The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC).

• Slrubenstein ( talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Admin claims a right to call people bigots.

Desired outcome

Slrubenstein needs to cease all personal attacks. The main problem (in my view) is calling me an ignorant POV-pushing fanatical bigoted troll, and all the delightful variants thereof. He should abandon the position that personal attacks are OK if they are "true" (expressed on his Talk page). He generally needs to stop considering people ignorant if they disagree with him on this subject (on which he considers himself an expert).

Description

Admin claims a right to call people bigots, especially me. He defends it on the grounds that he thinks it's true I'm a bigot.

Addendum. The content dispute is irrelevant, but will probably beraised. I've objected to sourcing, and the way it is characterized in articles. A basic summary of my view is here [1]. Again, it doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong. Personal attacks are unacceptable. Noloop ( talk) 03:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Evidence of disputed behavior

This is a sampling of comments User:Slrubenstein has directed at me on the Talk pages of some articles related to Jesus. I’ve focused on direct insults; there are many other more generally dismissive comments.

• "Calling a bigot a bigot is not antagonisic, it is honest....Your bigotry blinds to to any realistic knowledge of the current state of NT scholarship. ... All you are doing is making a mistake that only a bigot is capable of making: " [2]
• "I think we can now say he is not only a bigot, but a fanatical bigot. This is not name-calling." [3].

ANI regarding the conduct Slrubenstein (and Andrew c): [4] and [5] (subtopic of the previous). Slrubenstein was warned that he would be blocked if he continued calling me a bigot. His response in discussion with User:Fences and windows:

• “I cannot believe you tolerate bigots at Wikipedia....Sorry, bigots are a threat to the integrity of WP as a whole. I won't stand for them.” [6]
• “Noloop is a POV-pushing troll.” [7]
• “Bigotry, like racism, describes a particular kind of personal attack. Why is labeling someone's edit " a form of bigotry" a personal attack,...” [8]

He was true to his word, continuing to call me names:

• “That just proves that you are ignorant, bigoted, or for some other reason a POV pusher....Your ignorance and bigotry shows clear...” [9]

I requested arbitration; it was declined as premature, mainly on the grounds that I needed to do an RFCU. However, he was advised “Slrubenstein, please don't call people bigots (you are quite capable of phrasing what you are saying in a less confrontational manner).” He ignored it:

• “Instead, we are subjct to more of your bigoted POV-pushing." [10]
• ”What you have written is bigotted, because ou have yet to provide a reliable source to support your claims, or to provide specific examples. But this i sjust identifying you, it is not an attack. How can I attack your ideas when you have none?” [11]
• “More proof that you are ignorant and bigoted.” [12]

He had made it clear that he intends to call any editor a bigot if he feels like it. [13] His logic seems to be that calling an editor XYZ isn’t a personal attack if it’s sincerely believed.

There are many other problems with this editor/topic combination. He is generally insulting to everyone with a different view of things. He dismisses editors as ignorant (mostly, but not exclusively, me), e.g. “I have been asking Noloop to propose a new source for some time and she cannot - clearly, she is entirely ignorant about the scholarship on the subject. In the meantime, I would like to clear up another misconception - it really seems like a number of people who are ignorant of the scholarship think their views here will be helpful, which is hardly the case” [14] Another example, “You keep using the word "science" but I am not sure you know what this word means. You certainly seem to be woefully ignorant about what mortal men in 1st century galilee or Roman-occupied Palestine were like, or what they believed. Do you know anything about this topic at all?” [15] See also proposal at ANI: “Noloop should be topic-banned, or perhaps banned entirely," not based on a single diff. [16]. Noloop ( talk) 02:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. No personal attacks

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

See above.

• See [17] at Slrubenstein's talk page. Fences& Windows 03:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

See above

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Noloop ( talk) 02:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. I don't think these attacks are acceptable, I was not aware that they had continued. I could simply block him for continuing to make personal attacks despite a firm warning, but I think this RfC is a better approach. Fences& Windows 03:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Noloop's characterisation of Slruberstein's conduct seems to me to be a fair one, although he is not the only editor involved in the discussions who has been at fault. Claims made below that Noloop rightly deserves the label "bigot" are unwarranted, because the position held by Noloop (roughly, that the religious stance of a writer may affect their POV - ie Christian sources may be biased towards the view that Jesus existed), whether right or wrong, is not unreasonable. I think Sluberstein has a tendency to overdramatise in his characterisations of other editors. -- FormerIP ( talk) 16:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Agree with Former IP's views above. Reading Slruberstein's response, it is clear he sees nothing uncivil/does not care about WP:CIVIL. It is clear he is making a case for continuing to use the b-word and will not stop using it.-- Civilizededucation ^talk 09:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. Support & affirm what has been said here, but as I am currently relocating to a different continent my input here is erratic at present, and time available to contribute strictly limited. Having read the responses, I see that the usual tactic persists even here: swamp the page with superfluous irrelevance and ad-hominem attacks on the person who raised the problem. I don't think anybody needs to look further than that for evidence. - MishMich - Talk - 20:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

