Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Esa29

Case Filed On: 21:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer: Yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: Personal Attack

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: I have tried to get Born2x to Understand that I and our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher are not Committing a Hoax, but he continues to Insist Otherwise

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: I would like to get Born2x to Understand that, though he may be a Sinner and thus see Sin in everyone else, I am not a Sinner but an Honest Man of God.

Summary:
I came to Wiki Pedia to spread the One Sacred Truth of the Christian Anti-Messianic Church. As part of that Glorious Task I created an Article on our Brotherhood, and also changed a Sentence on the Christianity Article to reflect the difference in our Beliefs from those of most self-declared Christians (that we do not accept the Claim that our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah as Foretold by the Prophet Elijah). The Change was Removed, and I was asked to please Discuss such Changes beforehand. I did So, and while I am still not Convinced that my Changes to that Article were Wrong I can Understand where the Others are coming from, as the Book of Fortitude was only revealed to our Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Karcher four Years ago, and it was only last Month that we discovered that we are Permitted to spread the One Sacred Truth to Others.

However, Born2x seems to Believe that I am an insincere Hoaxer, which I most certainly am not, and has repeatedly stated so on the Christianity Discussion Page. He also is trying to get the Article I created on the One Sacred Truth deleted, and while even though I am not Convinced it should be Deleted I can, as with the Christianity page, understand where most of the Others are coming from. But even on the Deletion Discussion Born2x continues insisting that I am an insincere Hoaxer and a Vandal, which I am not--and I am unable to convince him Otherwise.

Please help me.

Your Brother in our Lord the Anti-Messiah Jesus of Nazareth Brother Fryear

Discussion:
In my opinion (limited as it may be), this seems like a case of not assuming good faith on the part of Born2x. We are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs, but, at least on Wikipedia, we're supposed to assume good faith and exercise a little tact. On that note, I'm willing to take this case as an advocate. However, I will say now that this doesn't, in my view, warrant anything further than an apology for jumping to conclusions and going against good faith. Keep in mind, Wikipedia policies/guidelines/mechanisms for dispute resolution are not really capable of changing people or their opinions. There is a proper manner to express them though. I will also say now that I am agnostic, so from a completely belief-free view of religion and Christianity, I must say that your proposed changes to the Christianity article are probably not acceptable since they go against the consensus definition of Christianity. Also, unfortunately, your article probably doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for notability and it doesn't have any acceptable references. You are always welcome to contribute articles at such a point where they are acceptable under Wikipedia policies/guidelines. But before then, the Wikipedia community generally won't allow people to use it as a forum to promote your beliefs and views. The correctness of the belief/view doesn't make it allowable. I hope this has been helpful, at least somewhat. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Thanks! -Cquan, talk, AMA Desk 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said Earlier, I Understand that the article will likely be Deleted, and I Understand where those who Advocate its Deletion are coming from, though I am not convinced. But, as you seem to Understand, that is not the Issue here.  The Issue is Insulting and Derogatory Remarks such as the one below by Born2x.  Esa29 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding me. Look at contributions by .  It's fluffy language that is nothing other than parody/satire/mockery/whatever you want to call it. There is nothing to mediate.  If we were talking about George W Bush's long lost brother, the article would have been speedied and Esa29 would have been blocked.  This is nothing more than an attempt at satire and mocking Christians.  Somewhere, someone is having a good laugh at the expense of anyone who takes him seriously.  WP:AGF doesn't require me to assume good faith on the part of the person who claims that George  Bush was born on Mars, nor does it require me to assume good faith on the part of the person who makes up an obvious hoax.  Google it.  Ask what city it is in.  Ask for a phone number of the church office.  Notice the unique capitalization (poking fun at how Christians capitalize He/Him when referring to God).  Notice the self-referential proof of existence . (One of the claims frequently made for the truth of Christianity is that the existence of the church is evidence for Christianity - the apostles, who would have known if it were a lie, wouldn't have given their lives for something they knew for a fact was a lie.)  This is an obvious hoax and there's no reason to waste anyone's time with it. --Born2x 22:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Born2x, this isn't about the validity of your point. In fact, Esa29 has acknowledged the position of the other editors. However, it sounds like you're taking this far too personally. And as you point out, there are circumstances where AGF is not required. However, everyone on Wikipedia is expected to remain civil. Skepticism is fine, but be polite. Remember, even if someone is a troll, directly calling them out on it in is bad form and usually only encourages more bad behavior. Also, remember not everyone on Wikipedia is like you and may not have the same sense of things. Esa29 has also only made 2 edits on the Christianity article, and upon being told to discuss it first, he did so, no muss no fuss. The single article he has created is more than likely worthy of deletion, intentions aside. This isn't especially obnoxious...especially considering he's a new user...so don't bite. -Cquan, talk, AMA Desk 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if its legal necessarily for outsiders to comment on other people's AFA requests, but I think there's something very important about this situation that needs to be known. In the AFD that Born2X cites, someone did a google search with more precise terminology, and as i've copied the only non-Wikipedia related result into the AFD as a comment, I think what's there is rather important, as it does indeed fully support Born2X's accusations. Homestarmy 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an open forum for discussion, so no problem there. And again, the assertions aren't in dispute here, it's the manner that they were done. -Cquan, talk, AMA Desk 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: open

Advocate Status:
 * AMA CQuan has accepted this case.