Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tiptoety (talk | contribs) at 04:19, 7 March 2011 (→‎Rodhullandemu: Case opened, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ebionites 2|Ebionites 2]] Motions 28 February 2011 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Ebionites 2

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

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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.

Comment
For what it might be worth, I find the idea of recruiting editors beyond the named parties to perhaps rewrite the article completely without input from Ovadyah, Michael, and potentially myself, possibly through voluntary or involuntary blocks until the structure of the article is determined, or some similar proposal, to be a good one and one I would be happy to support. The names that come to mind to me (clearly, only suggestions) include User:Astynax and User:Cirt, both of whom are excellent article writers, User:Blueboar and User:Dbachmann, two editors good for NPOV, FRINGE and RS issues, and User:Jayjg, User:Majoreditor, and User:Nishidani as individuals who have previous knowledge and experience of the subject. And, while I definitely agree that there are serious issues regarding the lack of information available on the subject of dissident early Christians, I very seriously have to question why the two sources in question, none of whom seem to be particularly if at all supported by the academic community, as per the article talk page history, where the only independent comment about Eisenman's theories ("rejected by the academic community") and the negative academic comments at The Jesus Dynasty. deserve to receive what is to my eyes clearly disproportionate attention to the more reliable sources, such as academic encyclopedias and dictionaries. I have temporarily restored the content at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites listing that material, but, considering all Arbs are admins, I can understand how it might be unnecessary for their use, although despite the allegations that I falsified them made earlier, no one has apparently questioned the accuracy of the reproductions therein contained. In response to Michael, although he regularly blames me for withdrawing from the mediation with only himself and Ovadyah, which I clearly saw could lead to steamrolling any objections made to them, he constantly ignores that it was he who declined the first request for mediation years ago, because "discussing" his favorite source would be outside the scope of mediation. And, in response to LLwyrich, I more or less agree, and would point out that his statement more or less echoes my own earlier comments about using the recent reference sources for material, and using the sources they cite as the sources for the quotes. They can be found on the user talk page restored above. I acknowledge there may be other encyclopedic sources as well that may be relevant, and would defintely welcome an indication of what they might be. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nishindani cites my "objection" to him entering mediation as a reason for declining now. I did not object, I queried why John Carter was canvasing him, and gave a pertinent reason. Still a pertinent question, I think, but a question about John Carter's conduct. John Carter has still not explicitly responded to the issue of entering mediation himself. (BTW, I was not, as Nishindani claims, "suspended" for a year. John Carter's statement here is also riddled with historical fallacies - and to a greater degree.)

On a more positive note, Llywrch's analysis of the problem is completely correct, in that it is impossible to make an objective judgement about what is or isn't a fringe view on this topic (which is about a minority extinct religious movement). However Llywrch's (& Nishindani's) solution - find a mythical "expert" to put things right - is contrary to Wikipedia's non-expert-editor ethos - and also unimplementable, since the disagreement would simply move to arguing over who is an "expert". The only solution is simply to report in a WP:NPOV way views that pass WP:RS, WP:V and stop trying to use unverifiable claims of "fringeness" as a cover for POV pushing. I also agree with Nishindani's point that a ruling on the application of WP:Fringe to murky controversial religious topics would be helpful. Whether that debate is best held here or over at WP:fringe#talk is moot.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Arbitrator note: Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Comment: 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)[reply]