This complaint against me was also raised at AN/I, where Noloop went after User:Andrew c [18]. Although the AN/I complaint was specifically directed towards Andrew c, in the initial complaint Noloop regularly lumped me and Andrew c together. I was one of a number of editors who supported Andrew c, and it was at AN/I that I first spelled out in detail my own complaints against Noloop on the grounds that he was a disruptive editor who had repeatedly made bigoted remarks against different scholars. The AN/I ended inconclusively because this is at heart a content dispute. Apparently, Noloop is done attacking Andrew c. But I guess now it is my turn.

In fact, at least three of the edit-difs Noloop provides are from the AN/I discussion that was closed on August 3 and marked as "resolved." Hmmm. I guess it wasn't resolved. I think it is kind of weird using comments I made at the last AN/I Noloop opened, here. But that's just my personal opinion ...

This is in my view a content dispute, which is one reason the AN/I went nowhere. It also means that there is no point in taking it to ArbCom. Perhaps mediation would be a good idea. In any event, I accept the outcome of the AN/I against Andrew C, which clarified some issues, and am trying to find ways to address his concerns constructively, but I admit I find this very difficult.

First, let me say that I have never said anything about my being an admin. I never used any of my sysop rights in any action against Noloop. As far as I can tell this is a conflict among editors. That Noloop presents this as a conflict between an admin and an editor suggests I have in someway misused my sysop abilities. This is simply false.

Second, as to Noloop's bigotry, Noloop claims I "made it clear that he intends to call any editor a bigot if he feels like it. His logic seems to be that calling an editor XYZ isn’t a personal attack if it’s sincerely believed." I never said any such thing, and I have bent over backwards to explain my position. I never brought up "sincere belief" as a criteria (although don't we all assume that anything someone says is "sincerely believed?" I am sure Noloop "sincerely believes" the things he writes.) But the point is, I do not call just anyone a bigot; in fact, I don't think I have accused anyone of bigotry except one or two other people who seemed to have taken Noloop's precise position. And I do not call someone a bigot because "I feel like it." I have very specific criteria for using this word. Other editors may not agree with my criteria, or may indeed believe I am profoundly wrong, but the point is, I don't just act based on a feeling. And I have endeavored to explain this to Noloop, and Fences and Windows. I tried at the AN/I Noloop posted, which was closed last week. I will try again. I will take my time because I want to be very clear as to my thinking.

My position is this: we never ask an editor to identify herself according to her race, creed, color or national origin. The race, creed color or national origin of an editor is or should be irrelevant in deciding whether an edit improves an article or does not improve an article. I have seen editors introduce information about their race, creed, color or national origin as a way of explaining their own POV and I recognize that race, creed, color or national origin can be helpful in trying to understand one's point of view. But I think it is wrong to assume this is the case. To assume this before actually knowing someone's views is the very definition of prejudice, and we should not condone it.

I take the same attitude towards the authors of books or articles we might use in WP articles. I think we should avoid making assumptions about an author's race, creed, color or national origin. It is important to identify the point of view presented in a source. In most cases, the source itself identifies its point of view. In some cases, secondary sources may identify or depate a source's point of view. But it is prejudiced to assume you know what point of view is being expressed based on the identity of the author before you read the contents of the source. My point: identify the point of view based on what the author actually says is his or her point of view (or a reliable secondary source). To make assumptions based on someone's race, creed, color, or national origin without caring to look at their actual work is bigotry.

