus of the ArbCom will not be on the nuances of what is a reliable source but instead upon the behavior and misconduct of all of the participants in this long, long dispute. My only suggestion is to keep your comments to ArbCom brief and to the point and not dig yourself into a deeper hole.
 * Good luck to you both. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, John, I've looked at your some of your work as an Admin and I think you've done some excellent work. You have offered measured and thoughtful guidance and advice. But, for whatever reason, you have lost perspective on this one article which is too bad. I think your efforts are well spent on the other work you do, like putting together lists of sources. Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

On further investigation, I've found that John Carter and Ignocrates have already been to ARBCOM twice in the past 6+ years over Ebionites-related content. I didn't realize you two had already pleaded your case in several dispute forums and that there was an ARBCOM history, at least related to appropriate sources (RS) on Ebionite articles. I stand by my opinion that this has become a personal, bitter stalemate between the two of you but I see now that all parties are already familiar with the dispute resolution process and I was mistaken to assume otherwise. But I think now the primary sticking point is conduct, not content and any future case will result in mediators scrutinizing past behavior.

I had just been looking at Talk Page comments going back two years between the involved parties. To see that this dispute goes back to 2007 makes me realize that this disagreement in much more complicated than I knew. I don't envy any mediator sorting through this all. And I was mistaken to think I had an understanding of the extent of this dispute and years of conflict that has led to the present situation. I will leave it to well-intentioned Admins and Mediators who have much more experience than I to determine responsibility for the current impasse and solutions for moving past it. Newjerseyliz (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * John Carter wrote : "So far as I can tell, Smeat seems to be dealing more with the "fringey"/minority view of the oral gospel tradition" well, that's wrong. I am interested in quite a few topics, and one of them is early Christianity and the relationship to the Roman empire and Christian origins. "Smeat and Ignocrates ... the really unusual stated "threat" of an RfC/U" Just to let you know that we have dropped that idea as you have to have two parties to a dispute, Ret Prof is not here and I was not party to disputes on Gospel of the Ebionites. "I think a review of the policies and guidelines would indicate that most if not all of them are more or less designed to convey the impression that our content should mirror the content of the most thorough and recent reference sources possible" I don't agree with that at all. One of the best things about Wikipedia in my opinion is that it can be easily updated with the latest information using, for instance, the most recent works of recognised authorities such as Bart Ehrman. I would echo what Nishidani said here "Tertiary sources are fine as well, though the problem there is that encyclopedias, reference texts and the like are always slighted dated compared to cutting-edge scholarship (b) are often too synthetic and gloss over the details and controversies in a generic way, and, (c) in fields, and I'm sure many colleagues here have the experience, where I have a thorough knowledge, I rarely leave off reading a generic encyclopedic entry on some aspect of it without an irritated feeling that much is missing, or at a too high level of synthesis. Thus secondary sources, and by that, optimally, peer-reviewed contemporary scholarship, should form the basis of our transcriptive work. There the only relevant issue is covered byWP:Undue." Smeat75 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That all makes sense to me, Smeat75. It can be difficult for the typical layperson to get ahold of secondary sources, especially journal articles. But I'd rely on them more than encyclopedias because the author has to lay out his argument and, believe it or not, the scrutiny of peer-reviewed journals is more exacting than for encyclopedia articles. I know of one topical encyclopedia, present in all research libraries, where most of the entries are written by graduate students. That doesn't undermine their scholarship (they may be more on top of new research than full professors), it's just that they were the ones who were eager to contribute and write entries. Heck, I've written entries for encyclopedias when I was in graduate school, too (see Encyclopedia of African-American Religions) and that was because I was a good friend of one of the editors. Of course, he edited down my contributions, but all of the research was mine and I was a second year grad student. Okay, I'm off on a tangent, just here's another vote for secondary sources. Yeah! ;-) Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I echo Smeat75's concerns. The idea for this new Religion MoS is to take the content from 5 or 6 reference sources (i.e. religious dictionaries and encyclopedias), pull out the content they have in common to create an "average" article, and then summarize it with close paraphrasing and call that our best FA work. Anyone else need a barf bag? This is not only misguided; it is dangerous to the very spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, I think it is a bad decision to prioritize reference sources that one is familiar with and make them the definitive source to be used in all occasions. For example, I pretty much wore out the Encyclopedia of Religion in the university libraries where I worked but it has a "History of Religion" POV that is heavy on abstraction and light on detailed analysis. The encyclopedia entries reflect not only the particular stance of the contributors (who, luckily, are identified--it isn't always the case) but also the editing team. It was a great source to begin to learn about a topic in the field of religious studies but it was deficient in giving in depth examples or a broad range of perspectives on a subject.
