| Revision as of 05:55, 2 May 2010 editAmorymeltzer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators63,405 edits →Analysis of statement by Kaldari: Blanking section - out of place. Leaving note with editor← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:01, 8 May 2010 edit undoAlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,569 edits Courtesy blanking per Remedy 3 |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{NOINDEX}} |
|
{{Template:RFARcasenav|case name=Alastair Haines 2|clerk1=Amorymeltzer|clerk2=AlexandrDmitri|draft arb=SirFozzie}} |
|
|
|
{{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been ]. {{#ifeq:yes|yes|The ]'s decision is still in effect, and can be viewed in the .}}{{#if:| The contents of the page can be viewed in this .|}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
==Additional Comments== |
|
|
{{Discussion top}} |
|
|
=== Statement by EGMichaels === |
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that I used to edit under the screen name "SkyWriter". |
|
|
|
|
|
I have encountered both Alastair and Jeffro77 in the past, and am currently involved with Alastair in a content dispute at ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Several notes: |
|
|
|
|
|
*The definition of "Christian" on Misplaced Pages is an ongoing dispute between those whose groups correspond to the Nicene Creed and those whose groups oppose the Nicene Creed. This is a dispute which has been in place long before Misplaced Pages ever existed and no doubt will outlive Misplaced Pages as well. At issue is the question of self definition of groups -- can a small group's self definition negate a larger group's self definition? |
|
|
:*Jehovah's Witnesses do indeed claim they are Christians, but also claim that nearly 2 billion Nicene adherents are NOT Christians. |
|
|
:*Conversely, Nicene Christians use the doctrine of the Trinity as a litmus test for the term "Christian." |
|
|
:*Regardless of which side is "right" (and Misplaced Pages should have no opinion), responsible editors should at least acknowledge that these groups define "Christian" in mutually exclusive ways. While claim to the name should be noted for both groups, the mutual exclusion should also be noted -- out of fairness to both groups. Jehovah's Witnesses as a group insist they are not a "denomination of Christendom". Nicene "Christendom" as a group insist they are not Arians (and would include Jehovah's Witnesses in that label). |
|
|
*This is not about Alastair's wanting to dictate who is and is not a "true" Christian on Misplaced Pages. On the contrary, Alastair's edits simply fall under two imperatives: |
|
|
:*All notable and reliable views must be noted and cited, and |
|
|
:*Mutually exclusive groups which claim the same term at the expense of the other should be noted as such so that they are not confused with each other (i.e. so that Jehovah's Witnesses won't be unfairly mistaken for Trinitarians, or so that Trinitarians won't be unfairly mistaken for Arians). |
|
|
|
|
|
All of this is merely responsible editing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here's where Alastair runs into problems: |
|
|
|
|
|
#When reliable sources are removed, Alastair has a tendency to follow Misplaced Pages policy by restoring them (much to the chagrin of editors who wish to eradicate the existence of notable POVs). |
|
|
#Since Alastair tends to include all "sides" of a dispute in an encouraging and fair minded manner, some editors wishing to push a POV have initially mistaken him as supporting that POV, and then become shocked when they find he will not support the elimination of POVs they do not like. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please note the encouraging and engaging manner Alastiar has used at ] to support all sides and to make sure that no side of a long content dispute eradicates the other in the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
As hard as ] is as a dispute, it is far less contentious than subjects involving Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other groups who claim use of the term "Christian" in a way that by definition must exclude other groups which also claim that term. Again, while we must note that any given group lays claim to the name, we should also note when that group uses the term with a meaning that excludes other groups commonly known by that same name. |
|
|
|
|
|
A good example would be "Messianic Judaism" and "Judaism." Both groups claim the name "Judaism". |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a simple test for the charge of POV for Alastair: |
|
|
|
|
|
#Does Alastair agree with the theology of "Messianic Judaism" or of "Judaism"? (answer, Messianic Judaism) |
|
|
#Does Alastair agree with the theology of "Jehovah's Witnesses" or of "Nicene Christianity"? (answer, Nicene Christianity). |
|
|
#Would Alastair note that "Messianic Judaism" is theologically incompatible with mainstream "Judaism"? (of course) |
|
|
#Would Alastair note that "Jehovah's Witnesses" are theologically incompatible with mainstream "Christianity"? (of course) |
|
|
|
|
|
So, then, this has NOTHING to do with Alastair promoting a POV, since his editorial decisions would be the same for a group which intersects with his theology (i.e. Messianic Judaism) and one which does not (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). |