An analogy: Henry Louis Gates is a literary critic and author of a book on an important African-American narrative device The Signifying Monkey. The late John Hope Franklin was a historian and wrote one of the seminal books on African American history, From Slavery to Freedom. William Julius Williams is a sociologist who wrote The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass And Public Policy, one of the most important sociological works on African Americans. Now, each of these men is an African American. And each of these books is on an African Americans or some aspect of African Americans culture. I think it would be a profound insult if someone were to add to one of our articles on Blacks "The Black view is expressed in The Signifying Monkey," or "Many African Americans believe (reference to From Slavery to Freedom)," of "A notable black view is found in Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass And Public Policy". This would be an insult to Henry Louis Gates, John Hope Franklin, and William Julius Wilson, because it is suggesting that they can only express a "black view" and not "a literary critic's view," or "a historian's view" or "a sociologist's view." But it is also an insult to the academic fields of literary criticism, history, and sociology, because you are saying either one of two things: either these are white disciplines, and can never claim any objectivity but only perpetuate the views of one race ... or you are saying that these fields have no theoretical or methodological standards that provide a basis for declaring something to be scholarly. These authors are writing about some important aspect of African American life. And they happen to be African Americans. So they are writing about something one would reasonably expect them to have personal feelings about. But they did not write these books to express their personal feelings or to express a "black" point of view. And professional literary critics, historians, and sociologists consider these books to express the point of view of a literary critic, a historian, a sociologist.

I think it would be bigoted to say that these works of scholarship reflect a black point of view and to be balanced we need to find works by white literary critics, white historians, white sociologists. It would be bigoted, and we at Wikipedia should discourage this.

But this is what Noloop is doing. He is insisting that if the author of a history book on Jesus is Christian, the book therefore expresses a Christian point of view. He shows no evidence that he has read the book, indeed, he expresses no interest in reading the book. The possibility that the Christian may also be a trained historian who (like John Hope Franklin) is writing history, using the same methods and with the same objectives of any other professional historian, writing a book that would be of value and use to any historian, does not even seem to cross his mind. This is bigotry.

And when other editors bring evidence that the author in question is not expressing a Christian point of view, or that the methods and approach and objectives of the book written by a Christian are the same as books written by non-Christian historians, he simply ignores what these other editors write. he does not care about actual evidence about the views expressed in the books. This is bigotry

Other editors are trying to write articles basedon reliable sources. Noloop rejects all of them because they are expressing a Christian point of view. But let us be clear about the issue. No one - no one is saying that these articles should present only a Christian point of view. But Andrew c, I, and other editors who have actually read the books are saying that many of these books do not forward a Christian point of view.

But Noloop ignores us; since the authors are Christians, the books "must" express a Christian point of view, so we who have read the books must be wrong. This is the mindset of a bigot. And how does one edit collaboratively with a bigot?

I have found it quite hard. When I answer a question he asks, he ignores my answer. When i ask him a question, he ignores my question. There is no dialogue. For over a month we have just had a simple monologue: any book written by a Christian expresses a Christian point of view. That is all he says. Relentlessly.

Please do not accept his suggestion that all I do is call him names. I have tried to reason with him. I have tried to explain at length the organization of modern universities and differences in approach among different kinds of scholars. I have tried to explain what kinds of questions and methods historians care about, and how one can distinguish a "Christian" point of view from a work of critical history. He simply ignores everything of substance I say. It doesn't matter to him, because if the author of a book is a Christian, that is sufficient information to conclude that the book is presenting a Christian point of view.

I have said this is a content dispute but it is a surreal content dispute because Noloop actually ignores the contents of the books in question. That is my point about bigotry. He prejudges the book based on the identity of the author. Content actually becomes irrelevant to him.

My calling Noloop a bigot is not a personal attack, it is a diagnosis of a problem. The personal attack is being made by Noloop. He is attacking the scholarly integrity of notable historians based on their creed. I consider this intolerable and do not like to see Wikipedia condoning it. We should never attack anyone based on their race, creed, color, or national origin. I admit that my POV here comes from my being an Amaerican; in the United States to discriminate against someone based on their race, creed, color, or national origin is a violation of their civil rights. I do not think that the laws of the US apply to Wikipedia (I am just being honest about the source of my views). But so what? Each of these are social identities. Each identity engenders particular views - sociologists have made it very clear that just as women often express a woman's point of view, a black or a white person can express a black or white point of view. Christians too can express Christian points of view (there is not just one, you know!!). But each of these social identities can and have also been stigmatized. One way to stigmatize them is to devalue their point of view (the woman's view is unimportant, ^[1]. But another way to stigmatize them is to refuse to let them speak except as bearers of a stigmatized identity. Yes, there are "black" vies of American literature, American history, of American society. Yes, a black man or woman can write as a black man or woman, grappling with the meaning of their identity, the beliefs they have about themselves, others, the world they inhabit that all tie to their identity. This is true of whites, too. But we have this belief that whites can escape the prison of their identity and write universally; a white man can write poetry and novels that just happen to be about other white people yet, we are taught in school, speak to the "human condition." What is bigoted is to believe that blacks are not capable of this. To assume that because it was written by a black man or woman, that it expresses a black point of view. What is bigotted is not to read the book color blinded and open-minded, with the possibility that it may be "just" a poem, just a novel, just a history book, just sociology. In United States Civil Rights legislation, race, creed, color and national origin are grouped together because history has borne out to anyone involved in Civil Rights struggles that each of these identites actually have been stigmatized, and made the object of bigotry.

