Revision as of 12:34, 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

• Rodhullandemu

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.

Rodhullandemu, you're digging yourself a pit. Please don't make it any larger. You obviously represent the "Give back the Janitor's Keys" side, someone who is familiar with the other side of the discussion should represent that. I know you're very caustic in your discourse, but please demonstrate some of the same good sense that allowed you to be given the keys in the first place. Hasteur (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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. Rodhull andemu 01:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• @Coren: You've already expressed an opinion as to further discussion on this issue, and therefore, to be fair to all parties, you should recuse. Rodhull andemu 01:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• @John Vanderberg & Shell Kinney: You were also part of the original flawed decision, and should therefore also recuse. To do otherwise would not be acceptable to the community at large. Rodhull andemu 01:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• @Other arbitrators: if you voted to desysop me without giving me adequate response to allegations against me, you should recuse. To do otherwise would be fundamentally dishonest, since you've already appeared to have made up your minds. Examine your souls, please, and do the honourable thing. Rodhull andemu 01:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Get this clear: my desysop was at least contentious. Those who voted for it have failed conspicuously to justify it. I am not going to accept a verdict that might have been acceptable in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, or today's North Korea, but not here, and now, and today, in the developed world. There are certain basics of justice, however you define that, that exist, and it it is up to us to accept them. If otherwise, we have absolutely no honour of justification to claim to be better than jungle justice. That's really what this is all about. Rodhull andemu 01:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@Hasteur: You're prepared to let the Witchfinder General seem to be unbiased? I do not think so. Rodhull andemu 01:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if someone sticks a knife into me, I'm going to remove it. That is nothing to do with the person sticking the knife in to begin with. It's pure self-preservation. Rodhull andemu 01:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@HJ Miltchel: Are you crazy? Admins who combat vandalism as a career do not make friends. Reality, please! Rodhull andemu

Look at the diffs: I left him alone until he started falsfiying sources on Clown. I was prepared to do so. Rodhull andemu 01:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Georgewilliamherbert

I would like to request that the emails between Rod and Arbcom be entered into public evidence. Arbcom members have already authorized their release in the noticeboard discussion. Assertions regarding their content are a significant part of the claimed procedural problems with the case, and the information is necessary for the community to perform its informal oversight and to consider future issues and options. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already released them unedited to an uninvolved third party, and Jimmy Wales. For the avoidance of doubt, I have nothing to hide, and I retain the originals as sent to me. Rodhull andemu 01:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not concerned about them being altered; I am concerned that both you and arbitrators have asserted things about them in some depth, and they're not currently available to me or the community writ large to review those claims.

You said that you wanted them released, but haven't released them to "the public" as it were. If you oppose releasing them, that's fine and within your rights, but if you don't oppose it I would like to request the release for evidentiary review.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement from HJ Mitchell

ArbCom shouldn't accept this because there is nothing to arbitrate. Frankly, the whole committee should be trouted for their handling of this. What it did was not outside the bounds of its authority. It was handled entirely the wrong way, but it was the right decision (sorry, Rod). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@Rod, if you're so sure ArbCom's actions are are indefensible, why don't you see what the community thinks at RfA? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nor do those who relentlessly badger editors they don't like. Sorry, Rod, I like you, but adminship requires judgement and yours has been found wanting every time anybody so much as mentions Malleus. If you left the bloke alone for a few months, I'm sure ArbCom and the community would look more favourably upon the idea of restoring your bit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

For clarification's sake: Rodhullandemu has forwarded six email threads to me. With his permission, I would like to post these publicly when the case is filed (with real names redacted of course). Would the Committee be willing to post any email discussions it had relating to public evidence that it did not forward to Rod? NW (Talk) 02:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

If EotR is the chosen prosecutor she should take the filing party position. It doesn't appear Hasteur has anything to present and the filing party should be more than clerkishly filling out the template.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

Even during this case Rodhullandemu continues with his provocation. I have never "falsified" sources on any article, and I resent his allegation that I have. The discussion, which centred on the term "coulrophobia", can be found here. To claim that, for instance, The Oxford Dictionary of Word Origins is not a reliable source, or that The nightmare encyclopedia: your darkest dreams interpreted is "not just shite, it's unvalidated shite" does not demonstrate and kind of balanced position. Rodhullandemu used his inflammatory language over a rather small issue: whether "many" people suffer from coulrophobia or "some" people do. He has lost any sense of balance. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

The statements of case acceptance by arbitrators Coren, SirFozzie, Casliber, Jclemens, and Xeno are very disappointing, in that they appear to attempt to unreasonably and unfairly limit the scope of the case. Their intent is presumably to rubber-stamp their original decision while shirking their obligation – in policy, as noted by John Vandenberg, and in simple fairness – to examine the conduct of all parties to the events. The decision of the sitting Arbs to bring a case themselves is already highly irregular (and contrary to the guidance of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Scope: "The Committee will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to rule"); they should not compound their error by further distorting the process and subverting the will of the community.