 * So, my point is that even though I probably made copies of something like 70-100 articles in the EofR and am very familiar with it, I wouldn't recommend it as the definitive source of information except as representing the stance of scholars with a History of Religion perspective. It's not the best source of information if one is examining religion from a textual, historical, sociological, cultural, or practice perspective (it's pretty good on anthropological subjects).
 * This position can make it challenging to write articles since each author is limited to her own library and what resources can be found in libraries and online. But that's why Wikipedia is collaborative, so a number of editors can bring together the resources they have at hand. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you would notice, nowhere did I say we should make it the "definitive source of information", and, honestly, I rather regret the implicit assertion to the contrary by you. You might have noticed that I did mention the reviews as well, which have had some serious reservations about several of the articles contained therein, which I believe I also mentioned. I also remember saying, probably on the talk page of WikiProject Religion and Nishidani's talk page most recently, that the most recent edition of the German RGG, now called Religion Past and Present, and the old HERE are counted as being basically the other two of the three best, most comprehensive sources out there. Regarding Ignocrates' continued harping on the irrational and I believe completely unfounded motivations behind my actions, I simply note once again that not only is he apparently incapable of AGF'ing anyone other than himself, but once again seems to be taking recourse to his apparently repeated ability to read the minds of others. Regarding whether it is the best only from that perspective, I think I already said that as well. Now, I realize that Ignocrates has made a habit of using the talk pages of others to engage in irrational attempts at misdirection from the matters of his own dubiously acceptable behavior for some time now. That is the primary reason I have asked one of the ArbCom clerks to draft the request for arbitration against him. However, to basically point toward the facts that he, in what I can only call his blind stupidity, chooses to ignore, I have been more or less the sole creator and developer to date of the pages in the Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, and have made a list, more or less reproduced at User:John Carter/Religion reference sources, indicating the other sources which have been either included in the "reference works" article of tne EofR or in the American Library Association's yearly list of outstanding reference sources. So I believe Ignocrates' hysterial, paranoic, and completely irrational accusation above is clearly and directly contradicted by the evidence. But, that's not particularly new with him. I am still working on the list of articles and subarticles from the EofR primarily because of the incredible length of that source, and the really incredible number of subarticles, as well as the number of articles which have been changed from one edition to the next or added in the second edition. There are a number of other sources, which I have also at least started lists of articles on, primarily when the specific volumes of EofR aren't available, and which are at various levels of completion, and will be added as they are finished. As I indicated somewhere, I have also recently started to copy out articles from HERE for inclusion in WikiSource, because at least one or two of the reviews of the EofR said some of the articles in the HERE were still the best ever written. But, if one were to review Ovadyah/Ignocrates' history of contributions, which have more or less limited themselves to the "James" hypothesis for a more Christian early Christianity, the fact that under his previous name, Ovadyah, he indicates that he e-mailed the founder of the Ebionite Jewish Community, now Ebionite Community, about the development of the article apparently in a way which supports that group, and is even said by an IP on the talk page to have been a member of the group, I think we can see why Ignocrates has pretty much ignored the Nazarene Ebionites, who, apparently, don't agree with the EJC Ebionites.