U.S. law may not apply here, but if an encyclopedia is not about learning all the lessons that can be learned from life, what is it? In the US, discrimination against someone on the basis of their race, creed, color or national origin is a violation of their civil rights. This should at least force us to wait a minute and reflect on the possibility that it may not be a good thing here, too. Even here at Wikipedia, it is not just offensive, it degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. Obviously a Christian can express a Christian POV, just like a Jew can express a Jewish POV and a Black can express a Black POV. In fact, anti-Semites often call psychoanalysis the "Jewish science" because Freud was Jewish. This is not the model we should be following when we seek to identify the point of view being expressed in a source. 11:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum

I cannot in good consience retract my assertion that Noloop has made bigoted comments. However, it was unnecessary and wrong to personalize it by saying that Noloop himself is bigoted. For what it is worth, I apologize for that and through this statement retract comments about Noloop him/herself. I will strive in the future to limit myself to addressing editors' comments, rather than editors themselves. 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Slrubenstein | Talk
2. User:slatersteven OK as Sluber has aknowlegded that his action were wrong nad has appoligised I see no reason for further action.
3. addresses the issue at hand - all else is rather moot, I suspect. Collect ( talk) 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. Mountain from a molehill - Slrubenstein appears to be acting well within Wikipedia norms for threshing out sources and how best to represent their totality. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
5. Taking into consideration the detailed, honest and open explanation and sincere apology, along with SLR's excellent history as an editor and admin; the matter should be closed. I see no need for further action. Dreadstar ☥ 18:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply
6. Cailil ^talk 18:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC) per Dreadstar and 2/0 reply
7. I agree, there is no need for any further action regarding Slrubenstein, per Dreadstar and 2/20. Dougweller ( talk) 14:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Drmies

I think what we have here is a witch hunt. No diffs are provided as yet by the initiator of this RfC of any reproachable behavior on Slrubenstein's part, and in the absence of that, I think the initiator's talk page is enough evidence that this RfC is not motivated by a serious concern to make Wikipedia a better place.

• Well, initiator has provided some diffs now: they were called a "bigot." In my opinion, considering that Slrubenstein was tested pretty severely by this disruptive POV pusher (with the block log to show for it), this is not worth an RfC.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Drmies ( talk) 02:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Noloop has a history of disruptive editing, including two blocks within the last month or so. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. Especially the last clause. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. Agree with both Jehochman and 2/0 above. Dreadstar ☥ 18:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply
5. Yes - as I said below this is RFC is too POINTY for my liking-- Cailil ^talk 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Outside view by slatersteven

Whilst I do not agree with calling users bigots, and think that Sluber could display greater diplomacy Nollops attitude is hardly designed to engender good relations. I think this whole affair (from both sides) represents the slow degrading of wiki's civility based upon over tolerance of bad attitude. I have seen users who are given too much lee way from over indulgent Admins have a pattern of deteriorating behaviour. Now I do not say Sluber is solely to blame, he is not. I think Noloops and Slubers actions should be examined. Its not as if Noloop himself has not used similar language to some of this in the past. Do the laws and statutes of the USA apply to wikipedia? 15:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is nothing I can see that 'justifies' breaches of civlility. 16:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Slatersteven ( talk)
2. -- FormerIP ( talk) 16:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply

