It is about time we complete the cycle here. We have tried multiple times to reach Rob on many levels, and we are not getting anywhere. Instead of moving forward and learning to accept policy, Rob has reverted to "I will not let anything other than my point-of-view reach the outside world. Ever."

I suggest that we either place a request for comment or a ~~request for arbitration~~ to try, once and for all, to bring this to a close. Whereas I have no prior experience trying to launch one of these, I am more than willing to take the steps necessary under Wiki policy. --Avery W. Krouse 20:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RfA is not an option at this point. RfA is a last step measure for dispute resolution, and you've certainly not tried them all. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Deskana (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I wasn't certain if someone had already done an RfC on him (I have looked but haven't found one yet). I knew that a couple of admins have stepped in now and again against him, but I have striked the RfA portion above. An RfC is the method we would pursue. (My bad!) This page can remain as a discussion board just in case we ever need to venture down that road (Wales-willing we never will.) --Avery W. Krouse 21:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working of a critical analysis of Rob's actions and professed worldviews: re:Atheism and the "Bright" naturalistic/positivistic/skeptical/transformational meme. (Of course, this is filtered through my own perceptions and may not be valid). In short: While I feel his unique worldview is valuable in helping us to consider rhetorical issues we may not otherwise have considered, his behavior is disruptive ~~and I support action against him.~~. Arch O. La 22:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Update: I change my position in recognition that Talk:Jesus has become far too politicized. Henceforth I am officially neutral on any action taken against Rob. Arch O. La 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His worldview is not unique. Its just a new name being applied to it, in accord with the concept of memes. The idea is that by using this name it will become a meme and thus help to spread its worldview-a widely accepted worldview at that. Giovanni33 06:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that the underlying worldview is not unique, but seems to have been carried over into a social movement. From what I've read, the meme was created to establish a greater social identity beyond just athiest, agnostic, secular humanist et al to extend to all who did not consider themselves religious; later extended to the religous who were essentially naturalistic et al as above. The idea behind the meme was to take the commonality of the worldview and extend it to a social movement. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it takes Bright beyond mere science. Arch O. La 06:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It's an activist movement. Giovanni33 07:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As I note below, I wasn't sure whether to classify it as activist. Arch O. La 07:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Deskana that others steps for dispute resolution should come first. I also would recommend one of my own self-disciplines. Anyone who wishes to pursue action should first go back and read all their own comments as if they were the other party. Is there anything to be apologized for? etc. Once all that is settled, see if the person has changed behavior. If not, proceed. --CTSWyneken 23:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archola's editorial[edit]

Disclaimer: This is filtered through my own worldview as a religious radical centralist. Radical centrism attempts to foster cooperation through communication and compromise. While I recognize the gray fallacy, I believe that most dichotomys/dillemas are false, and that the truth usually lies along either the mean or the excluded middle. As a Lutheran I profess the adage, "Blessed are the peacemakers." I also recognize that much of the following is subjective.

Thesis: Robert Steadman (User:Robsteadman) brings a unique worldview to the Jesus discussion by serving as a "devil's advocate" of sorts, forcing us to examine the subject from viewpoints we may never otherwise have considered. However, his points often become lost through conflict. His behavior is often disruptive, leading to repeated edit wars, talk-page fights and interuption of discourse.

Professed worldview of Robert Steadman[edit]

Robert Steadman's worldview differs significantly from that of the most active participants, many of which are either post-Enlightenment rationalist (including a number of secular historians) or metaphysical (including a range of religious views).

Rob's professed worldview is:

1. Athiest: No god/s. Some athiests confirm the historical, secular carpenter turned rabbi named Yeshua. Rob, however, does not.

2. Bright: This is a complex meme set that arose from the perception that the Enlightenment was somehow left unfinished, and thus the Bright meme is inherently transformational. Brights seek to improve the world through promotion of their core beliefs. It is not known how long the Bright meme has existed; Carl Sagan was arguably a Bright (cf. The Demon Haunted World). The word, however, arose from a relatively recent (c. 2003) social movement professing this worldview. The movement also has a historic connection to the theory of memetics. The word "Bright" was coined to refer back to the Enlightenment. The connotation that members are "Bright" while the earlier movement was merely "lit" is intentional. Reference was also made to the way the meaning of "gay" has changed over time, originally meaning "happy" and now meaning "homosexual." Brights similarly seek to claim the term "bright" for themselves.

