User:The Hybrid/Dispute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello, I have set this page aside for the resolution of the dispute between E.Shubee and numerous others. I, the Hybrid, hope to play the part of a neutral third party in this dispute. Seeing as I am not a Seventh-day-Advent, nor have I ever known any previous to this incident, I have no emotional attachment to how the church is represented; therefore, I am capable of remaining neutral on the issue. I would like everyone posting on this page to treat it as a talk page, meaning sign your comments, be civil, ect. I will personally remove any personal attacks from any party involved and leave the appropriate warning on the guilty party's talk page. After a final warning is issued I will report the perpetrator to the admins should they continue. My goal for this situation is to reach a compromise that all involved persons can live with. Now, what I would like to be done first is for every party involved to state their point of view about what has been happening in this case. -- THLCCD 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is appropriate, I would like to also make statements during the course of this discussion, since my name has appeared in a number of issues related to this matter, and a significant number of the statements considered by some as personal attacks were directed toward me. Zahakiel 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I welcome statements from everyone involved. -- THLCCD 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As Much as I hate to jump in here and give feedback, I too have been watching E.Shubee and his challenges. I highly applaud you for the task you are undertaking and hope issues can be resolved. As a third party observer I've noted that E.Shubee seems to be too emotional and hot headed in his edits. Like many of us, me included, we are passionate about our beliefs. However, E.Shubee refuses to take a step back and look at the big picture. I am not speaking specifically to this specific issue, but with all of the issues that have arisen from his edits. He is rather quick to attack people and when his way is not gotten, he jumps to journal and change what people have said to fit his agenda on his user page. I would like to see him, and other editors have mentioned, step away for a time from things that stir passion, or whatever. His only agenda on here is to post on one topic, and as I have pointed out, many times he tries to introduce unsubstantial sources. I would also like to see him uplift Wikipedia rather than turn it into some judgmental thing done via his user page. ----Maniwar (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That summary is as good as I would have done. The main part I disagree with is the emphasis by E.Shubee on getting "The Truth(tm)" out on Wikipedia. From apologetics to crticising the church, that is what it comes down to. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to judge or create new knowledge. Ansell 07:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
For my part, and by way of summary, I do see the strong emphasis on trying to promote an agenda. The value of the agenda itself I leave for others to decide, I would simply state that it exists and is pervasive in his contributions and comments. I first noticed it on the CSDA page I was involved in editing, but continued to read further into the Adventist entries and noticed that this was going on within several other pages as well. I have noticed that when challenged he will make statements that appear strange, such as mentioning a spiritual conspiracy (in fulfillment of prophecy) of people "against him," and he speaks of winning a fight if his views are upheld against others. I believe this is inappropriate.
In terms of my personal involvement, Mr. Shubert has attempted on several occasions to goad me into an argument, asking me if I would agree with him that my religious beliefs were espoused by a system that was "going nowhere really, really fast," or asking me if I would like to "bury [my]self further" by answering his questions; either insinuating or outright stating that I am providing false information deliberately in both the entries I edit and my statements on talk pages.
If these attacks (and I consider them nothing less than repeated, overt and unapologetic attacks) had been restricted to talk pages, I would not object so strongly to his work here. Unfortunately they have, at times, spilled over unto the edits he has made to the actual entries under discussion, and I consider this a grievous breach of both civility and professionalism. I have difficulty understanding why statements about Churches of which he is not even a member have such a striking effect on him, since I do not take statements that ARE made against beliefs I consider to be true in anything remotely the same in manner. I think that if Mr. Shubert (who has previously accused me of using Wikipedia as an evangelistic tool for a cult) would keep in mind that this IS an Encyclopedia, it would help with his neutrality. Changes to edits we make are not attacks, nor are reasonable requests for verification of data that is added. Zahakiel 15:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax

The dispute involves a huge number of fine points that are connected by a complex context, which evolved over a long period of time. It would be difficult to encapsulate all that in a concise summary. One difficulty is that the current article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church has made huge concessions to my point of view since I began objecting to the original article. I called it correctly in the beginning: editors were purposely overlooking Wikipedia rules on notability and verifiability to favor an obvious hoax. There are still serious and unresolved problems with the article that we could discuss.

