Revision as of 01:14, 2 March 2011

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for arbitration

Rodhullandemu

Initiated by Hasteur (talk) at 00:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Hasteur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#User:Rodhullandemu
• Notice from ArbCom of de-sysop

Statement by Hasteur

As a uninvolved member of the Misplaced Pages community, I have observed the contentious editing and accusations that have occured on WP:ANI. After reading through the discussion of the Arbitration Committee's decision to de-sysop Rodhullandemu (and it's firey debate) I was ashamed. After Rhodhullandemu's authorization I am opening this pro-forma case to air the evidence (as claimed by the ArbCom) and to let Rhodhullandemu respond to said evidence. I am aware the WP:BURO says we're not supposed to do process for process's sake, however I do suspect that this line of inquiry won't die down until the full case (as suggested by ArbCom and invited by Rhodhullandemu) is done with.

For the record, I am 100% open to letting someone else (Possibly Elen of the Roads) represent the de-sysop position because I do not feel that strongly about the issue.

Statement by Rodhullandemu

Whereas a neutral position is welcome, I specifically required the ArbCom to defend their indefensible position. My authority was to ArbCom to justify its actions, not for another editor to take up my position, however well-intentioned. Of course, asking a tribunal, however constituted or appointed, to review its own decisions, is fraught with conflict of interest issues. Meanwhile, with the best of intentions, I still require ArbCom to justify itself to the community that elected it, but if they are that confident in their own powers, they will take over this request, and defend themselves to the ultimate benefit of the commmunity. Rodhullandemu 01:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

• Accept; with a reminder that arbitration is not an adversarial proceeding and that nobody presents any position — only evidence and commentary.

  That said, I will not let the case drag on or turn into a mudslinging festival. Only evidence regarding Rod's suitability as an administrator will be examined, and absolutely no tolerance will be extended to personal attacks or bringing up old feuds. — Coren  01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Accept per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Return_of_permissions to "examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances." John Vandenberg 01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ebionites 2

Initiated by John Carter (talk) at 01:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties

• John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Ovadyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michael C Price (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Ovadyah
• Michael C Price

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Ebionites
• Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Ebionites 2
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites
• Talk:Ebionites/Mediation

Statement by John Carter

There are long-term problems with this article, as can be seen by the lengthy history of activity above. There may be a few other attempts at resolution as well. Basically, the essence of the problem, at least to my eyes, is that two editors, User:Ovadyah and User:Michael C Price, have been stating for some time that the theories of James Tabor and Robert Eisenman, both now in the article's bibliography, deserve the degree of attention they have, despite the fact that both have I believe been indicated to qualify as fringe theories as per WP:FT. I also note that there are any number of other, generally more reliable sources, which have been basically ignored because they disagree with those two sources. I also believe that there is some evidence that both of these editors have indicated that they are themselves supporters of non-notable neo-Ebionite groups who may endorse these beliefs. I believe that these individuals, who had previously disagreed about Eisenman in particular, are now colluding to maintain the article in its current format, in violation I believe of WP:IDHT at least. Also, previous comments by Ovadyah in earlier attempts at resolving this matter here, as well as perhaps comments from others later, indicate that there are good reasons to believe that Michael's behavior may deserve specific attention.

Statement by Michael C Price

The simplest solution, and one that wastes the least Arbcom time, is to formally resume the informal mediation that stalled previously when John Carter withdrew. There is no logical reason for not proceeding with formal mediation. Previously a formal mediator was not available, but the previous informal mediator, Jayjig, is now available in a formal role. I formally acknowledge my willingness to enter mediation (formal or informal). If the others could explicitly indicate their willingness or unwillingness to engage in mediation, that would be helpful. If we can't move forward on mediation then I will comment further, but this avenue should be explored first.

Statement by Ovadyah

I agree that the dispute is primarily about content, or trying to gain leverage in a content dispute, but things have gone seriously overboard. This first trip to ANI in May 2010 frames the issues pretty well. All parties to the dispute are prepared to resume mediation except John Carter, and unless he changes his mind and agrees, there is not much more we can do there (see Jayjg's talk page). Meanwhile, I have continued to work out some of the difficulties with Nishidani on my talk page User talk:Ovadyah#Proposal for Nishidani. The controversy is over the proper application of WP:V and WP:FRINGE. I have explained in my opening statement in formal mediation, and elsewhere, that these concepts are either being misinterpreted or misused. The informal mediator agreed that this is more of a question of WP:UNDUE, which is a tricky guideline to apply to controversial topics. See Jayjg's explanation on my talk page. There are two sides to an WP:IDHT. The person who doesn't hear, and the person who keeps repeating the same thing endlessly. I think John Carter is simply mistaken here in how he has applied these Wiki principles and guidelines, and he can't accept "no" for an answer, either from the editors involved or the mediator.

