User:Taiwan boi/Ark dispute

For months I have been in conflict with User:PiCo over his behaviour in the Noah's Ark article. During this time I have sought to address the conflict through Wikipedia's suggested conflict resolution process, which is why it has taken months to get to this stage. A recent edit war over two sections of the article prompted me to seek the advice of 'third party observation, with a view to developing into informal mediation'. Third party observation was given, and an offer for dialogue was made to PiCo by the third party (here). I subsequently extended an invitation for informal mediation to PiCo, and the third party agreed to be mediator(here). As can be seen from the subsequent discussion, the third party later withdrew from the position of mediator. PiCo suggested he was prepared to enter into mediation discussions, but did not reply when I answered his request for information on exactly what I wanted. Thus both User:Alastair_Haines and I attempted to find a resolution or compromise, and both of us contacted PiCo in the process.

I next sought editorial assistance. PiCo was notified of this, but chose not to respond in any way, leading the assisting editor concerned to inform me that no action could be taken:
 * 'I suspect that someone's not read the message or isn't responding. I would suggest WP:3O or WP:RFC at this point as there's not much one can do if only one hand is clapping.' x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A comprehensively documented statement of my objections to PiCo's behaviour follows.

Breach of 3RR

 * 1st revert: 02:51, 21 December 2008
 * 2nd revert: 09:11, 21 December 2008
 * 3rd revert: 11:11, 21 December 2008
 * 4th revert: 12:16, 21 December 2008

Accusations of bad faith (breach of WP:AGF)

 * 'That, and more, is the story in Genesis. Please stop inventing your own version.' PiCo (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Why do you insist that the 2-sources-in-theFlood-narrative is contested, when it's universally accepted? Ah, but of course, I already know the answer: you're an OEC, well out of the mainstream yourself!' PiCo (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'I'll be happy to accpet any edits of yours that I think are good, but at the moment you're simply pushing a personal agenda.' PiCo (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 'The edit is an attempt to introduce a particular pov by stealth - namely, that the Ark story was composed by one person.' PiCo (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rejection of WP:RS
PiCo refused the inclusion of references to two ancient ships on the spurious gronds that they were insufficiently documented to meet Wikipedia's standards, despite the fact that several WP:RS were provided:
 * 'Thalamegos and Hatshepsut are documented? You've got the blueprints?' PiCo (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'They are not documented to a standard acceptable for inclusion in this article - blueprints only please.' PiCo (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
PiCo occasionally made it clear that his edits were motivated by his own POV, resulting in WP:NPOV edits. Since he believes the Genesis narrative depicts a global flood, an Ark which was not built like a ship, and a week or 47 days for Noah to build the Ark alone, he contested the inclusion of any material which differed from this viewpoint:
 * 'The flood in Genesis is global - it covered "all the high mountains", not some of them. It covered "all the high mountains under the skies", not all the high mountains in Babylonia. In short, it covered the entire world. It was not local. In fact it's very interesting to see what Genesis actually describes: iron-working had already been invented (Tubal-Cain), so it wasn't built with Bronze Age technology. It had no hull, despite the popular depictions - it was just a huge rectangular chest, flat on all sides (and there was a reason for that). Noah had somewhere between a week and 47 days to build it, and into that time he had to fit trips all over the world to collect the animals. And he was 600 years old, and he built it alone. That, and more, is the story in Genesis.' PiCo (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He made this totally clear when he objected to the inclusion of any notable views other than the 'Literalist' view (a breach of WP:WEIGHT):
 * 'I would like to propose to editors a re-write of the existing Literalism section. The only reason that we have this section at all is because it represents a significant popular belief in the US. The actual arguments that go with that belief are totally outside the mainstream of scientific or scholarly discourse, and we really shouldn't be reflecting them in a supposedly scholarly article.' PiCo (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT
Pico's personal edits to the 'Documentary Hypothesis' and 'Literalism' sections (made without consensus), comprised a breach of WP:WEIGHT, as can be seen by the diff here. Another editor has noted PiCo's edits are unbalanced, and that he has refused to allow them to be altered:
 * 'A balance needs redressing, and my opinion (for what it's worth) is that Taiwan boi's edits help redress the balance. Please can they be included?! Additions can then be made to them if someone thinks they tilt the balance too far. Currently, though, there is still no balance. In fact, there seems to be a stuborn refusal to allow edits.' --Woofboy (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I had objected to the article's breach of WP:WEIGHT all the way back in June last year, for this very reason.