A basic unresolved controversy could be answered by THLCCD's interpretation of Wikipedia:External links. The rules clearly say that sites should be linked to if they contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. My current update Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax is full of neutral and accurate material not already in the revised article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. I have tried to cite Wikipedia:External links before but was met with "persistent defamation," threats and a refusal to communicate reasonably on the meaning of Wikipedia:External links. I would love to hear THLCCD's interpretation of Wikipedia:External links. --e.Shubee 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment of Mr. Shubert's personal page, which he posts on Wikipedia at every possible opportunity. It is not only in violation of the "personal research" rule, as has been pointed out by a number of administrators as well as editors, but also as being biased and in numerous places inaccurate (also pointed out by numerous parties to his contributions). Not a single analogously flawed and biased article has been allowed on any Wikipedia entry about any subject that I am aware of without it being rapidly removed.
Furthermore, the statement that the CSDA Church is a hoax is only heard (and often) from this particular individual, and for reasons far more personal than professional, as may be easily assessed from my recent attempt at conversation with him on his talk page that resulted only in further unwarranted attacks against my person - after a number of "last warnings" have been issued. Over-the-top accusations such as "cyber terrorism" and "cult" have not lent any credibility to these assertions, and serve only to reveal aspects of his agenda. In other words, the statement that this movement is an "obvious hoax" is absolutely false, not only because it is not a hoax, but also because it is not even seen that way by any neutral party on record (i.e, it is neither a hoax nor obviously so). Any links that serve to support accusations such as this cannot possibly be deemed appropriate for encyclopedic purposes.
Finally, I publicly denounce him for lying about me openly on his talk page and his website. He writes, "The truth is McGill's academy never had students, as David Aguilar has honestly testified." I never said any such thing. I never said anything that could be conceivably construed that way. I wrote, and I quote, "I would assume currently no hours [processing applications], due to the suspension, I would assume very few before due to the limited number of students that have enrolled there." (Emphasis added) For some reason, Mr. Shubert translated the term "very few" and "limited number" to the word "none," and then publicly declares that I have confessed to being a part of an elaborate hoax. This is ridiculous, unconscionable, yet this is a pattern of behavior (see his talk page re: Maniwar's protest of his similar twisting of his words about the WIPO decision). Mr. Shubert claims that he has been denied "reasonable discussion" of his point of view; but I, and others, have tried, and this is how it always turns out. Zahakiel 02:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to make clear what exactly this is and what role I am playing. This is a mediation, not an arbitration. I am here to help guide this discussion towards a compromise agreed upon by everyone involved. I am not here to declare one side the victor and pass judgment on the other. I don't want to, nor do I have the power to take such action. Now, moving on to my interpretation of WP:EL. As E.Shubee mentioned, an accurate and neutral source is allowed to be cited. However, the accuracy and neutrality of this source is obviously in question. What are also in question are the motives of E.Shubee. Seeing as the user trying to post this website as a source is the creator of the website, this is called a conflict of interests and original research. He is accused of trying to promote his interests while altering/misquoting the comments of other users in an attempt to further his goals, while rejecting intelligent discussion in favor of personal attacks and continuous alteration/misquotation of comments. He is also accused of claiming to have been denied reasonable conversation in spite of him being the one to reject the reasonable conversations in favor of his old tactics. Now E.Shubee, before we continue with the discussion of your sources, I think that it would be best to deal with these accusations straight away. How do you respond to them? --THLRCCD 02:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I plead not guilty. Furthermore, I claim that my accusers are guilty of the very things they accuse me of.

Exhibit 1. From User talk:E.Shubee.

  • The article in question [1] is poorly referenced. It cites no print material and references itself several times. It also violates wikipedia policy regarding civility, encyclopedic content, personal attacks and original research. As such, I feel no qualms about declaring it be inappropriate for inclusion on wikipedia. --Fermion 07:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This reasonable response, which outlines my complaint perfectly, was never answered.

Exhibit 2. Conflict of interest.