 * "Ignocrates ... irrational...dubiously acceptable behavior ...blind stupidity....Ignocrates' hysterial, paranoic, and completely irrational accusation" You know, all WP guidelines and policies aside,it is sort of disturbing to see this, it seems to show someone in the grip of an obsession. You seriously need to chill out, take a step back, do not look at anything to do with Ignocrates or Ebionites for several months, this bitter feud obviously isn't good for you, and I do not mean to be condescending. There are plenty of other articles on Christianity on WP that need improvement.Smeat75 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, if you were to review the history of edits to Ret. Prof.'s user talk page, you would see the number of times several editors have tried to reason with him, to, apparently, not a lot of gain. You will also find in the history that I specifically told him that I, unlike Ignocrates, who had indicated he would "protect" Ret. Prof. and has later twice called for RfC/U's against him, apparently thinking both times it only requires one person to do that, I indicated that I would tell Ret. Prof. before taking him to any boards, so I was honor bound to do so. That was the nature of the comment. I very much wish that some editors would see the history of at best dubious conduct and attempts at misdirection which has, pretty much, been the essence of Ovadyah/Ignocrates from the start, along with the paranoia and more than occasional dishonesty, and that is why the ArbCom clerk is preparing the statement to be made for a request. I might do the same myself, and probably would, if the number of reference sources I have at least started on, and the number of articles I am trying to start for WikiSource, weren't taking as much time as they are. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. The reason for the lists of sub-articles, by the way, is that in previous discussion at I believe the notability guideline talk page on the subject of Buddhism, I was told that in general named subsections of "thematic" articles can be used as indicators of notability on some of those topics, so having an indication regarding which subtopics might themselves be notable seems reasonable as well. Particularly with the EofR, and to a lesser extent some others, those interminable lists of sub-articles, sub-sub-articles, sometimes to three or four or more levels of outline, is why some works take sooo much longer than others. And, of course, under no circumstances would I say that we would be only limited to them either, but that they might be usable in such a way. Also, I guess, in all honesty, following policies and guidelines, I think most of our content could, roughly, be said to be best when it basically just says what other existing encyclopedias or reference works say. But there are a lot of them, like I think I told Ret. Prof. once about two a month, including updated volumes, in religion/philosophy/mythology alone. On any topic which is covered extensively in multiple reference sources, the number of times we would need content in our main articles on topics covered by them to include material not included in them is probably few and far between. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to AGF, John Carter, and you have clearly put a lot of work and thought into your interests and putting together resource lists. But it is hard to look past your negativity, WP:PA, WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and WP:HARASS tactics, not just with Ignocrates but you also said horribly harsh comments to Ret.Prof that led him to quit Wikipedia because you disagreed about one source! That was a debate that had gone through the dispute resolution process but it still was a sticking point that was big enough to cause one of the main editors to withdraw from further participation. And discovering that these disagreements have gone on for 6+ years (with some of the same and some different) parties is not a good sign of being able to collaborate with others and compromise in the name of consensus. I think your last paragraph to me is a good indication of a direction we can go in and maybe the situation can be defused as long as we are talking about content and resources and not the failings that we see in each other and past conflicts. I should do that myself regarding your conduct so I'll end my comment here and try to be more positive myself. Let's start anew! Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In regard to Smeat75's comment above (I won't interrupt the thread) "You know, all WP guidelines and policies aside,it is sort of disturbing to see this, it seems to show someone in the grip of an obsession.", this is not the first time this observation has been made. I direct your attention to this previous trip to AN/I on Aug. 31, 2010, the second of several, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635 and Llywrch's comment in particular which I reproduce here:


 * This has all been said before, and yet it continues, almost 3 years later, without any resolution. Ignocrates (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ignocrates, I read all of the ARBCOM statements from cases Ebionites1 and Ebionites2 along with ANIs, DRs and RfCs, although the harshness of the language varies according to the audience. It is hard to see how those involved can "get past" the damaging words that have been said. I would find it hard if I was the target. Maybe, at this point, an IBan would be best? Unless the parties can forgive, forget and move on...because if these conduct disputes reach ARBCOM, tougher penalties will be involved. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you take this bull by the horns and help to resolve this? Contrary to what John Carter seems to believe, I don't hate him at all and never have. Frankly, all I feel for him at this point is pity and sadness. He really needs some help. Ignocrates (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * (e-c) The fact that one somewhat biased party hasn't looked to see the repeated violation of both conduct and content guidelines, honestly, means nothing. Neither does his own attempt to justify his actions through the statements of others.