• Although I am only half in agreement with the additional comment made by Slatersteven at 15:37 today. The diff does not show excellent diplomacy, but it also does not justify the behaviour complained about. -- FormerIP ( talk) 15:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Additinal view by slatersteven

its difficult to see this [ [19]] as anything other then accusing other users of bias, sloppy reasearch and distortion. Its hard to see how this is designed to edit in a way that is likly to build consensus and is a display of the kind of attitudes that he is complaining about here.its confrontational combative and dismisive (exactly the attitude in fact that Sluber has shown). He also makes assumptions about motives about which he can have no knowledge. I would agree this does not justify Sluber actions, nor did I itened it to do so (indeed I condem Sluber choiuce of language). I am just illustrating that this is not all one sided and there is an element of hypocrisy about this RFC.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Akhilleus

Editors who don't want to be called bigoted should probably refrain from alleging religious bias in other editors, such as Noloop did with this edit summary, and as he does on his user page ( "There is a facaded of certainty in these articles, defended by Christian editors who care more about their religion than truth (not exactly the first time).") Starting sections on the talk page with titles like "religiously biased sourcing"? Not such a great idea. Not to mention, the allegations that eminent scholars who specialize in the historical Jesus are Christians, and therefore biased—that their work is not indicative of mainstream consensus, but only records the opinions of the "Christian community"? Well, what do we call it when an editor judges scholars' work based on their religion (or ethnicity, sexuality, etc.) rather than on its content?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Akhilleus ( talk) 14:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Griswaldo ( talk) 16:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC). I would like to echo what Nishidani wrote for the record, because I have had many even heated disagreements with Slrubenstein, but not about this. reply
3. Nishidani ( talk) 16:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC). For the record I and User:Slrubenstein almost invariably disagree, but not on this. reply
4. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 19:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC). Noloop is a bigot. reply
5. John Carter ( talk) 20:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC) - Clearly, Noloop's comments above indicate that there might be bias on his part as well. There is a question that most scholars that deal with Christian topics are Christians, considering 1/3 of the world, roughly 2 billion people, right now consider themselves Christians, and I myself find very little about the historical Jesus in books written by Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, and the like. Most of the people who write about old Athens and Rome are also, in a sense, descendants of those cultures. Should we also call their statements "biased"? reply
6. Hardyplants ( talk) 21:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC) : It seems to me that Noloop is on a crusade to promote his religious views and is antagonistic against other views. Crusaders cause problems and are disruptive to Wikipedia. He has made a number of statements that have been pointed out (plus others in previous conflicts) that show that his bias has made him deconstructive to building a community of editors. Without a functioning community, that at least tolerates other views and follows the guidelines put forth for content and conduct, building the encyclopedia becomes problematic. reply
7. Ramdrake To echo Akhilleus: what do we call it when an editor judges scholars' work based on their religion rather than on its content? Slrubenstein's epithet may have been less than politically correct, but it was undeniably logically correct.
8. Cailil ^talk 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC): Agree and additionally, Noloop's making posts like those could be called soapboxing and is quite POINTY behaviour. By then following those up with what is a baseless RFC/U (which repeats much of the points that were made at ANi) borders on replicating WP:SPIDERMAN. I quote a remark made by Jimbo, which I believe fences and windows knows: "our social policies are not a suicide pact ... this is not a democracy, this is not an experiment in anarchy, it's a project to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia." When some one abuses our policies and processes to make a point they are working against the best interests of the encyclopedia. reply
9. Somebody give Slrubenstein a tray of cupcakes! Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply
10. Mathsci ( talk) 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Slr has always shown integrity on wikipedia and patience in working with others, often playing a teaching role. In cases like this, which are somewhat outside normal wiki behaviour, he is calling a spade a spade. reply
11. Per Jehochman. (!) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ► TALK 13:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
12. Chocolate ones. Collect ( talk) 18:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
13. Gets to the root of the issue. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
14. Soxwon ( talk) 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply
15. Triple chocolate cupcakes with sour cream chocolate frosting. Dougweller ( talk) 14:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
16. WP:SHOT of an RFC. East of Borschov 15:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Ramdrake

Much ado about nothing. Judging by the ANI report, and by what User Noloop actually did, Noloop does fit the description of what User Slrubenstein calls a "bigot". And even though it's generally not nice to call someone a bigot, there are times when one should call a spade a spade. It might hurt some sensibilities, sure, but one should be wary to check one's prejudices at the door first, or one is liable to have one's behaviour scrutinized and judged for what it is. If we sanction this, then we must ask ourselves if we can ever call someone's behaviour for what it really is.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Ramdrake ( talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. I generally try to go out of my way not to designate other Wikipedians by terms that describe persons, but rather to describe specific instances of editorial behavior. That would be my friendly advice to Slrubenstein, whom I have found to be a very scholarly and careful editor. But here I think the request for comment initiated by Noloop is simply an effort to distract attention from Noloop's overt behavior as an editor, which has been neither as scholarly nor as collaborative as Slrubenstein's. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 01:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. Per Ramdrake and WeijiBaikeBianji. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ► TALK 13:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. Good points.   Will Beback  talk  16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Griswaldo