There is also something uglier going on here, as this attack page by John Carter against me makes clear. He was asked by Jayjg to delete this attack page, after the COIN he brought against me was archived with no action taken, and he did self-delete it for about a month, but now it is back. This kind of abusive behavior can't continue. Ovadyah (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot properly present my opening statement to the Arbitration Committee without referencing my opening statement in formal mediation. Why have I been denied the opportunity to show my arguments relative to WP:V and WP:FRINGE, which are integral defending myself against accusations of WP:IDHT? Ovadyah (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator note: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy#The privileged nature of mediation explains why the Mediation pages have been deleted. You were made aware of the mediation policy at the start of the mediation process. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I fully support Nishidani's suggestion. As I have stated repeatedly - in mediation, on the article talk page, and elsewhere - this is a matter of WP:UNDUE, which should be determined by community consensus, not the brute-force application of Wiki policy. Mediation is the most effective remedy for dealing with difficult content issues. That said, there are still some rather disturbing behavioral issues that need to be addressed. Ovadyah (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

This is a problem-fraught case in the sense that, over the years, 3 main editors have not been able to find common ground. A large part of the difficulties in this regard stems from the balance of power between between the three, in the sense that WP:CONSENSUS contextually has often boiled down to having a majority of two against one. Sometimes Ovadyah and John Carter found points of agreement vis-a-vis Michael Price (he was suspended for a year, a suspension I supported), and most recently Michael Price and Ovadyah have demonstrated a shared perspective, isolating John Carter. There is an appearance of a perennial politics of triangulation here. I have been an outsider interlocutor for both John Carter and Ovadyah, and have had amenable editorial relationships with both. Both Ovadyah and Michael Price seem to have a personal investment in the contemporary resonance of Ebionism, (nothing wrong in that) and find some powerful backing for this in the ideas of two tenured authorities who, however, engage in 'wild' theorizing of a kind that constitutes a marked, idiosyncratic position within ancient Jewish-Christian history. I have basically suggested that the only way out of this is (a) to impose the strictest criteria for good wiki articles on the drafters of the page, (b) elide any direct use of primary sources, (c) filter the exposition of early patristic sources, which should be presented either chronologically or thematically, through the most recent and comprehensive academic work on the issue (Sarskaune etc.), and, reserve the 'fringe-minority' speculations of Tabor and Eisenman, to a later date, when their views, under WP:UNDUE, can be briefly seamed into the text. Ovadyah has been response to this, which I think John Carter would also approve. But, unfortunately, suspicions now run deep. Probably more active supervision by external editors, or those like Astynax and Ret.Prof would be needed to break the deadlock. I do not think Michael Price's presence on the page helpful.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As regards further mediation, that is problematical given an earlier precedent, when one of the plaintiffs expressed a desire that I not take part in mediation on this article. I felt cmpelled to withdraw, because of Michael's objection, and to avoid any unfortunate complications or suspicions my participation might have aroused. See here here and here. Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Llywrch, uninvolved party

This is a difficult situation. First, I believe all parties here are acting in good faith -- although tempers have gotten short from time to time & things were said that shouldn't have been. Second, & perhaps more importantly, I believe this is a topic area where the Misplaced Pages process -- either in theory or in practice -- fails to work. The cause for this failure is that the Ebionites article is part of a topic area where it is difficult for the average or model Wikipedian -- someone who is intellectually curious, with either a college education or its equivalent -- to make informed judgment on the sources, both primary & secondary.

I'd like to explain why the usual Misplaced Pages process won't work here. Modern studies of Christianity -- starting with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library, over 60 years ago but especially more in the last few decades -- have revealed that early Christianity is a far different creature than its modern counterparts. As a result, one cannot simply rely on commonly accepted wisdom to identify reliable sources. Then there is the issue that many of the experts in the field can publish various works which are in some instances perfectly acceptable to the intent, if not the letter, of Misplaced Pages guidelines, while in others clearly fall into the fringe category. Robert Eisenman is one example of this: while his translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are vital & important to any discussion of that topic, his James, the Brother of Jesus is at best controversial -- & at worst, fringe. (I found it unreadable.) But another example would be the work of Jeffrey J. Bütz: I found his book The Brother of Jesus met Misplaced Pages's criteria for a reliable source, & was quite happy to suggest it as a means to explain contemporary thinking about James the Just ... until I encountered a review of a recent book, which creditted Bütz with some theories about early Christianity that are more appropriate to the DaVinci Code. (And this was one important reason why I dropped out of a discussion of this article several months ago: I couldn't distinguish the cranks from the reliable sources, & I think I'm at least a little familiar with the subject.) Then last, there is the extremely charged emotional atmosphere surrounding all Biblical research; about that, I'll simply suggest any curious Arbitrators to read Amy Dockser Marcus, The View from Nebo for some examples of how a mix of religion, politics, & archeology can become a toxic mix. One could almost go as far to say that all parties involved ought to be commended for their comparative restraint & civility in this disagreement.

In short, we have a topic where reasonable & informed people could not be expected to make good decisions, let alone find common grounds to create a compromise on. We can't go back to the POV of, say, 1940 & offer an article that is obsolete but correct; we can't present the current POV & offer an article that is up-to-date but very likely incorrect; & I believe we all can agree that Ebionites covers a notable topic, so deleting & salting the article won't solve anything. IMHO, the only way out of the stalemate both this article & its collaborators are in would be to find an expert in the field, & ask her/him to compile a list of reliable sources to be used with this article. That said, I would be quite happy if the ArbCom or another outside party could come to a different solution which does not violate customary Misplaced Pages processes & norms. -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

•  Clerk note:: Parties, please do not link to your username in headings. Thank you, Tiptoety 20:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/2)

• Awaiting statements, but concerned that the same problems that brought this article to arbitration three and one-half years ago may still be ongoing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting further statements. Would the parties agree to go back to mediation now that apparently the mediator is available? SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. John Vandenberg 09:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept I think this has gone past the mediation stage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse - I was involved in a dispute with Michael a while ago. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• Accept; it's clear that efforts have been made to solve this, and they failed. — Coren  12:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)