 * FWIW, you have apparently not reviewed the regular, almost incessant harassment by Ignocrates, who has described his editing as a "penance" as well, presumably taking the form of promotion of a group which has, despite my own and his best efforts to find them, apparently never appeared gotten anything like sufficient RS coverage to qualify for an article. The fact that you have apparently not even looked to, let alone looked past, the fairly regular misconduct of Ignocrates and Ret. Prof. causes me to perhaps conclude that your assessment is, well, lob-sided, based on only recent activity. I believe, honestly, misconduct of all sorts has been steadier and more regular from them than from me. Ret. Prof. also has been, as per previous versions of his user page, not only "continuing the fight" for the non-RS Tabor book and others, and has been repeatedly advised/warned by others about his misconduct, yes, even to Ignocrates himself twice requesting a single-person filed RfC/U against him. Honestly, given the stonewalling of Ovadyah/Ignocrates during the second mediation, when Tabor and the EJC were being considered for removal from the article as non-notable and non-reliable (which they have been from the beginning), and Ret. Prof.'s own misconduct elsewhere. It is also worth noting that Ignocrates has, pretty much since his return from retirement as Ovadyah, been pretty much pathological about attacking me on and off, presumably because I ruined his "penance" of trying to use wikipedia as an advertisement for his favorite non-notable group and his favorite non-RS James Tabor. The fact that he has, to date, so far as I can tell, not only never edited anything not relating to the "James" hypothesis, and has also, apparently, misrepresented sources, like Ret. Prof., leads me to think that the only way to resolve his own ongoing misconduct is through ArbCOm. Yes, he is a master of posturing, and has, ever since being Ovadyah, regularly talked down to anyone who disagrreed with him, indicating to my eyes there is a very real problem of ego and, yes, pathology there. And, unfortunately, I think if one were to review most of Ret. Prof.'s edits, one might find them just as problematic as the misrepresentation of sources and his also, rather apparent, almost obsession with thinking single books not referenced in anything else but reviews require being in articles if the reviews were not negative. In all honesty, when and if the ArbCom reviews this, I believe there is a very good chance, a probability actually, that Ignocrates will be seriously restricted from editing, and that, very likely, Ret. Prof. will be as well. I wish either one of them were apparently capable, or even interested, in doing anything other than, overtly or covertly, trying to promote books or websites or beliefs that really don't qualify as notable in and of themselves. But, in the history of both of them since I first encountered them, despite my actually having tried to encourage at least Ret. Prof. and I think Ovadyah while he still was Ovadyah to either try to get their views notable in a clear way or edit something else, they both, basically, refused to do so. If penalties are invoked by ArbCom, honestly, fine by me. That would also include almost certainly discretionary sanctions, and that's what I think is most clearly needed here. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, John Carter, it takes two people to work on resolving a dispute and you clearly have no interest in aiming at a collaboration so you could work together or at least, work peaceably on the same articles at different times. I guess you are hellbent on seeing this through to the bitter, bitter end so do what you got to do.


 * By the way, I've gone back years and saw instances where Ignocrates was sarcastic and was openly hostile to you and others. But ARBCOM is more concerned with recent history, not five years ago and Ignocrates has lately turned his focus off you and on to editing. I wish you could do the same but sometimes, I guess conflict is intractable. I wish ARBCOM luck in sorting through the long, tangled history of this dispute. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Ret.Prof's name has been invoked twice now with respect to two RFC/Us I recommended, it needs to be restated that (1) he was fully informed of my proposals (the second time by email), and (2) I emphasized both times that the purpose was instructional. I consider Ret.Prof to be a friend, and I only wish the best for him including on Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You should also see Featured article review/Ebionites/archive1 and other links to that page, where he not only said he as Ovadyah thought he had the right to add his opinions if he got it to FA, but also once again resorted to the rather silly, delusional posturing which is more or less his tradmark. John Carter (talk)


 * I feel badly about Ret. Prof. He sincerely listened to criticism and responded to critiques but I think he took too much to heart. He didn't want to work in an adversarial environment. To be honest, Ignocrates, I came across comments when you were at odds with him, too. But the important aspect is that you were able to move past your differences and collaborate. Ultimately, I think that is what groups like ARBCOM want to see, constructive, not obstructionist behavior. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason Ignocrates was willing to work with him was because, as per the hsitory of Ret. Prof.'s user page, Ret. Prof. was "continuing the fight" for Tabor. Ovadyah was, and I think probably still is, passionately in love with one of the few sources which apparently says anything which might reflect the views of the EJC. Yes, after the first arbitration, when Michael was banned, Ovadyah was able to work with him too, for the purposes of keeping some mention of the non-notable neo-Ebionitism that they both were passionately supporting in the article. Willing to work with people willing to, basically, violate guidelines with you in collusion really doesn't to my eyes qualify as being a positive. ArbCom will also, when it gets to them, see how Ret. Prof. was basically primarily supporting him, and it takes no particular character for one POV pusher to agree with someone pushing the same POV when it looks to be in danger of losing out per policy and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your apparent obsession with James Tabor is, frankly, incomprehensible. That is no way to treat a notable scholar Talk:The Jesus_Dynasty and fellow Wikipedian User_talk:Jdtabor. There are far bigger problems here than just with me as an editor. You also neglected to mention that the editor who created the neo-Ebionite section of the Ebionites article was -- you, John Carter. Ignocrates (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Diff? Details? Relevance? Was it, perhaps, a way to get the material off the Ebionites article, and might the IP that was apparently Shemaiah's statement he didn't want a separate article involved in other's opinions. Not that I would expect them, because, honestly, the above comment seems to be just another attempt at diversion from the crucial issue. And, regarding the knee-jerk defense of Tabor, as has been repeatedly demonstrated at RSN and elsewhere, The Jesus Dynasty fails to meet RS standards. Although, of course, I understand the absolute need to defend the opinions which are so clearly favored by the neo-Ebionite community, which you apparently represent, at any cost, even to the point of making basically completely off-topic and irrelevant comments as the one above to serve as distractions. Also, I was referring to the attempt to recreate the Ebionite Jewish Community, again, which you were apparently involved wanting recreated, even if it did violate policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * From WP:CIR"Some people get so upset over a past dispute that they look at everything through a lens of "So-and-so is a bad editor and is out to get me." Taken to extremes, this easily becomes quite disruptive. An enforced parole of "don't interact with this other editor" may be something to try in these cases."