It is indeed unfortunate that Slrubenstein has continued to use word "bigot". I told him it wasn't worth it some time ago, yet I fully understand his frustrations. Much of the language that Noloop claims is a personal attack, used by Slrubenstein (and others) to describe Noloop's behavior and attitude is in fact dead on accurate. What do you call someone who appears to be trolling and POV-pushing, and doing so in a way that is prejudiced against people who affiliate with religions? People here should read our essay on civil POV pushing because it describes Noloop's behavior to a T. Read the bullet points in the section that outlines "the Problem", the last of which is "[t]hey often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors." This RFC falls into a pattern of disruption by Noloop that includes postings at numerous content noticeboards, AN/I and requests for arbitration (of which he's already filed at least two).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Griswaldo ( talk) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. It should be clear from my view above that I don't have a high opinion of Noloop's arguments, but it's not always a good idea to call a spade a spade—even if not doing so sometimes feels like doublespeak. --Akhilleus ( talk) 16:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. Cailil ^talk 20:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Agree per Akhilleus. reply

Outside view by PeaceLoveHarmony

The viewpoint of each side is clear. Slrubenstein has shown a clear pattern of calling Noloop a number of offensive names, as documented above. Slrubenstein says that it is not name-calling, because the labels are accurate. I do not think that Slrubenstein's defense is plausible. There is nothing bigoted about noting that one's religious beliefs have an impact on one's ability to objectively assess data that challenges the truth-claims of that religion. Am I a bigot for having this opinion? Religion is in a different category from race with respect to this issue, so Slrubenstein's justifications are not valid; he is comparing apples and oranges. Reasonable people in good faith can disagree with the assertion that Noloop is a bigoted POV-pushing troll. I do not think Noloop is any of these things, and many other editors on the Talk pages of the relevant Jesus-related articles have made it clear they do not think so either. The uncivil behavior of Slrubenstein is not helpful to the project.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 20:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. -- FormerIP ( talk) 01:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. -- Civilizededucation ^talk 09:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. Noloop is actually asking pertinent questions, even if his manner of asking is not always helpful. It's not bigoted to ask whether a religious person would find it hard to neutrally discuss something that was antithetical (that's not a word, is it) to their religion. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply
5. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Outside view by SlimVirgin

Slrubenstein is a Wikipedian I admire a great deal. He wants Wikipedia to be educative, and he cares about good writing and sources. He helped develop some of the sourcing policies and concepts, and there are very few editors, if any, who have a better grasp of them than him.

This may be the first time in six years of editing that I've disagreed with him about a sourcing issue. I don't know what's been happening on Historicity of Jesus, but I do know that on Christ myth theory (which SLR wasn't involved in), we had a problem with the article being framed almost entirely by Christian religious scholars. Anyone outside that circle was not only rejected as a source, but was actively ridiculed in the article or on the talk page, to the point where two editors were posting jokes on talk about a scholarly source they disagreed with (a living person), together with links to unflattering images of him, while one editor uploaded such an image and added it to the article. Sources who argued that Jesus might not exist were openly compared to Holocaust deniers by Wikipedians and by their academic sources. That was the level of debate. It did not encourage me to feel the article could be entrusted to those editors or to those sources. I stress that SLR wasn't involved in any of this behavior, and indeed when he saw it he put a stop to it.

The reason I mention it here is that it left me with a concern about the extent to which the Jesus articles are dominated by a Christian POV, and I would like to see them opened up a little. For example, why is Robert Price not used as a source in Historicity of Jesus? He's mentioned only in relation to the Christ myth theory and his views are not explained. He has two PhDs, one in theology and one in New Testament, both from Drew University, and has written four books and several papers about Jesus as myth and the difficulty of reading the New Testament as history, so he is a specialist source. Why is G.A. Wells not used? He's a professor of German who has devoted much of his life to studying the historicity of Jesus—the author of 11 books on the subject—and therefore clearly a specialist source. Their views, and those of others who agree with them, should be woven throughout the text, or at least given a respectful write-up in their own section, summary-style, so that readers see there are other POVs.