Comment: As one of the identified three main contributors to the Ebionites article, I thought it might be instructive to view John Carter's entire edit history of contributions to the article from when he first appeared (9/23/2007) to present. shown here Ovadyah (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All of these straw-man reasons for why mediation can't or shouldn't take place are beside the point. The involved parties need to take a position on whether they intend to participate in mediation or not. And running out the clock will not do. A non-acceptance is a rejection. I request a reasonable time limit be set to require a response from the involved parties (obviously less than 4 weeks or the whole point is moot). My vote: Accept mediation Ovadyah (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
To clarify, further mediation, given the politics of triangulation outlined above, does not seem appropriate. What the article needs is a clarification of how WP criteria are to bear on future editing. The endless debates have circled around (a)the legitimacy or not of editors using direct quotes from primary sources to justify their statements, with some edition of the primary source directly factored into the notes (b) the status of Tabor, Eisenman and a few others: are they fringe, or a small minority, or a significant minority within academic studies? I see this as a problem not of content, but of defining the implications of rules about WP:Fringe and WP:RS for this topic. To clarify WP:RS is particularly important because the subject matter is vexed by the exiguous nature of the primary sources, their contradictory character, the obscurity of the subject (which cannot even be defined with precision by authorities, i.e., we do not know if we are dealing with a sect or several sects referred to by their opponents under a generic perhaps fictitious brand name), etc. I believe this article once achieved (or was nominated for) FA status. One further, creative, method for breaking the deadlock would be to get some neutral FA-review expert to look at the article, and list what is problematical about it, and direct present and future editors to attend meticulously to these issues, instead of warring over content. Unfortunately, resources are stretched here, but if anyone wants to continue to edit an article that is bogged down by disagreements, they should perhaps be obliged to knuckle under to a tighter, more clearly defined set of formal rules governing what best wiki practice expects of articles.Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos Ovadyah's note to my page, and twice on this page here and here and two comments from Michael Price here in the first sentence and here, I am requested to clarify my position on mediation. Since my editing history of the article is probably thinner even than John Carter's, and I have preferred to stay away from the page after my first gruelling experience in 2007, summed up here and here, and reconfirmed recently when I attempted to help out on the Ebionite page recently (see my exchange with him here), I must confess I see mediation is pointless because I find (a purely personal impression) that any kind of dialogue with Michael is impossible (as I documented for administrative eyes earlier this year.)
On the other hand, both Michael and Ovadyah (in whom I have confidence) have a much higher profile as editors throughout the article's history, i.e. are evidently more dedicated to working on it whatever the state of grave formal deficiencies it may suffer from, than either Carter or myself. I have only followed the article desultorily, in response to requests from both John and Ovadyah, and in this sense, my status as an 'involved party' is questionable. I have just come from an extremely exhausting year over one other article where a similar problem of editorial intractability existed, and therefore do not feel fully confident that I could step out of my 'outside interlocutor' role to commit my energies to it. In brief, I think mediation will prove impossible because there is precious little evidence that assuming good faith, upon which successful mediation must be predicated, is shared by all three of the major parties. For myself, I must confess, on the strength of past interactions here, that I cannot assume good faith with regard to the behaviour of one party. Perhaps it would be salutary for me to withdraw myself as an 'interested party', simply register that if I can be of help I shall try to be useful, and leave it to wiser minds to decide on the case, as that has been variously presented by John Carter, Michael Price and Ovadyah.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia processes & norms. -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ret.Prof, uninvolved party

I believe all parties here are acting in good faith but it would appear that Ovadyah & Michael have the stronger position. The best solution is to resume the mediation process, with the help of Jayjg. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (10/0/1/2)

Interim motion

For this motion, there are 15 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 1 who is recused, so 8 support votes are a majority.

The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.

Discussion of Motion
Votes on Motion
Support
  1. I think there was a couple thoughts on to give mediation a final chance before the time and ill-will of an arbitration case. This is a chance to let it go ahead and try to salvage the area. SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per my comments above (in the accept/decline section). I'm not certain that a formal motion is needed to implement this, but what the heck, it can't hurt. In the motion, I would change "opened" to "accepted," as the whole point is that despite the votes being here to accept, we aren't actually going to open the case pages up yet. I would also add the caveat that if mediation is rejected or fails, anyone can come back and ask us to consider opening the case before the four weeks are up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've copyedited the motion per above, with the consent of the drafter and other arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Works for me. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mediation is better if it can be made to work; I've no objection to staying any case until this attempt at mediation has either proven fruitless or rendered a case unnecessary. — Coren (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support to keep out of limbo. If possible we should always be the last resort. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Well worth trying,  Roger talk 02:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If all parties are amenable to mediation, I see no reason to proceed with arbitration. –xenotalk 02:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=417548648"