As I said, I do not think ARBCOM will be well-inclined to be re-re-visiting this same area for a third time. They will be looking at whether editors have matured over the past six years and the inability to let go of past differences is not a good sign.

But it is definitely time to move this conversation off my Talk Page and into ARBCOM or DRN or wherever this is headed. Newjerseyliz (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, there is a new ArbCom principle, mandated editor review, which allows editors to only make changes to an article after it has been approved by an independent admin. I have a feeling that might well happen here. Also, FWIW, I have in the past contacted editors who have retired, even Ovadyah, after he seemingly retired admitting his own lack of competence, and User:Lung salad, who, honestly, was also according to his response e-mail, forwarded to ArbCom, apparently in violation of conduct guidelines from day one on the Josephus on Jesus content. It would certainly be possible for you to try to e-mail Ret. Prof. and advise him to perhaps come back, although I might suggest that he concentrate perhaps a bit more on material that is clearly notable and of sufficient independent notable content that it wouldn't violate OR/SYNTH. We could use another few editors in religion, although, given his history, I think his focus on minor topics probably makes him one we can function without, at least if he acts the same way he did earlier. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I admitted nothing of the kind. However, I was contacted by email by John Carter, after I announced my retirement and ceased editing, and explicitly threatened. Ignocrates (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good lord, man, have you ever learned to read, or is your blind rage about Tabor being determined non-RS and the EJC non-notable incapable of you even being able to read. I was, I thought, rather clearly indicating it was Lung salad who was in violation of policy. And yes, I did indicate after your own e-mail, referring to me in the most ridiculous and frankly juvenile insults I have ever encountered from an alleged adult, say that if you came back I would request sanctions against you. When you did return, honestly, I gave you a bit of a chance, based on the idea that you may have grown up a little. Of course, I could not have been more mistaken in that point, and that is why you are going to ArbCom shortly. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I feel for you to have this ongoing feud spill over onto your talk page. I hope this does not sour you on Wikipedia. However, this feud has gotten to the point where something must be done, since neither party seem to be able to disengage & let this matter go.--llywrch (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, llywrch. This is not about content or contributions but about editor conduct now. It's been going on for 6+ years, has already been through the ARBCOM request process twice (along with other RfCs and dispute resolution noticeboards) but it seems destined to head to ARBCOM again. While I'm sad to see that this dispute seems irreconcilable, I hope ARBCOM can definitively end this feud. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 18:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the irreconciliability is due to one party flouting policies and guidelines for the purposes of POV pushing, if even subtle and less than obvious POV pushing, which is why I believe it will go to ArbCom. But, if you wish some sort of (admittedly, weak) attempt at throwing out an olive branch, you seem to be involved in the topic of Sociology, which is like some others a bit problematic because it isn't, well, cut and dried like some hard sciences. I live in a major city with several really good libraries. If there are any groups like WikiProject Sociology or others you might be interested in seeing lists of articles for, let me know. And, also, FWIW, Ret. Prof. does apparently have e-mailed enabled, so if you were to want I think you might be able to drop him a note requesting his return. like I have with a few others. Sometimes it can be helpful. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, at this point, it's up to ARBCOM to sort out (if you are going to file). I think this dispute has been talked to death, with no resolution in sight.