Wikipedia is not an academic journal. Our readers want to see a broad sweep of opinion. When I write about animal rights, I am required by the spirit of NPOV to go outside the magic circle of specialists (almost all of whom are animal rights advocates) to find people who disagree with AR. We accept in contentious articles that special-interest groups can't be allowed to frame them entirely, even when they're the specialists. We don't allow Scientologists to dominate Scientology articles; we don't allow Mormon historians exclusive rights to be sources in those articles. SLR writes that we should never attack anyone based on race, creed, color, or national origin, and I agree, but saying of sources that they may have a conflict of interest, or that an article has been dominated by sources with uniform views, is not an attack of that nature. I also can't accept an argument that implies scholars are somehow above all the pressures and prejudices that everyone else is subject to. We would hope they'd do more than most to rise above them, but they can't shake them entirely, and that's especially true when it comes to religious faith.

I hope Noloop will find a way to work with Slrubenstein because he really is one of our best and most knowledgable editors, and a very fair editor too, who always runs with the argument, wherever it leads. If Noloop hasn't managed to persuade him yet, he needs to find better arguments or better sources, and perhaps also concede that SLR may have a point too.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 07:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. -- FormerIP ( talk) 11:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Although I would add that Sluberstein's positive qualities and experience make this episode more of a cause for concern, not less. reply
3. -- Civilizededucation ^talk 09:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 16:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply
5. Perfect statement, Slim; I totally agree with everything you've said here. Dreadstar ☥ 18:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply
6. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply
7. I think Slim does raise a valid problem - it seems crazy to me that Robert Price isn't being used as a source for the historicity of Jesus. I think this is a general problem in many religious articles (just as we have problems with nationalism elsewhere). Dougweller ( talk) 14:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
8. There are serious questions regarding sourcing in a lot of religious content, and it would help to have a few more editors from the "loyal opposition" involved there. John Carter ( talk) 20:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply
9. This makes sense. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Captain Occam

As someone who’s had similar issues with Slrubenstein on an unrelated article, it’s very easy for me to see this issue from Noloop’s point of view. I agree with the other people who’ve commented that Slrubenstein is a respectable person the majority of the time, but from time to time he abruptly seems to lose interest in discussing content, and launches into personal attacks against the people he regards as his editorial adversaries. It’s quite jarring to experience this from him; the only thing I can think of to compare it to is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Here are some diffs of when I’ve observed of this problem from him. As I said, these are on an unrelated article, which I think demonstrates that this problem isn’t limited to articles about religion topics.

[20]: “Revert me using an attack my integrity again you little turd and I will take it to AN/I. You don't like my edit? Take it to this talk page before you screw around with things you do not understand.”

[21]: “Do you get it now? Sorry, Mike, I will slow down. D...O Y...O...U G...E...T I...T N...O...W? […] The version that I left, after deleting Mike's vandalism, was not "my" version. It was the version we arrived at through mediation, and which David Kane wrote, before mediation ended and Mike came here to sneak back in his ignorant POV.”

[22]: “Your trolling, you are just trying to get me to waste my time by repeating what I wrote yesterday, and what was written during mediation, in the hiopes that I will get tired of your trolling and go away.”

[23]: “That you are not capable of this just shows your ignorance of science (or that you are a crappy scientist). […] Apparently you do not understand even this simple sentence.”

[24]: “You know little about science, yet come to this article just to push your racist point of view. Fortunately, there are many other editors who will put science above your racist ideology.”

Whether Slrubenstein was right or wrong in any of these disputes shouldn’t matter here. Even if he were right, that doesn’t justify him addressing another editor as “you little turd”, dismissing their edits as “trolling” and “vandalism” (when they clearly weren’t intended as that), or dismissing the viewpoint he disagrees with as “racist”. Most of the worst examples of this that I observed were in April and May, so I was hoping perhaps he’d gotten over this problem by now, but based on the new examples provided by Noloop (which seem to be more of the same), that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Captain Occam ( talk) 11:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. I would add that I have also noticed that Sluber seems to have an problom with arrogance. He does seem to dismiss or belittle the views of others Eddss, and this seems linked to his views on accademia. This also seems refelcted in his attitude of 'I'm right so the rules don't apply to me'. But I would point out that (in terms of this debate) he is not alone. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply
3. Calling someone a "bigot" seems over the line for an admin, much less calling someone a "little turd". -- RSL xii 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. [personal attack removed]. mikemikev ( talk) 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