I couldn't care less about the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. But I confess to having a deep pain when I saw so many unverifiable assertions in the original article and the true notability of Walter McGill a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church being totally overlooked. I wrote the web page after I was provoked, not before. The standards for an external link is less than a Wiki article. The true conflict of interest here is Zahakiel a.k.a. David P. Aguilar Jr., who has admitted being a founder[citation needed] and a prophet of the church. What is he doing? Using Wikipedia as an evangelistic tool for his theological agenda?

Note. A good way to settle this is to nominate Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church for deletion and let all objective outside parties look and see if there is any reason for that church to be promoting its favorite beliefs in the article because there isn't any verifiable evidence that anyone cares one bit. The only notoriety of this group is in the conduct of Walter McGill who has been judged guilty of “misleading consumers.” This is another question for THLRCCD. Please explain why Walter McGill, having registered and used domain names protected by a Seventh-day Adventist trademark “in bad faith,” is entitled to showcase completely unrelated theology on Wikipedia.

Now, if any of McGill's supporters wish to reference or summarize Walter McGill's answer to any of the allegations in the lawsuit, such as the alleged violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (mentioned on page 14 of the lawsuit) then my opposers will hear no complaints from me. --e.Shubee 04:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Response: This is a continuation of the same.
Re: Exhibit 1
No "reasonable response" was given; there was nothing to answer. All Mr. Shubert did when it was pointed out that his homepage contained no reliable sources was to say, "Neither does this one!" and point to a Wikipedia page that was far from complete.
Re:Exhibit 2. Conflict of interest
Mr. Shubert's words do not even begin to address the statements he makes on his page, showing that he had devoted a lot of time to gathering things he believes is evidence that the CSDA church is a fraud. Here, because pointing this out is inconvenient, he says, "I couldn't care less about the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church." Nonsense; his recent and constant harassing of those working on the entry belie that, and it is abundantly obvious from his talk page that he has taken all opposition to his efforts there quite personally (not to mention that he made a page to prove himself right after he claims he was "provoked," as he says above). There is indeed a conflict of interest going on there, and it has led him to be blocked (or almost blocked) numerous times by third party observers who came into the situation fresh. Since that time, he has learned that he can get away with quite a lot... and his statements about me have become increasingly more personal as time has elapsed, to my dismay. See below:
The true conflict of interest here is Zahakiel a.k.a. David P. Aguilar Jr., who has admitted being a founder and a prophet of the church.
Where and when did I admit any of this? I categorically deny being a "founder" of the CSDA church; I don't think I was even an Adventist when it separated from the Conference in 1991! This is yet another example of Mr. Shubert's deliberate (I firmly believe) attempt to use any combination of English words that happen to suit his cause at that particular time. From the beginning I have stated clearly that I am a member of the CSDA church, and have been using what I know in an attempt to provide accurate information on its entry (an entry I did not begin, but found without references, and making statements that were not correct). From the beginning of this process, Mr. Shubert's presence has been an obstacle to progress, and this has nothing to do with "showcasing" a theology with which Mr. Shubert disagrees any more than the Mormon or Baptist entry is a vanity page. I believe he is simply intolerant. Case in point, "there isn't any verifiable evidence that anyone cares one bit." This is NOT an objective point of view, and I will just end here and let the record speak for itself: the things this man says are absolutely not true, and I can speak with authority about the statements he has made recently about ME. Zahakiel 05:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading E.Shubee's comments above I am not surprised by his suggestions of deleting Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, it is not the first time he has suggested this. Also, as a sockpuppet of User:Perspicacious (I do not doubt this, Checkuser was merely inconclusive), he has actually done it before. This approach is in my opinion a violation of WP:POINT and is perhaps reflective of E.Shubee's general editing practices. MyNameIsNotBob 07:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • E.Shubee, I looked at that article you wrote, and when I saw the link to Zahakiel I was left speechless. That is one of the lowest things I have ever seen anyone do. Absolutely inexcusable and unacceptable. I request that you remove the link from that page before you do anything else after reading this. I don't care if you think he really is that person, that is a gross violation of civility.
  • Moving on, E.Shubee I'm not sure that you actually made any points. It appears that you dodged around the questions being asked by attempting to pass the blame onto other users and propose solutions to a problem that the other users don't feel exist. As for the first exhibit, you addressed the question you were being asked by MyNameIsNotBob by saying that you deny it, but you didn't give any proof that he was wrong. You appear to have avoided Fermion's question altogether. You started attacking the other references instead of dealing with the problem presented to you; that is why the question was never answered. It was reasonable, but it was irrelevant to the conversation taking place. As for exhibit 2, you mentioned writing the web page "after you were provoked". Please show me when you were provoked. I have no idea where to look for that information, and it is undeniably relevant to this discussion if you were. However, you have somewhat dodged the question about the conflict of interests. You resorted to passing the blame off to Zahakiel. You do deny caring about the church. That is hard to believe after you wrote an entire article about it on your personal website. You said that the standards for an external link are less than the standards for a Wiki article. That is true, but there are still standards for them. Whether or not this source passes those standards is what is in question. As for Zahakiel being a founder and prophet, until I see the confession I must assume good faith. Also, you can just call me THL; you don't have to copy my signature ;). -- THLRCCD 15:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The link to Zahakiel, speechless, the lowest, absolutely inexcusable, unacceptable, gross violation of civility