 * As for WikiProject Sociology, the last time I looked, there were only 3 or 4 people signed up for it and they weren't all regular editors. It's in such bad shape, it's hard to know where to start. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 00:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking from some degree of experience of projects in general, that minimal number isn't that atypical. And even some huger projects, like Christianity, have a lot of people signed up, but not that many actively involved. Unfortunately. Regarding a lot of the "soft" topics, like psychology, sociology, virtually anything new-agey, and the paranormal in all its varieties, there tend to be quite a few people who have indicated an interest, often in promoting their local minister or their own particular beliefs, who show less interest in anything else, and, when they've done what they set out to do as well as they can, kinda disappear. A lot of the lists I've made so far, like the Jehovah's Witnesses list and the list of Ethiopian Christianity articles (written by someone who knows Ge'ez and French rather well, but not so much English, to the point that subject and verb rather regularly disagreed and sometimes I couldn't be sure what he was even talking about), those reference sources aren't considered extraordinarily good by anyone, but they are, seemingly, about the only ones out there on the topic. I think I looked over the Encyclopedia of Sociology some time ago, and, if I am right in assuming it's considered OK, I can try to generate a list based on it in the next few weeks. Getting some sort of newsletter like the MILHIST Bugle together for maybe some closely related groups in that field might work too, and maybe, like MILHIST, getting some sort of content going with barnstar awards. Ultimately, on finishing the "religion" related lists, I'm somewhat hoping to go on to those other, "soft science" groups as well, along with South America, Africa, Oceania, and a few other important but comparatively neglected and underdeveloped topics. Anyway, if I get tired of looking at the Jones edition of the EoR (which happens a lot now) and just want to look at something which doesn't go on about rituals and sexual symbolism of, depending on the individual culture, damn near everything, I might just do it as a bit of a change of pace. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Assigning religious affiliation to editors
I didn't expect my comment to In ictu oculi to have such "legs". It was really just a corrective statement directed to him, to be more careful with language, and not a condemnation of him or any other party. Every single person has their own biases but at least in the Wikipedia universe, we try to set aside biases in the interest of obtaining accurate representations, regardless of our personal allegiances. I apologize to Iio if my words came across as reproving or harsh. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No they came off as ill-informed and justifying sectioning another editor's Talk posts (no matter how silly) "JW views." The comment about imagine "Jew" was particularly silly if you're not intending to follow it up on those actually JW-hounding and instead support the behaviour. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I just expected you to either accept or reject my apology for coming across as harsh but I still maintain that your language revealed a bias. I should have left out the part of adding the "e" to J and W but it was to illustrate a point that no one could get away with an antiSemitic comment but JWs seem fair game to some. This is not news on Wikipedia, I see the same kind of statements when people are talking about other sectarian religious movements. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 01:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so don't support editors hounding JWs. Practise what you preach, rather than criticising others who do do what you preach. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought you said you object to talking behind the back of other editors? And then, you say practise what you preach? Anyway...
 * Indicating a particular view as that of JWs or Jews or any other group doesn't express a personal judgement of any editor. But the old thread explicitly stated that 607 is a JW teaching anyway. Refactoring the page was in fact uncontroversial, and hardly tantamount to saying 'none of us like JWs'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit history shows otherwise per WP:SPA. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not need explain or justify my involvement on the JW WikiProject to you.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And you are misusing WP:SPA. It states: "Whom not to tag (SPA tagging guidelines) ... Editing only within a single broad topic: When identifying single-purpose accounts, it is important to consider what counts as a diverse group of edits. For example, subjects like spiders, nutrition, baseball, and geometry are diversified topics within themselves. If a user only edits within a broad topic, this does not mean the user is an SPA."-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Practise what you preach ...I try to. And I will criticize discriminatory language when I see it. If one lets comments like "we don't like JWs" go unaddressed, then people assume that everyone agrees with that statement. And I think it's important to point out bias when we see it. I don't think one needs complete knowledge of and participation in a dispute to recognize words of prejudice. I don't see my role as being a watchdog for JW editors or those who dislike them.