   Now featuring: one more petty personal attack from Mikemikev. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

5. Slrubenstien appears to have got away with much more incivility than any other user. Our expected standards of civility seem to slacken for him. (I am thinking about changing my username to x$rubenstien. Maybe I too could indulge....) Civilizededucation ^talk 03:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply
6. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Outside view by The Four Deuces

Noloop is a disruptive editor whose main activity has been to argue that the term " Anti-Americanism" is biased and that historians who posit that Jesus existed should be rejected because of their Christianity. He has not provided any arguments based on policy to defend this position and has distracted other editors into spending countless hours meeting his numerous objections. I found sufficient similarity between him and the blocked editor User:Bsharvy to request a sock puppet investigation. [25] Another editor reported him as a possible sockpuppet of User:Free Hans [26]

Editors have complained about Noloop to ANI at least six times:

• 12 July 2009 [27]
• 5 August 2009 [28]
• 17 August 2009 [29]
• 19 July 2010 [30]
• 21 July 2010 [31]
• 29 July 2010 [32]

He has also been the subject of an RfC:

• 11 August 2009 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noloop

A complaint taken by Noloop to the arbitration committee against Slrubenstein was declined. [33]

Since Noloop does not follow Wikipedia policy in editing articles, and is disruptive to the point of wasting other editors' time (including creating this recent RfC), I recommend a block of Noloop from editing Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. TFD ( talk) 22:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. User:slaterstevenI partialy agree. I do not think any of this justifies Slubers actions but that is why I call this AFC hypocritical and not made in good faith but just to remove an edd whome Nollop is in conflitc with.
3. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ► TALK 13:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
4. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Maunus

Respect for the civility policy is a core necessity for the projects proper functioning. I do not have a problem with the fact that every now again a respected and valuable editor is pushed to his limits and makes a personal attack, what is important is how he acts upon being called out on doing it. Slrubensteins defense is invalid - and it is a very old bad excuse. Labelling another editor an ass or any other negative label is uncivil and detrimental to the project. Whether the object of the epithet is in fact an ass is irrelevant - a personal attack is any negative comment directed at an editor. The correct thing to do when one has made a personal attack is not to defend one's actions but to apologise and retract. This is what Slrubenstein should do, and if he doesn't he should be admonished. An editor and an administrator should adress actions and arguments - not make characterisations of other editors. However, Noloop's pattern of editing is definitely disruptive and might deserve a temporary block unless he decides to edit in a more collegial and productive manner. This seems to be one of those cases (like most) where the blame is shared and a better attitude and adherence to WP:CIVIL could have avoided the conflict altogether. It is also one of the not very uncommon case where the one who instigates administrative action against another editor is the one with the dirtier hands.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I agree. I would add that Sluyber should lose his admin status as this does not fill me with cinbfidacne that he can perform his duties effectivly. reply

   See discussion about this endorsement.

Outside view by Student7

I cannot decide who is "right." People should avoid labeling others. Iff that person was an admins, they should be especially careful IMO.

On the general topic, there are many subjects on which only people with a possible pov have commented. I guess there is nothing wrong with saying "X, a Christian scholar says..." but that should be countered by "Y, an avowed atheist says...." which is a bit hard to swallow since many people are diffident religiously, and have nor registered their bias one way or the other. It is impossible to find a "neutral" reporter on US health care (for example). So articles read "industry spokeperson said that..." "government agency said that..."

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Student7 ( talk) 20:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Vecrumba

What, we've got ANOTHER accusation filed by Noloop? If one goes back to the original article and original dispute, one will find an entire slew of editors indicating Noloop's viewpoint is bigoted, using the "bigot" word. Making this out to be something about only Slrubenstein persecuting Noloop is a personal vendetta, nothing more. Don't make me find the diffs. 03:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of the outside commentary appears to be aligned mirroring other content conflicts having nothing to do with Noloop-Slrubenstein, but giving Noloop credence. I don't always agree with Slrubenstein, but were I to support anyone's position against Slrubenstein here, or anywhere else, it would not be on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." 13:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summar:

1. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ► TALK

Outside view by leadwind

Slrubenstein is a reasonable editor with a good track record who's apologized publicly for calling Noloop a bigot. Noloop is perhaps well-meaning, but in fact he's wasting the valuable time of good editors with his provocations.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Leadwind ( talk) 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC) I agree. reply

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.