2.1 Brights value naturalism over supernaturalism. This is arguably their primary value.

2.2 Brights value rationalism over irrationalism, and reason over emotion. "Rationalism" refers to the Enlightenment definition, ie logical positivism and/or scientism. Formal logic is less likely, as Rob had refused to consider philosophic proofs.

Brights are not opposed to formal logic. I think they would embrace logic. Its the premise that is assumed in any former proofs that would represent points of contention with other worldviews.Giovanni33 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The remark was not about Brights in general but Robsteadman in particular, and may be more about behavior than ability. Slrubenstein repeatedly asked him (on his user talk page: the evidence is here) to critique established philosophical proofs for/against God (e.g. the cosmological and the ontological arguments) and offer responses based on formal logic. Robsteadman responded by saying ""that's hilarious" "these theroies NOT proofs." and Slrubenstein came to the conclusion that Robsteadman's "atheism is not rational, it is dogmatic." I admit that this might mean that Rodbsteadman was unwilling rather than unable to offer a response. But, that's exactly the kind of behavior that has led to conflict on the talk pages. Arch O. La 06:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Then, I would disagree with Rodbs with this, but I suspect its an understanding of the logical term "proofs." I think might be objecting to it in the sense of evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true, instead of another meaning of the word about an application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derive conclusions. Atheists would regard those logical proofs to be refuted.Giovanni33 07:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but again it's more about behavior than worldview. Rob's "that's hillarious" can be taken by some as a personal attack. Slrubenstein took it as further evidence of dogmatism. Arch O. La 07:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum Slrubenstein's assertion of dogmatism might also be an argument from silence. Arch O. La 11:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2.3 Brights value skepticism over uncritical belief acceptance. A Bright adage is "Demand proof," without which there is no fact. Provisional truths are merely guesses.

A Bright may conflate one or more of these points, ie by asserting that naturalism is inherently rational, and supernaturalism is inherently irrational. The transformational nature of the movement may lead to activism or a strong sense of identity or purpose (although I'm less sure about this point).

Beyond accepting the core beliefs, being a "Bright" is somewhat self-defined. "Anyone who fits the definition and says, "I am a Bright" is a Bright." (Source: the-brights.net.) This may be more a matter of recognition than decision.

Although Brights are formally inclusionist (beyond the core beliefs), the transformational and somewhat elitist nature of the movement may make communication with a non-Bright difficult. In Rob's case this has led to marginalization through social dynamics, which a Bright may attribute to repression by one of the "lower" values, ie supernaturalism. Rob has made repeated references to the "god squad." A similar pattern may be inferred from the website the-brights.net: "Currently the naturalistic worldview is insufficiently expressed within most cultures, even politically/socially repressed." It is important to note that it is Rob's behavior, not his worldview, that I take issue with.

3. Rob's user page affirms the following world view, based on quizfarm.com. (It should be noted that Rob characterizes the test as "daft.")

3.1. Modernist: 100%. Consistent with the Bright meme.

3.2. Materialist: 100%. Consistent with the Bright meme.

3.3. Existentialist: 88%. Consistent with the Bright meme.

3.4. Postmodernist 69%. Rob likely recognizes the value of metanarratives, but holds his own to be superior.

3.5. Cultural creative: 38%: Another recent paradigm beyond the Modernist/Tradionalist dichotomy. Cultural creatives tend to be open-minded, optimistic, altruistic and in search of their self-identity (creating their own culture, hence the name). Rob scores somewhat weakly on this scale.

3.6. Romanticist: 25%. Since romanticists value emotion over reason, this is consistant with the Bright meme.

3.7. Fundamentalism: 25%. As Brights tend to be progressive, this is consistent with the meme.

3.8. Idealism 0%. ~~This is what I find most disturbing. Rob has no idealism whatsoever--everything relies on cold hard fact. Rob has also professed an insistence on physical proof even where this may be inappropriate.~~ 100% materialist, Consistent with the Bright meme as noted above..