All I know is how you feel about the link to Zahakiel. Is it too much to ask what is wrong with the link to Zahakiel? --e.Shubee 16:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Under any circumstance, it is inexcusable to use another website to attack another user. If you have something to say to another user, you should at least have the decency to say it to them only on Wikipedia. -- THLRCCD 17:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't know what you're talking about. The page Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax is extraordinarily polite. I assume that is the article you are referring to. I don't see any offensive statement with a link to Zahakiel/David P. Aguilar. Are you saying that there is something wrong with the following sentence:
David P. Aguilar Jr. (8) is a prominent member (9) of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church and he said that, “The academy existed for just a few months in a very rural area of the United States. There was a lack of interest, and it effectively closed down.” 10.
Where is the personal attack in that? --e.Shubee 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't link to a fellow Wikipedian's user page from another website when they deny being the person that you say they are. That is a gross violation of civility. -- THLRCCD 17:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, please allow me to clarify something. I do not deny that "David P. Aguilar Jr." is my name, but I do absolutely deny being anything like the person he is making me out to be on his userpage, talk page and website. I strenuously and completely object to practically everything Mr. Shubert says that I have said. In other words, the only accurate information he has about me IS that name. I deny practically all that He says or has said about me:
  • That my name is (also?) Walter McGill
  • That I am a founder of the CSDA Church
  • That I admitted the CSDA Academy never had any students
  • That I admitted the Church and/or Academy was a hoax
  • That I am deliberately perpetrating a hoax on Wikipedia and supplying faulty or false information
  • That I am using Wikipedia as an "evangelistic tool"
I am sure I am forgetting some things.
These are continuing and escalating personal attacks; to be blunt - they are lies about me, that breach civility, objectivity, honesty, rationality, and various other "ities" with an astonishing degree of malevolence. Unless there is a complete reversal of viewpoint, manner and tone by E.Shubee, I simply cannot conceive of how a compromise in editorial work can possibly be reached. Reasonable discussion has proven absolutely futile; we seem to have a very different definition of the term "extraordinarily polite," for one thing. Zahakiel 18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Zahakiel says in his user profile that his name is David P. Aguilar Jr. Look under Quick Profile. Zahakiel also says on his user page that he is a member of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. See under the heading About Me.

The article on Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church says that "The CSDA Church also believes in the continuity of spiritual gifts, not only accepting the prophetic ministry of Ellen Gould White, (1827-1915) co-founder of the Seventh-day Adventist church, but also that of two living members, Walter "Chick" McGill and David P. Aguilar, Jr." I don't see any evidence of Zahakiel being quick to deny that.[2] [3]

Therefore, my article couldn't be any more reliable. I'm quoting a CSDA recognized, self-proclaimed prophet. --e.Shubee 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

E.Shubee, I apologize. I misunderstood what exactly he was denying. However, the acusations he is making are very serious, and need to be dealt with. -- THLRCCD 18:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have dealt with it in the article with a direct link to the talk page references which contain Zahakiel's denials. In other words, I freely acknowledge and give a link to the other side in the dispute, unlike the Wikipedia article. --e.Shubee 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't what I meant. He is accusing you of lying about him, and attacking him personally. What do you have to say about this? -- THLRCCD 19:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I deny it completely. Furthermore, because everyone's time is clearly finite, let's stick with the alleged attacks and supposed misrepresentations in Walter McGill and the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church Hoax. I have been accused of that link not qualifying as an external link under rule Wikipedia:External links. However, the rule says that sites should be linked to if they contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Because I have been accused of posting spam, let's go through the article sentence by sentence and test carefully which sentences, and how many sentences, contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article and which sentences are lies.

