User talk:Thelongview/Archive 1

Hi, I am leaving this short message informally. Please delete it at your convenience.

While this is a Wikipedia article, and ought not to be linked to its impact on external events or relationships. I would draw to the attention of yourself, Mahigton and others, that some of your demands for example:

- around verifiability of the existence of the "SR Reference Group", which has led to publication of stuff written by David Ford, CIP, which he would certainly be unhappy about coming out

- around "this is the viewpoint of a single person" which has led to publication of more critique of David Ford/CIP/Society for Scriptural Reasoning which he would certainly be unhappy about

- now your raising the matter of the very bitter Quran desecration controversy at St Ethelburga's on the SCRIPTURAL REASONING page. I have long felt this issue needs to be said explicitly, as it helps other things (eg. the Fatwa) make sense, but is highly explosive in an SR context

all this is having/is likely to have an exacerbating impact on inter-organisational, inter-collegial relationships between our crowd and folk at the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme, Society for Scriptural Reasoning.

I would ask you and Mahigton to look at the early edits of page before your involvement and in the early part of your involvement, where embarassing stuff was minimal and mild, language about controversies was discrete and without glaring referencing (which you have subsequently demanded, and got - ie. be careful what you ask for). In the earliest edits there was hardly any open comment at all, and all has been subsequently provoked (I feel from my side) by repeated badgering for more and more specific detail, on the Discussion Page.

If your only concern is the Wikipedia article and its editing, then fine, and maybe you feel these external relationship issues should be disregarded. I certainly have sympathy with that view, and if that is your view I am happy to proceed Wikipedia-focused regardless of the external consequences. I do happen to know that David Ford and others have expressed a wish in the past to draw a veil over certain really bitter events (I have not spoken to him in a long while and don't know what he wants now).

I do want to draw your attention the fact that it is some of your demands that have led to stuff coming out that David Ford and other of your colleagues possibly would have preferred had not. When I had been mindful in the past of exercising some discretion. Just look at the history of the edits -- and see how Thelongview's first removal of SR Society/Oxford School material first provoked the making explicit of the SRS/SSR rift...and forward from there...

In other words, be careful what you ask for. And perhaps you might want to ask some advice of your own friends as to whether the course you have taken with this Wikipedia article in relation to its external relational consequences is something your own colleagues would want. David Ford has written rather a lot about "Wisdom". But that's up to you, and none of my business in the end.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reciprocating the earlier requests you made to me, in relation to the various allegations made or implied by you on the Talk page - specifically about multiple account abuse, eg:

Scripturalreasoning's record on other articles is unsteady, including possible use of multiple user accounts, with edits being done by one account, and reverts to changes of those edits being done by another account. His record on this article is likewise unsteady, and it is this that motivates my bold edits and reversions. (Both Interfaithalliance and Scripturalreasoning have edited this article, incidentally, although I personally do not think there was any attempt to deceive.)

please would you EITHER file a Sockpuppetry or other appropriate complaint against me with the relevant authorities, OR entirely delete all such material.

I don't really mind the other general speculation and muck-raking, as I have responded to it, and I don't think it's me who is the one that looks bad for saying such stuff. Multiple user account sockpuppetry abuse is however a serious thing to be saying or insinuating, and you should not persist in maintaining such public statements on the message board this unless you file a prompt complaint with the relevant Administrators. Thanks.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On the last point, I agree entirely. I have not decided which to do, yet, partly because you do not mention Interfaithalliance by name in your response. I was careful not to make the allegation outright (I have more to say on this in my post on the talk page), but say that it was a question for me, and motivated my edits. It is more normal, when responding to this kind of thing, to use the form of words, 'I have not engaged in sockpuppetry: Interfaithalliance and I are, and always have been, different editors'. You didn't quite say that, although this may be lack of familiarity with conventions. More on the main page on all this... And thank you for the warning. I interpret you to be saying: 'there is some nasty stuff here, and I am prepared to ventillate it if you push me'. I have no wish to push you or anyone else, and the best way to demonstrate this is to respond to you wisely (as you encourage) on the talk page. Which I'll now do. Incidentally, I genuinely appreciate your frankness. I was not involved in any of the nasty things you refer to, as you know, but I think they don't belong in an encyclopedia. You and I may have different ideas about what an encyclopedia is, of course. And, obviously, you continue genuinely to doubt my good faith in tackling the scriptural reasoning article. I don't mind admitting I was upset by the tone of this. I decided to sleep on it rather than post immediately in reply. I'm going to have one more go on the talk page addressing this good faith stuff, because you claim once again, and just as harshly, that my editing displays the marks of censorship and suppression, of the kind you have personally experienced by some folk in your face-to-face encounters. I'm appalled. I believe that you see yourself, quite genuinely, as a defender of the truth against purveyors of lies. I think this stance places severe obstacles in the way of producing articles in a collaborative encyclopedia, and so far my attempts to display myself as anything other than a purveyor of lies seem to have failed. So: one last go at this. Thelongview (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I had already stated this on the discussion page, but as you ask it in particular words: "I have not engaged in sockpuppetry: Interfaithalliance and I are, and always have been, different editors". You also state other "multiple user accounts" though have not specified usernames, and I am not them either whoever they are.