I think you misunderstand what is meant by "idealism." Its a philosophical world view in direct constranst to materialism. Thus, for someone to be 100% a materialist necessitates a 0% Idealism. It doesn't mean that everthing must rely on cold hard facts. There is supposition, logical inference, and starting points, which are assumptions about our senses, and reality. Its the same philosophical world view that science adopts for its methodology. Giovanni33 06:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerfully noted and amended. Also, I understand that Bright is based on the scientific worldview, but that the meme was created to carry it forward into a social category (which is why the meme was created, if I read the Wired article correctly.) (I understand the dichotomy, but think of it more as a materialist/spiritualist dichotomy. I should have remembered my Plato :)) Arch O. La 06:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob and other viewpoints on the Jesus article[edit]

1. Religion: To Rob, religion is largely if not entirely refuted. Rob has little use for religion except possibly in the cultural and ceremonial senses.

2. Critical historicity: There is more commonality here, although Rob asserts that historians have accepted the claims of Christians uncritically. Historians have followed a method similar to Sherlock Holmes' adage "Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Rob goes beyond normal skepticism (dismissing what is impossible under the naturalistic worldview) to dismiss even the possible without physical proof.

The secular historical view of Jesus is:

a) A lower-class carpenter turned Rabbi,

b) whose power was charismatic and thus outside the traditional power structure, and

c) from the Jewish culture, whose strong oral tradition explains the lack of "extant contemporaneous documents," especially twenty centuries later.

Considering all of the above, it would be extraordinary (one might say a miracle) if any incontrovertable physical evidence would have survived outside the movement that Jesus started. Yet such a miracle is exactly what Rob has requested. Allusions have been made to Socrates and other figures from antiquity, yet Rob refuses to allow the comparison (except, for some reason, to Julius Ceasar. Rob repeadedy refers to coins with Ceasar's inscription, yet refused to explain how this would relate to Jesus, who inscribed no coins).

Rob also confuses the historicity of a,b,c above with such details as:

1) The Star of the Magi

2) The Slaughter of the Innocents and

3) The feeding of the Five Thousand.

1 and 3 are possibly supernaturalist, and 2 flows from 1. It's not surprising that Rob, as a Bright, would discount 1, 2, and 3. So have many secular historians. However, Rob further asserts that 1, 2 and 3 cast doubt on a, b and c, an assertion with which few secular historians agree.

Behavior[edit]

Rob holds a definition of NPOV that goes beyond Wikipedia's definition and arguably equates with his own worldview. He has been known to repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy such as 3RR and WP:POINT. Rob dismisses edits he does not agree with as "vandalism." Rob's behavior has polarized the talk page to the extent that he marginalizes his own position: many feel that he represents "the fringe view," although I still prefer to remain open-minded at this point.

There has also been heated exchange that both sides have percieved as personal attacks. Rob has made comments that are offensive to Christians (perhaps to all religions) and critical historians alike. Rob also refuses to consider other viewpoints than his own, considering them conflating the values of Bright-Ism with what he considers lower values, e.g. defining "faith" as "an attempt to lower the reasoned and rational to that of the irrational."

Rob has made repeated assertions that he has been unwilling or unable to take to first principles, leading others to perceive his statements as dogmatic, psuedoskeptical, or relying on fallacies such as proof by assertion and argument from silence. It should be noted that some of his assertions can be shown to flow logically from his worldview as defined above. It should also be noted that, in light of his worldview, we have also made remarks that he considers offensive. For a Bright, the word "faith" is doubly offensive as it implies both supernaturalism and unskeptical belief. Likewise "dogma" attacks his values of rationalism and skepticism. It should be noted that Rob refuted my "pseudoskepticism" remark by professing himself as a Bright, on which I base my above analysis. Unfortunately, Rob refuses to apply these principals to his own behavior.