Sentence 1. "The General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists believes that Walter McGill, a.k.a. Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, is ruining the reputation and good-will of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination."

I believe that this sentence is accurate, that it is information not in the Wikipedia article, and that its truthfulness is self-evident from reading the first link. [4]. Who disagrees with that? --e.Shubee 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe my words should be brushed aside so callously. The various things that have said about me are publicly scattered throughout Wikipedia on talk pages and on his website, so I hope I am spared the sickening task of quoting them here. They have direct impact on the motive, POV issues and above all neutrality of this editor. What Mr. Shubert is doing is essentially this:
If I make a website that says, "John Smith is a child molester," and include on the page, "And here is a link to his denials of these facts," I entirely fail to see how this is reasonably giving information about "both sides" of anything. If I should then further try to use that article as a resource in a Wikipedia article about John Smith, I should be locked up immediately as a danger to myself and others. That our time is finite I acknowledge as easily as anyone else. That the Church and its members are badly misrepresented by leading questions, outright falsehoods about things that I (for example) have said about it, and numerous snide comments is key to the neutrality issue. The case for "no personal research" is set in stone already, and disqualifies it as a reference.
In addition, under Mr. Shubert's broad definition of "contains" neutral and accurate information, he believes that because he gets one or two things correct, this gives him license to link to a lot of biased and INaccurate data. A website saying, "The sky is blue" does not qualify as a link explaining that it is blue because it is made of painted styrofoam. It contains an accurate statement, but its premise is absurd. Articles used as external links must be reasonably accurate about practically all that they say, or they are useless. I am already entirely disgusted by the things Mr. Shubert has said, and have no desire to go through his derogatory website talking about how "sad" and "pitiful" my religious beliefs are "sentence by sentence" and having Wikipedia being used yet again as a soapbox for his agenda. I would not subject my worst enemy to that kind of shameful ridicule. Zahakiel 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I won't put you through that. I know that I wouldn't want to be put through that. E.Shubee, I'm afraid that he brings up a very good point. Your source is automatically disqualified by WP:OR. -- THLRCCD 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I accept Mr. Aguilar's judgment against himself. I quoted him exactly, and he resents it. Mr. Aguilar's statement is so clear and inescapable and devastating to the other CSDA prophet, his alter ego, to be reminded of it is exactly like receiving a terrible accusation against himself. The pain Mr. Aguilar feels is that of his own conscience and knowing that he has inadvertently exposed the dishonesty of his sidekick, principal, prophet, pastor, Walter McGill. Secondly, as I have said originally, all my accusers and supporters of the prophet David P. Aguilar Jr. are guilty of the very things they accuse me of. The Wiki article Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church clearly violates WP:OR. The only references to the beliefs of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church that are published by a reliable source are those commented on by the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center. All the other doctrines showcased in Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church must be deleted. WP:OR clearly applies to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia:External links applies to external links. Case closed. --e.Shubee 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The majority of the refrences are the official website of the church. "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any" (Wikipedia:External Links, What should be linked to, #1). -- THLRCCD 03:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules require notability and verifiability. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." If the CSDA church is notable, then yes, links should be given to the official site. But it's not a notable church. --e.Shubee 04:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
All of the references that aren't the official website are about the current legal battle between this group and the original Seventh Day Adventist church. This is a notable church for the legal battle if nothing else. -- THLRCCD 04:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "Notorious deception, delusion and fraud does meet the minimum threshold of notability." That's why my external link should be added. But no reputable source has written on or cares about all the favorite, promotional doctrines of the alleged prophet Walter McGill. And what justifies the conflict of interest, David P. Aguilar Jr. promoting CSDA's more pleasant doctrines on Wikipedia and covering up the ugly ones? --e.Shubee 04:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That link is something that would be added to a Criticisms page; not the page on the actual church. However, to avoid both conflicting interests and OR, someone other than you would have to be the one to add it. I would offer, but doing so would conflict with the interests of a neutral party mediating a dispute. Now, for Zahakiel having conflicting interests. Zahakiel, how do you respond to E.Shubee saying that you have conflicting interests? -- THLRCCD 05:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, just let him answer the question. I removed what you said because it was bordering on a personal attack, though it didn't quite cross the line. However, it wasn't productive to the conversation. You were given the right to defend yourself against accusations, so everyone should receive that right. -- THLRCCD 05:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I wasn't given the right to defend myself against accusations. I have no way to refute the charge that http://www.everythingimportant.org/Walter_McGill/ is spam unless my critics go on record and say, sentence by sentence, which sentence passes Wikipedia:External links and which sentence is false and why. --e.Shubee 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't have to deal with the spam charge anymore. If you or I add it, it is a conflict of interest, and for you it is also OR. The spam charge doesn't matter until those two things can be worked around. -- THLRCCD 06:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Same answer. I want you, the accuser, to go on record and say, sentence by sentence, which sentence is WP:OR and why, which sentence is false and why, and which sentence passes Wikipedia:External links. --e.Shubee 06:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the accuser. In fact, I'm the only foreseeable person who will be taking part in this discussion that isn't. -- THLRCCD 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, you only advertised this inquisition on my talk page where my accusers have assembled to complain about me. If this "discussion" was conducted at Talk:Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church then I would clearly have allies who have already posted strongly against the misrepresentations of the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church. I quote: "If a reliable source is not found to substantiate the existance of this movement in a very short period of time I will nominate it for deletion. None of the current sources substantiate the existance of this movement." JBKramer 16:43, 17 November 2006. "As I see, this wiki page is becoming an advertisement for their movement and not an unbiased source of factual information." PaulTaylor7 26 November 2006.