|
|
|
|
|
In BOTH cases Alastair would note that a minority group self identifies with a certain term, but also note that this self identification is excluded by the larger groups which are normally known by that name. |
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, this particular "case" unfairly uses a previous ArbCom against Alastair. I was a part of that previous ArbCom, and noted multiple occasions in which that ArbCom contained personal attacks against Alastair of such severity that a third party had to request the entire ArbCom ITSELF to be blanked. |
|
|
|
|
|
Let's not go down this road again. '''''The previous ArbCom had to be blanked -- not Alastair.''' '' Claiming to use such a botched ArbCom against Alastair now is merely an admission of having a poor case to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
|
Summary: in all my dealings with Alastair, he consistently supports the inclusion of all PsOV (as per policy) and reverts unwarranted deletion of sources (also per policy). Let's uphold policy and ignore this personal attack distraction.] (]) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:(Per Jeffro77s comment naming me)] (]) 00:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) -- Agreed that Christianity predates the Nicene Creed. Even agreed that the Nicene Creed could be flat wrong. My point is only that this is a demarcation that both groups use to distinguish themselves from each other.] (]) 22:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Statement by Maunus=== |
|
|
I have only interacted with Alastair Haines yesterday and today and my impression of his editing style closely resembles that described by Kaldari and Jeffro77. Alastair does not appear to me to be interested in establishing consensus or collaborating with other editors, but to force a specific point into an article by an annoying mix of sophistry, sarcasm, badly concealed contempt and twisting other editors words into positions he can easier attack. Note that I have previously been involved in heated arguments with Jeffro77 and SallyLT, but both have been much more collaborative than Alastair Haines has been in my brief interaction with him. ] 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:At this point it has become painfully obvious that Alastair Haines is not working to achieve neutrality but instead to circumvent Wikipedias neutrality policies and rendering the concept of neutral objectivity based in reliable sources worthless. He is arguing that since Catholics do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians the article cannot define them as such in spite of the fact that multiple academic sources written by secular scholars of religion clearly and unequivocally define them as such (e.g. Holden 2002 and Beckford 1975). He further argues that secular sources (written by academic experts in the classification and description of the worlds religions) cannot be used to define who is a Christian since they are not "experts in what Christ taught". If this logic was followed the article on the ] would have to be called ] - simply because the Greeks do not want to recognize it as Macedonia - and non-greek sholars would have no say as they can't be expected to know what Macedonia really is. In short Alastair is pushing a non-neutral biased point of view and disregarding the spirit of many of Misplaced Pages's core policies. In doing so he is using a cyclical argumentation style - possibly in order to tire his opponents, when an opponent shows an interest in compromise he immediately shifts the goalposts further towards his own POV claiming that we are "almost reaching a consensus" ("consensus" apparently being synonymous with his original viewpoint). I would suggest that Alastair Haines be topic banned from all articles having to do with religion where apparently it is impossible for him to be neutral and to edit non-disruptively. Examples of Alastair twisting words and arguments of his opponents are all over the Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses but here I supply a small number of diffs: |
|
|
: Here Alastair agrees with and summarises Jeffro's previous point (or rather turns it into a strawman holding his own viewpoint which is not difficult for him to agree with) |
|
|
: Here Alastair starts his comment by "Absolutely!" apparently trying to camouflage his complete rejection of the arguments presented in the comment he replies to as agreement. |
|
|
: Here Alastair summarises the quotes of several secular scholars as saying the opposite of what they actually say. Then he present the same position that he has held all along as "a compromise"] 11:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::For what its worth I realise that discussing with Alastair has exasperated me and that I have made comments that were close to the line of civilty (I am not the judge of on which side of the line they were) and for that reason I will recuse myself from further participation in that discussion, untill issues have been solved here. I am now unwatching the talkpage. ] 15:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Discussion bottom}} |
|