Refusal to concede to consensus

 * The section 'The Documentary Hypothesis' was edited by me in strict accordance with the consensus documented here. PiCo consistently refused to let it stand, deleting it repeatedly every time I returned it to what was agreed on.  He also replaced it with his own text, most of which was specifically opposed by three editors who helped arrive at the consensus (Doug Weller, Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε, and Alastair).  He has never given any explanation for this in the Talk page, his edit has never received any consensus, and he has consistently refused to discuss the issue, claiming instead that I have edited this section without first discussing it (false, see here, here, and here)
 * The section 'Literalism' was edited by me in accordance with the extensive discussion here. Subsequent to weeks of discussion I placed the proposed edit in the Talk page on 1 June 2008, and 16 June 2008.  Few objections were raised to the first proposal (which I subsequently amended), and none to the second, so I included it in the article.  After that PiCo deleted the entire section without warning or discussion, and rewrote it as a single paragraph including only his own view on what the article should contain, which has never received any approval by any other editor (let alone consensus).  He refuses to explain his edit or discuss his reasons, claiming instead that I have edited this section without first discussing it and that I have refused to include any views other than my own (false, see the extensive discussion here, here, and here, and my request for discussion here)

Undiscussed deletion of material, including reliable information
In the following exchange User:Til Eulenspiegel objects to PiCo deleting entire sections of the article without discussion, and appending a misleading edit summary:
 * 'I reverted because the extensive deletions included much more than just the referenced discussion of the "structure" of verses, which appears only at the very end of the removed section. Much more crucial and reliably referenced information was also removed. (When I saw the summary at first I thought something about the physical dimensions of the ark had been removed, but I looked a little more closely) But at any rate, the information in question is all properly referenced and should not be suddenly removed.' Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Til, I'm not proposing the permament deletion of this material but it's removal to a new section which will take in a rather wider range of subjects, summarising contemporary thinking on the Noah's Ark narrative.' PiCo (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Ah. Well, it would be much more preferable if you do not "temporarily remove" something until you are ready to replace it somewhere else.' Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss major edits
Aside from the example above, this includes the wholesale deletion of several paragraphs which had been discussed at length and included subsequent to consensus. Throughout the history of my involvement with this article I have made consistent requests for PiCo to explain his edits and to cooperate with others, specifically to edit existing sections written by others instead of simply throwing them out entirely and replacing them with his own material (see here, my questions at the end of this section, see also here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and my request for discussion here)

Lack of knowledge leading to bad edits

 * Because of PiCo's lack of knowledge of the relevant subject material, and in particular his lack of knowledge of the relevant sources and scholarly literature, he has made a number of bad edits, including deleting valid references. As may be seen from the link, he has refused to discuss this when the issue was raised.

False accusations
The following accusations are all untrue.
 * 'Why do you believe that someone like Ken Kitchen is a mainstream authority (he's actually quite marginal)?' PiCo (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Why do you insist that the 2-sources-in-theFlood-narrative is contested, when it's universally accepted?' PiCo (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Your additions amount to special pleading for the idea that the Ark narrative might be a single story recording a real flood. This is simply not a notable view - no respectable modern scholar holds it.' PiCo (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Some major edits were recently made by user Taiwanboi without consensus. I must remind all users that major changes to this or any other article should not be made unless it is clear that they are acceptable to the community of editors as a whole. This is especially true of Featured Articles - they are the result of a long process of community discussion and consensus-making, and this is reflected in the FA status.' PiCo (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)