It should be noted that recent attempts have been made to engage Rob in extended rational discourse (re:Point, Counterpoint, Wikipoint). Avery Krouse has made an impressive attempt to appeal to Rob as an enlightened individual, asking him to consider the broader view and not to get caught up in the heat of the moment. Such efforts have met with some, but limited, success. This may be because these are essentially Enlightenment techniques, and as a Bright Rob feels that he has moved beyond being merely "lit." In retrospect, it is not surprising that Avery's attempt failed, considering Rob's utter lack of idealism as per: the Quizfarm poll.

Some wikipedians have lost their temper at times, which only affirms Rob's belief that he is more rational than we are. Both Rob and some others have arguably violated civility, although both sides have arguably provoked the other and feel justified in their complaints.

Solutions[edit]

I am open to suggestions. Keep all comment belowArch O. La 00:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cf--In addition to relevant Wikipedia articles and the cited website, I first encountered the term here: Dawkins, Richard. "Religion be Damned," Wired 11.10 (October 2003) pgs. 095-096. Here the Bright worldview is described as essentially Athiest, although it has since gone on to include naturalistic Religions--according to the website, everyone is welcome as long as they adhere to the core principles, no matter what else they may or may not profess. Arch O. La 03:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that Talk:Jesus has become political. I will attempt a more neutral political stance. Arch O. La 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments?[edit]

I am willing to pursue a Request for Comment on Rob to end this battle. Nothing short of Wikipedia sanctions will cause him to leave this article, that is very clear now. I need but fellow certifiers (those who have made attempts to resolve this dispute) to join with me. Once we have at least one other person who wishes to submit evidence of private resolution, we can go forward and prepare a case. Who is with me? --Avery W. Krouse 02:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is premature. True, attempts have been made to reason with Rob, to no avail. In my book, the next thing is a formal warning on the Jesus page and his talk page asking him to stop a specific behavior. Don't go for the whole nine yards, just the most unwiki and verifiable. I'd combine this with any apologies found necessary by self-examination of the warner's own actions. Next, wait to see if the behavior stops. Then and only then can you file. Even then, I'd find a senior wikipedian to try one more time.

After that, file away. --CTSWyneken 03:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avery, I appreciate your frustration expecially re:the wikifight on your talkpage. I think Bob (CTSWynekan) makes a lot of sense and we just need to step back a moment. Of course, the rest of my opinion is above. Arch O. La 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the path on the link I gave above (Wikipedia: Dispute Resolution). It is possible he is just misunderstood and an RfC may not be fair on him. And for the record, there was a bit of an argument on my talk page too. I am attempting to be fair to Rob, despite the fact that sometimes he isn't to others. Deskana (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in light of what he has recently revealed about his worldview I believe I understand him better. He has not only an activist scientific VP, the 100% scores on the quizfarm poll indicate that he leans strongly in that direction. I still believe in fostering mutual understanding, and I do believe we have made some progress this morning. Arch O. La 10:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that accusations of irrationality or "dogma" are also unfair. The "dogma" arose over a proof-of-God discussion that Rob did not answer. He may simply have chosen not to answer. It's a classic argument from silence: it's like saying "You won't tell me because you don't know." Arch O. La 10:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best path of action is not to engage old arguments he had made before that have been answered at length. At most, point to previous talk. In most cases, don't fuel a debate. It won't hurt to let such things hang out there. --CTSWyneken 11:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I must simply retract myself from this whole mess. It seems to me that you are all more than ready to jump down Rob's throat, battle him until your fingers are sore, and complain about him vehemently and repeatedly with no end. You are more than ready to ask or tell him to leave, to shut up, to give up, or to back down, time after time after time. You are quick to point out that he himself says he won't let anything go until it matches his POV. But once someone actually suggests we take action against this troll (your term, not mine), immediately I hear "Whoa now! We're being too hasty! He'll change! He's making progress! I understand him better, he's a Bright!"

Spare me. I will not begin to conjecture the reasons for such a hasty retreat. I have been around the net long enough to know that people are much more willing to yell with their fingers than actually step up to the plate and take action. So enjoy the edit wars. Enjoy feeding the troll. You all know full and well that he will not change and has not now nor ever will intentions to do so. Why you put up with him when you could be done in less than week, I have no idea. To make Wikipedia a better, fairer place? Right, while handing him a hammer to smash things into his image. Who gives one flying flip that he's a "Bright?" It's a throwaway term! Give me twenty minutes, I'll come up with ten more!