To keep them in the loop, I have written to the Trustees of the Interfaith Alliance and to the Trustees responsible for oversight of the Scriptural Reasoning Society about some of these and related editing events on the article, and also to colleagues responsible for hosting and management our websites. Since a lot of the obstacles in editing have related to factually inaccurate statements or claims made about the organisations (ie. "The Scriptural Reasoning Society is mainly just one person's viewpoint", or "The Scriptural Reasoning Society/Interfaith Alliance is...X...is not Y") which have gone round and round, it might expedite a lot of these back and forth arguments if I refer specific statements to some of our lead people. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On the personal note. I don't want to get into this discussion on this online platform in this way -- but the fact is I was speaking on the telephone with an SR friend of mine last night and said that since I have met you, I thought you were a really nice bloke, despite the brevity of our encounter. I also said that ironically, I had in the past put you down on a mental list together with other people (whom I know rather better) from SSR circles, who would have an ear or understand sympathetically some of the concerns I had been trying to raise (even if not agreeing entirely). And so your actions and comments on this Wiki platform simply do not correspond to that personal encounter, and was one of the reasons I have at various times doubted whether I had got the right chap at all (though I think I have). My friend and I discussed, and she and I agreed that in the light of our past experience, it might be that what an individual says or thinks as an individual can often become subsumed by the momentum of a defensive "group dynamic", even without direct pressure from seniors or managers to do X or Y. I know my criticisms in regards to SSR seniors are often over-stated, and not entirely accurate and to the point on account of lack of inside information -- I fully accept that. But long experience and the private words of support from SSR friends (people you are likely to know) indicates that I do have valid point somewhere in the mix. The small tragedy here is we never got to have this chat in a pub in instead of on this horrible online arena, where you could have said "Yes, X may be partly true but Y is rubbish, but then Z is cause for pause for thought". Anyway, I think we all need a quiet weekend. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A quiet weekend sounds good. (Without any false modesty, if anyone were to rank Mahigton, Laysha101 and me in descending order as approachable and sympathetic people, I would come in - by a significant stretch - at #3. They are really fine folk, and if you read some of their contributions - for fun (!) - again, this might be discernable from their tone. When you're in danger, and you need help, they're the kind of people you want around. For what it's worth...) Thelongview (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside comment: I've said this before, but it needs stressing. Wikipedia has a policy about threats (see Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats), and Scripturalreasoning's deal - which comes down to "accept poorly sourced material, or else contentious and embarassing details will be revealed to prove it" - is unacceptable.

Besides, there is no threat to be made. The only acceptable sourcing is that compliant with WP:RS and WP:V; if that's not available, it won't go into the article. If we're talking revelation of "insider" material, that won't count as sufficient citation, so the material still won't go in. And also anything contentious in relation to living persons, especially if unreliably sourced, is going to come under the stiffest scrutiny from WP:BLP, where they take a strong line against posters of such material. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: msg' received

Philknight initially did some mediation, but withdrew No surprise. Mediation does require absolute demonstration of good faith on both sides, and what you mentioned would be a major breach. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Scriptural Reasoning

Dear Thelongview, I would value your opinion on my latest, quite wide-ranging edit of the scriptural reasoning article, and your response to my questions about it on the associated talk page. --mahigton (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)