I don't even see a pretense of justice on this issue. Even worse, I am offended by the way that Zahakiel has exercised squatters rights on the CSDA article, refusing to work with PaulTaylor7 who showed a great understanding of Creation Seventh Day Adventist origins and doctrine and who suggested very reasonable improvements to the article, all reverted by Zahakiel only because his edits were in the direction of an unbiased article. Great work Zahakiel, chasing editors away who refuse to submit to your vision of a well-crafted infomercial for CSDA. --e.Shubee 16:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not been online for a day or so, but I see the discussion has gone one quite apace without me. I am sorry for the late reply, but I will answer the question that Hybrid asked, for the record if nothing else, since the matter of the source has been decided. I am a member of the CSDA Church - and in my opinion nothing more, nothing less. I have no biased agenda, and would probably not even have started the article if there had not been one. I saw that there was one, and I thought that it should be accurate. That is the extent of my "agenda." As to the accusation that I am in violation of conflict of interest, I would say only this: look at my edits, and decide for yourself (not you, Mr. Shubert, I already know what you think). I do not know of any individual except for E.Shubee who has had any major problems with what I have added, or taken away. An editor called PaulTaylor was, for a time, attempting to link to sites that had some of the books I had written, but contrary to the insinuation that I am out to promote myself or my beliefs, I felt that this was not useful to the article, and I was happy when a third party removed them. Mr. Taylor, contrary to what Mr. Shubert says, is by no means knowledgeable about CSDA theology, claiming that his source is from "someone" who was once affiliated with the Church... but he has made statements that have been... well, very unusual and by no means accurate. I would have removed the links to my books myself immediately, but due to what was happening with the talk page at that time, I felt certain I would be accused of trying to hide something. I did not revert them, as Mr. Shubert claims just above, as anyone can verify by looking at the editing log. I have had to walk on eggshells, and have done so with no resentment, understanding the fine line that must be walked by someone addressing a topic dear to himself or herself; although I will say this: a CSDA editing a CSDA entry is no more out of place than the many SDAs who currently edit the SDA entry. They are simply in a good position to do so if they show themselves to be reasonable individuals.
Some other editors have restructured the article, removed links I thought were useful and added others - and I didn't accuse them of being in a conspiracy against me. I welcome any constructive work on ANY article with which I am involved, whether they be the CSDA one or not. _I_ was the one who added the information on the WIPO decision against the Church of which I am a member, after Mr. Shubert's extremely biased page reporting the matter was removed several times by various others, and I did not say a single word in support of the Church's position, I simply quoted what the arbiter had determined. I do not believe that a Church needs a human being to stand up for it, and that goes for any Church, not only my own. I repeat here what I did on the CSDA talk page - if any editor has any problem with anything that I write about the Church, I will discuss it with them and what needs to be removed (I do not claim to be an expert on Wikipedia's rules, but I understand them) will be removed with no bad feelings on my part.
As for Mr. Shubert's continuing statements against me, he writes, "First of all, I accept Mr. Aguilar's judgment against himself. I quoted him exactly, and he resents it." I denounce many of his statements about me, not the places where he quotes me... I stand by everything I have said since I began to work on Wikipedia, and if I had been quoted properly on his website, I would have no objections. If my motives, spirituality, honesty and integrity had not been questioned routinely from the beginning by Mr. Shubert, I would have no objections. Instead, I have been told that my Church and beliefs do not exist, or that "nobody cares" about them, and have been subjected to one false accusation after another, and even when it is proven that Mr. Shubert's statements about me were an entirely false testimony (such as when he thought I was Walter McGill, or when he thought I had founded a Church that I joined ten years after its inception) I have received no apology, but only increased hostility.
He has recently made statements to the effect that I admitted (to give one example) that the CSDA academy had never had any students. This is an outright, blatant lie. Not only is the statement untrue, but I said no such thing, and I made no statements that could ever give such an impression to an unbiased mind. My judgments about Mr. Shubert's character and personal taste I have kept to myself, and have restricted my statements to his words and actions that everyone has been able to see. Further, I have not said anything about these words and actions that other, third-party obervers, did not note first - I had no desire to set any kind of trend or cast any first-stones. I am not looking for a fight.
I am glad that this mediation took place, because it gave place for yet another third party to comment on the process of events. I saw your statements below, Hybrid, about washing your hands of the matter, and I am appreciative of your efforts. I do not believe it could have been handled with more propriety. Zahakiel 22:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I will not have this page deleted until something is finally decided on. I think that this page will be important to the people who take the future actions to look at before they make their decisions; be it some random admin, or the arb com. -- THLRCCD 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