 * What I was apologizing was not what I said but how I said it. But, for some reason, you take my admission of error as an invitation to provoke me, which is a puzzling reaction. Most people would say, "No problem, I understood what you meant" or "Thanks, but that was hurtful." My intention was to ease any tensions between us, In ictu oculi, not continue the debate between you and Jeffro77 on to this Talk Page. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 13:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Jeffro, he more or less is an SPA, although I think in large part the reason behind it is not a particular obsession with the topic, but a realization over the years that the content regarding the JWs needs a lot of independent oversight. Unfortunately, for a lot of groups, including just about any that have ever been called "cults", we more or less need to have people like that on those topics. On the comparatively few occasions when I have interacted with him on topics not related to the JWs, like on a template on Christian heresies, he has been as reasonable and objective as anyone else, and even in that particular case AFAIK indicated he didn't want to see any modern groups included, including the JWs, although in a lot of regards they resemble groups which were tagged as "heretical" in early Christianity, so I don't think he has anything against them particularly. But, yeah, particularly today, with the frikkin 4 million articles of various standards of notability, and more being created, on pretty much anything, I regret that we probably need more informed, comparatively neutral SPAs like Jeffro watching over some topics than we have. And, as someone who has gotten a bit of a bashing over the years at least in part because of his efforts to keep the JW content NPOV, so far as I can remember primarily from those within the group rather than without, I can imagine that he might well once in a while get a little tetchy. I wish no one were ever in that situation around here, but things being what they are, in some cases it is bound to happen. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what you say, John. I'm more sympathetic than you to NRMs and sects because I spent a fair amount of time studying them and working as a research assistant to a NRM scholar. On topics like religion, it is almost impossible to be completely free of bias, even when you are writing about a religious tradition that is not your own.
 * I think the important thing is be aware of your own bias and keep it in check. I was in a graduate program where the concepts of Epoché, Weltanschauung and Verstehen was drilled into us which and they mean that you accept but try to set aside your bias (positive or negative) when researching religion and you respect the religious traditions of others even if they are not meaningful or valid for you, personally. As far as writing about religion on Wikipedia, it seems like one advantage of open source knowledge is that articles benefit from the contributions of both insiders and outsiders. They both have viewpoints that can offer others some understanding. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 16:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I agree. Unfortunately, around here, we sometimes get into trouble with some topics when either the number of editors with one POV outnumber, are more dedicated, or are sometimes, simply, so difficult to deal with that they manage to take over the content one way or another. Scientology is probably the best example of that here, although Falun Gong comes close. Personally, from some comments I've seen recently, early Christianity seems to be at this point pretty much at the same level of difficulty in various ways. We really can't tell editors from one side or another en masse to "go away," and I don't think many of us (except those dedicated to the "other" side in those discussions) would really even want to ask them to do it, but I think, looking over the various topics which have discretionary sanctions on them, there is a very large percentage of them which deal with "beliefs" of some kind among them, religious or secular. I hope we can get some guidelines about such content together soon, and, actually, because requests from ArbCom tend to get more attention and response than others, that's one of the reasons I'm going to file a case on this. Some people might say, not unreasonably, that me and some others should have written them already, but a look at some previous attempts can indicate how quickly some previous discussions derailed. Also, honestly, I ain't the best person for writing such anyway, having never really taken part in many guidelines or policies discussions before. But, with luck, maybe we can make things a bit easier to work with soon. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Masters in Religious Studies - Thank you for being here
Honestly, if you ever want to consider becoming the coordinator of WikiProject Christianity (which I am to date the only elected lead coordinator of, us never having had enough candidates to do it again), or WikiProject Religion, you would have my vote, and, maybe, as many other fraudulent votes as I could get through the system. Thank you for returning. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, I'm terribly flattered, John. I have an MA in Religious Studies and a MPhil in Religion and Society (Sociology of Religion) so I approach religion from a secular perspective, not a theological one. The focus of my work was studying divisions and conflict within contemporary American denominations, and, secondarily, Religions in North American and NRMs (most of which couldn't be called "Christian"). But I'm not sure I'm equipped to handle editors (either veteran or IP visitors) who want to rewrite church history or who hate Catholics or who forget that Eastern Orthodoxy exists or who are atheists and want to put everything "religious" in quotation marks because they see it as questionable.
 * Can you tell me about your participation in WikiProject Christianity and how it stands today? I'm happy to handle organizing or negotiate disputes but if things are very divisive, it might be a bad time for a newbie to take on larger responsibilities because the situation is in flux.
 * I'm also not sure if this dispute between you, Ignocrates and Ret.Prof is about differences of opinion (regarding COI and RS) and past misconduct, or if it reflects a broader rift between editors who work on articles in this area. If it is the former, I think an ARBCOM decision can decide things but if there are fundamental divides based on theological differences, I think someone with more experience should probably take this on.