In the ArbCom's original summary desysopping of RH&E, the nine voting Arbs declared unanimously that he was guilty of "edit warring" and "feuding". This conduct was apparently part of a pattern of behaviour sufficiently concerning to warrant an immediate and permanent desysop by secret trial; the Committee's announcement came just four days after the latest AN/I discussion Elen of Roads cites as justification for the ArbCom's actions, and without any other apparent attempts dispute resolution. While there are certainly many instances in AN/I's and ArbCom's archives of editors acting as lone edit warriors disrupting the project by edit warring against established policies and consensus, there are equally many cases where ample fault can be found on both sides. The ArbCom has not explained why it has determined that RH&E's edit warring is sanctionable but other parties', if any, edit warring deserves neither sanction nor even mention. In the same vein, it seems even less plausible that a single editor can be engaged in a "feud"; such one-sided disruption would have been described by any well-thought-out decision as 'hounding', or 'stalking', or 'harrassment'—not "feuding". It is remarkable and baffling that RH&E's "feuding" was sufficiently serious to warrant mention as justification for his desysopping, but the misconduct of other editor(s) so inconsequential that they escape identification, let alone formal caution or censure.

In the last iteration of the perennially unsuccessful campaign to develop new and exciting ways to speedily desysop admins (Community de-adminship), several serious issues were flagged with the proposal during the ensuing discussion. Among the key concerns were that the proposed process granted an admin's adversaries a privileged position from which to attack, where they would be sheltered from examination of their own conduct. The proposal tended to discourage, delay, suppress, or conceal testimony and input from editors who might wish to speak in defense of the admin. The proposal operated on rather short timelines compared to a normal Arbitration, and tended to short circuit careful deliberation. The proposal was criticized because it was too blunt, and offered no avenue to consider alternative remedies to desysopping. The proposed process would require a desysopped admin to relitigate the same matters in a second case if he wished to address misconduct by other editors, facing no realistic likelihood of benefit to himself and risking accusations of sour grapes or spite. It seems that the ArbCom has inadvertently implemented a process with many of the same flaws the community has already deemed fatal. It is obliged to remedy that error. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Lord Roem

While this Committee tries to stay away from looking too much like a real Court, I do think there is a legal rule that could guide the Committee in this question of recusal. I believe the Rule of Necessity says that even if a decision-making body has some conflict of interest in a decision, prudence demands that not all recuse for the sole sake of recusing; rather, they all should remain. At the same time, recusal would seem to hurt the petitioning editor's case (" if failure to do so would result in a denial of right to a question adjudicated.")

Therefore, only to the question of recusal, I think it fine for all members to vote without concern for some conflict. The real-world has your side. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I only want to add that my reason for posting this is because some editors involved have appealed to real-world principles and rules to support complete-recusal. I believe such an argument is without foundation due to the basic rule of decision-making bodies I wrote of above. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. But as a separate note to Rod: Please post only in your own section. NW (Talk) 01:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Clerk note: Please remember that all parties should only be posting in their sections. This is not a place for threaded discussions. Thanks, Tiptoety 02:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse. (X! · talk)  · @532  ·  11:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (10/1/1/1)

• 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)