I think the major issues are not being addressed. As E.Shubee keeps degrading and attacking or borderline attacking people has not changed, this warrants being blocked from editing. This obviously is a violation of Wikipedia and is continually being overlooked. Many editors have brought this up in various articles and on his talk page.

In regards to E.Shubee's personal website, even if a source is added to an article it can be challenged and consensus by many editors over a period of time justifies the removal and exclusion of the sources(s). Many editors have challenged this and so by consensus, the website was removed. This same practice has been used over at Boortz and at President George W. Bush, and Cindy Sheehan, and many other articles. As I have expressed and again reiterate, E.Shubee is too hot headed and shows no sign of letting up. He needs to have a cooling down period and return and as a contributing editor to wikipedia. Until his actions are addressed nothing will change and only more issues will arise and new editors brought in accusing him of violations of objectivity, viewpoint, Point, civility, OR, and most of all attacking. If you take a look at other editors such as Ansell, MyNameIsNotBob, myself and others, you will note that no one is saying he should not be allowed to edit. We're saying, as pointed out above, he is too emotional and needs to go to other articles that will not bring out the personal attacks. By contributing to other things, he can be an asset rather than a nuisance. --Maniwar (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I want to point out that Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church article is not the only issue being discussed. I have no personal interest in the dispute of that particular article. --Maniwar (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Thoughts

From the looks of this, I don't think that this can be mediated. I would recommend going to an admin about the blocks, or going to the mediation committee. Either way, I'm going to wash my hands of this matter. There is nothing that I can do here. Nothing is changing; the same facts are being restated, and we aren't moving towards a solution. Obviously this debate is bigger than me, and I must let it go. E.Shubee, I'm going to put you back up for adoption. If you feel that you don't want a new adopter, just remove the user box. Everyone, so long, and thanks for all the fish. -- THLRCCD 16:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User%7EThe_Hybrid_Dispute_ae2a.html"