 * If you could give me your candid opinions on any of these questions, I'll consider it. Thanks again for asking. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 18:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution is more or less what you're talking, not so much coordination. Although I'm not that familiar with WP:MILHIST, which is much better run than any of the religion groups, and has made us from what I've seen the best military website out there, the coordinators try to more or less get people to work together, getting assessments done, article development, contests, that sort of thing. As an individual, I really am more the lone wolf-type, and I know I come across as a smug, self-satisfied dictator a lot more than I probably like to as a result. Regarding the recent problems you mention above, that's more I think about content and the rules here than conduct. I've tried to find independent sources which support or give much attention to the Butz theory of James, which was one of Ret. Prof.'s first topics of major concern, but haven't. I also tried to find sources for Ovadyah/Ignocrates' Ebionite Jewish Community/Ebionite Community, but even it's local paper hasn't had anything on it from what I can see in the databanks. While there is a theological dispute involved, in some sense, so far as I can tell, it is about a theological position which, to the best of my knowledge and understanding here, doesn't meet notability in and of itself, and which we can't put forward without violating, to some degree, OR/SYNTH. If I knew of any independent reliable sources which gave sufficient content in them linking Tabor, and Butz, and Robert Eisenman, and god knows all the others so that we could have one article or even section of an article on the "Jewish James hypothesis," about how James led a much more Jewish version of Christianity which has died out and might at some point resurface, a lot of the problems would be solved. But I don't know of any, and neither of them has ever come forward with any that I can remember either. There might be some sort of church out there, like the EJC and maybe others, which actually themselves put forward some version of the hypothesis, but I couldn't find any in the Melton Encyclopedia of American Religions or any other similar sources I looked in, so I can't say that there is even a notable theory there. I wish, but, to the best of my ability to determine it, what they seem to want is something I wouldn't myself mind seeing here, and as indicated above I even, assuming good faith and some sort of independent coverage on the neo-Ebionite groups, created an article on the neo-Ebionites, which was deleted as non-notable. There are a lot of web churches out there, unfortunately, many of which haven't been referenced in any independent RS's, and so far as I can tell the groups and theories they want to promote are among them. The fact that, unfortunately, both seem to believe that their material should be included anyway is a problem, and I think per policy and guidelines not acceptable, even if I myself wish that there were enough material for inclusion of them as per policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two things: Gordon Melton is the researcher I worked for, years ago, he is a walking encyclopedia, he knows so much. He's an independent scholar but he donated this enormous library to UCSB and I worked with him on archiving the collection. Second, we had an awesome professor of Early Christianity at UCSB but he always got mixed teaching evaluations because the students who enrolled in his courses were taught scripture studies from a theological perspective, not a historical perspective. It was troubling to them when he showed them how much doubt existed about the primary sources that exist in this field of scholarship. I think it's actually a more controversial area to work in than Scientology...with Scientology, you can clearly see pro- and con- bias but with Early Christianity, you really need to have a familiarity with ancient languages to assess the arguments of scholars. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 19:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not repeat that I more or less regard Melton as almost some sort of prophet for us here, given the amazing amount of extremely highly regarded reference works he has put out. With any luck, if the Arb is accepted, one of the things that might happen is that we will have some editors from outside religion and "beliefs" maybe working on guidelines for that area, which we don't have yet. I certainly plan to ask for such, and we might be able to get together, maybe, some sort of idea of how to deal with web churches. I hope so. Previous attempts at guideline drafting got sidetracked rather quickly, unfortunately, by some individual editors with very strong opinions. That's why I'm hoping the more, well, serious nature of a request from ArbCom to draft guidelines, we might be able to get something together which people might at least accept. And, personally, I do hope for some way to get included some web faiths, like the modern form of Deism, which is extensively mentioned at Examiner.com, which is neither independent or reliable by our standards, but so far as I can see not yet discussed in any independent sources such that we would have much reason to have content on it. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's no secret that Gordon is "the man"! The man basically started collecting material on NRMs starting in the early 1970s and never threw anything away! Then, he started going back to gather older historical documents and not only that, he remembers every conversation he's had and everything he's read. The only people who don't care for him are the most strident anti-cult folks because he had an open door policy...he'd organize a conference and ask people from NRMs to come and talk about their beliefs and societies and some people who hate cults (not specific ones, just cults in general) thought he was giving them a platform to evangelize. But the NRM reps. still had to write up a standard academic presentation so it's not like they were trying to convert anyone in the audience. But for some people, choosing not to judge others is seen as evidence that you agree with them which is just not the case. 20:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)