Just in case you haven't noticed, you've already followed the steps of dispute resolution up to the point that I've reached. You have avoided the issue, you have tried to negotiate, you have had several WPs mediate (short of an actual RfM), and many third parties have commented. Frankly, you're a step behind. So goodbye. I will check back in a month to find that you're all still working on the introductory section and that yet again, you've been stalemated due to his irrational rationality. I'll be willing to bet a lot more of you will have your trigger finger on the RfC or RfA buttons by then. --Avery W. Krouse 14:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems to me that Giovanni33 has stepped in to help resolve the dispute. I think Wikipedia:Truce applies, and I also been collecting other advice, And whether or not I truly understand Rob better, I am making an effort to understand him better regardless of how valid the term Bright is.Arch O. La 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried resolving things with Rob personally, but if push comes to shove, I wouldn't want to retreat just because he's a member of a very strange, anti-religious ideology, so it's not all of us who want to retreat :/. Homestarmy 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the inherent contradiction of being a Bright. They promote reason, yet we cannot reason with their politics. From this point forward, I prefer to disregard his politics and pay attention to his remarks re:Science and Semantics, and whatever else he may say that is truly rational. Arch O. La 23:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually never tried reasoning with him the main method I know how, because im really more of an evangelist type at heart, arguments about scholars and scientific opinions and so on and so forth to me really don't do much :/. Homestarmy 18:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little uncomfortable here; it seems as if we're putting Rob's religious beliefs on trial here...unintentionally, I'm sure. It all seems very inquisition to me. I think we need to focus on his disruptive behavior (there's plenty of evidence for that, I think) and his refusal to follow Wikipedia policy (WP:CON, WP:3RR, WP:CIV, WP:POV, etc.), where there's a sufficient pattern. But my advice is: leave out the stuff about Brights and memetics and all that. Rob's free to believe or disbelieve anything and hold any faith he chooses. KHM03 18:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This whole "Bright" stuff is interesting but irrelevant. His disruptive behavior speaks for itself. Attempting to analyze it is a fruitless endeavour.Gator (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately his "beliefs about religion"--Rob will maintain that he has no religious beliefs because he rejects religion. I am trying to view our discourse in terms of cognitive science, social dynamics and I guess memetics. I cannot be truly dispassionate because I am involved, but I think approaching the conflict in this way helps to add perspective. As for evangelism: as a Lutheran, I believe that faith is not a personal choice but a gift of the Holy Spirit (single predestination). So, all I can do is express and profess my faith; the rest is up to God. Arch O. La 19:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with KHM03. Rob's personal belief structures are irrelevant; his behavior and his willingness to cooperate are vital to progress. He has very few "drums" of thought and those he beats incessantly. I want his input, but he argues over minutiae that we should have long since been done with. We have already acknowledged and included his viewpoint, but he continues to argue. It is evident his process is not working, but he continues to the point of being disruptive. WIKI policy should be aggressively enforced from this point forward and move on. Storm Rider 19:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But once again, we don't have enough examples of private discussion anymore, do we? Homestarmy 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore Mode[edit]

I think we should just not engage Rob on:

1 -- Old, repeated arguments. 2 -- Personal Attacks. 3 -- Complaints that the majority are censors.

I would counsel not characterizing his comments in any way. Respond to them directly, ignore slights and just move on. It makes it really hard to argue against his behavior when we end up doing something similar. --CTSWyneken 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have said this many times. It's time we stopped giving him so much of our time and energies.Gator (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I affirm all of the above, including Storm Rider's comments. We have our own "drums," such as standards of evidence (truth which we reify into fact, BTW) and perceptions of unreasonableness (recently this drum has been beaten again with the phrase "historical revisionist"). Simply put, we cannot reason with another person's convictions, be they political, religious or something else. Best just to acknowledge them and move on. Arch O. La 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]