  • Rodhullandemu: No. There is no reasonable justification for me, or any other arbitrator that voted on the previous motion, to recuse. — Coren  01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • HJ Mitchell: Let's not debate merits of the desysop on the request page. — Coren  01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • @Ten: Accepting this case on the narrow ground of examining whether Rod should keep the bit or not does not preclude a wider case being opened if a case is made for it. — Coren  12:21, 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)
• Accept per John. Shell 01:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept With the caveats of Coren above. SirFozzie (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I see no reason for the 10 of us who voted to remove the administrative tools on a temporary basis to recuse from the case to determine the resolution on a permanent basis. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept; I believe the arbitrators who voted for this desysop committed the committee to a public case, if RH&E wanted one. Cool Hand Luke 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept per John and Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse Although the procedures do not envisage any Arbitrator being required to recuse during a hearing to examine the removal of permissions following a desysop, I shall be presenting the evidence gathered directly by Arbcom, and would prefer to stick to that role. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept. I admit that I didn't envisage this much drama over what is essentially a motion to prevent Rod from using the buttons during the case. Anyway, I don't seriously believe that voting in favour of this motion necessitates that I have to recuse. PhilKnight (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept within the limits of the original private case motion--that is, whether Rodhullandemu is suited for the administrator tools at this point in time. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't believe there was an "original private case," or at least there should not have been one without any process. It was a level II desysop. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Level II procedures. This process contemplates allowing a formal decision after the desysop. PhilKnight aptly describes it as a motion to prevent use of the tools until the case is resolved. Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You're entirely correct; so amended. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept, per John and my comments here - Rodhullandemu is entitled to request an examination of the removal of permissions. As regards recusals: in camera discussions constitute a portion of an arbitrator's official service, and regular duties of an arbitrator do not constitute grounds for recusal on related matters. I expect the case will be limited in scope to the Removal of permissions, the initial discussion of which I participated in an official capacity. –xeno 02:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - not voting to accept or decline quite yet. It is entirely correct that all of the evidence that was considered for the Level II desysop is available onwiki to those who look hard enough, although not all concerning edits/actions have been pointed out publicly at this point. However, I am concerned that moving forward with a full case has the potential to be very harmful to Rodhullandemu. Despite the fact that I do not think he should be an administrator at this time, that does not lessen his value as a person, or as a Misplaced Pages editor and member of the community. I'm concerned that proceeding in this manner will create a "point of no return". Risker (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Decline as a public case at this time. Well before the desysopping, I was concerned about some aspects of Rodhullandemu's behavior (including the incident at clown that I discussed with him at the time). Had I been online last Friday night, I would probably have been torn between supporting the motion to desysop, because Rodhullandemu had clearly lost his sense of perspective, and urging some lesser or interim measure in light of his lengthy service and some other considerations. But the one thing that was clear to me was that there are aspects of this matter that should not be discussed on-wiki, much less made the subject of an arbitration case. Days later, despite the good-faith concerns about fair process that have been expressed by several editors I respect highly, the fact remains that the things that were unsuited for public discussion last week are no more suited for public discussion this week. I acknowledge that Rodhullandemu is not seeking to avoid such a discussion, quite the contrary, and it is not my intention to patronize him. However, under all the circumstances, the appropriate way forward is for the committee to advise Rodhullandemu that he may seek reconsideration of the desysopping by contacting us in a few weeks, after the stresses of the moment have passed. I fear that opening this case instead, especially at this time, is likely to lead to an unseemly and unhealthy public spectacle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I support NYB's approach if RH&E does. Don't open this too fast. Cool Hand Luke 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Likewise. –xeno 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept as per the stated requirement in the Level II desysopping procedures. Kirill  12:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Interim motion

For this motion, there are 16 active Arbitrators (minus 1 who is recused), so 8 votes are a majority

Should the Rodhullandemu case be opened, the 26 February 2011 motion posted to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard ("Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community.") is rescinded and replaced with a temporary injunction suspending Rodhullandemu's administrative privileges for the duration of the case.

Support

1. Proposed. –xeno 02:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
2. If the case is accepted and opened, this is an appropriate action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Correct. Cool Hand Luke 03:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Concur with my colleagues. Risker (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
6. John Vandenberg 03:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
7. SirFozzie (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Shell 04:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Fair enough, although the difference between the two formulations is probably too subtle. Kirill  12:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I see no compelling reason to do this for mere process' sake. The only effect is semantic, and the net effect is that he is still desysop'ed for the duration of the case. Should there be a reversal of the outcome, it would be appropriate to restore the bit then. We are not a court, where a permanent injunction vs. a temporary restraining order is a meaningful differentiation, and shouldn't strive to emulate one. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Jclemens has this exactly right. This is a motion for the sake of... well, I can't quite figure out what purpose it's supposed to serve. It has no effect. — Coren  12:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

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)

Statement by Jayjg

This is certainly a heartfelt dispute, but not, I think, an intractable one. It also seems to me it's still mostly a content issue, so out of the ArbCom's purview. I'm happy to restart the mediation process, if all the parties agree. Jayjg 02:37, 2 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 (7/0/1/2)

• 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)
  • After reviewing further statements, and the topic area, Voting to Accept, but noting I may be inactive for some or all of the case. SirFozzie (talk) 01:45, 2 March 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)
• Accept per Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept per Coren. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Accept to examine if there are behavioral issues in play, but agree with some of the comments above suggesting wider community input as a possible resolution for the content aspects. Shell 08:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)