Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

Case Opened on 15:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 04:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

• Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ovadyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Str1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Loremaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ebionites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Statement by Warlordjohncarter

The subject under discussion is the currently FA Ebionites. The article is currently in FAR as per here over concerns regarding the article's stability, neutrality and accuracy. Many of these concerns seem to be over recent additions added by User:MichaelCPrice. MichaelCPrice's in his additions has recently been found, as per this comment [1] by User:Nishidani, to have, and I quote, "forged the evidence, and fobbed it onto Eisenman, with a combination of circular methodology, illegal synthesis, misattribution, and misinterpretation," Eisenman in the quote being a reputable scholar to whom MichaelCPrice has attributed comments from much less reputable individuals. MichaelCPrice has consistently defended the insertion of this fringe theory as being legitimate by the means described by Nishidani above, and had recently through his adamant refusal to work to improve the article and or address the concerns raised by the material he included caused the editor who had been working to keep the article at FA status, User:Ovadyah, to temporarily leave wikipedia, saying here [2] he would leave the article's "carcass to the jackals". Michael's primary defense seems to be based on the idea that this theory which has received little attention by reputable scholars, in part because of the basically non-existent reputation of one of its primary proponents, is somehow required to ensure NPOV, despite the fact that the proponents of the theory are themselves at best dubiously qualified under WP:RS, and ignoring the fact that the amount of space given this fringe argument seems to be in the eyes of virtually everyone else a total violation of WP:Undue weight to what is seemingly very much a fringe theory. John Carter 15:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also must agree with MichaelCPrice below that the assumption of bad faith on his part seems to be shared by just about everyone who was worked with him on this article. Make of that what you will. John Carter 23:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MichaelCPrice

The Ebionite article seems to attract editors with strong POVs but with an unwillingness to allow the presentation of other notable, reliably sourced POVs (such as James Tabor's) in a balanced and fair way, in line with Wikipolicies such as WP:NPOV. Rather than productively debate these substantive issues many editors resort to the consistent presumption of bad faith. This is a long-standing problem that needs addressing. With this bad faith practice stopped I believe the content issues can be resolved.

The most recent, indeed ongoing, example of this presumption of bad faith is User:Warlordjohncarter's example above: in response to User:Nishidani's analysis [3] of a passage (in which the claim is made that I "forged the evidence") I provided some feedback [4] in which I responded to all the points, accepted some changes[5], and suggested that the more appropriate fora for this discussion were other existing sections of the same talk page where these issues had already been discussed. This was to avoid the ongoing problem of text being taken out of context. Despite this, and rather than use the "page-up" keys, User:Warlordjohncarter accused me of bad faith (again) [6].

I withdrew from the mediation when it became clear that the bad faith issue was not going to be addressed. [7] --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I must emphasize that this assumption of bad faith is routinely assumed by all the other parties here, not just User:Warlordjohncarter. If I change my views on something I am accused of shifting like a chameleon, If I don't change my views I am accused of obduracy. If I say I'm undecided I'm accused of egotism. And always the assumption of bad faith (evidenced even on this arbitration page). Needless to say the disputed substantive issues are not as straightforward as presented by others; the continued assumption of bad faith makes it impossible to have a rational debate about them, since the first thing lost when bad faith is assumed is objectively; I have always assumed good faith of the other editors, no matter how we much we disagree over content; all the other editors listed here consistently assume bad faith. One point I agree with Ovadyah about is when he says that the article can only progress "when this user conduct problem is dealt with once and for all." --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just before I ever edited the article [8] Tabor's POV that the Ebionites were followers of John the Baptist, as well as Jesus, was displayed in the first paragraph of the lead. The second paragraph featured (exclusively) the views of Eisenman. Now the other editors are claiming that these two sources are examples of fringe scholarship (despite an explicit admin judgement to the contrary[9]) or even not reliable sources[10]. All I am trying to do is restore the balance that has been lost and I am accused of bad faith, pushing a fringe POV, not understanding undue weight etc. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ovadyah

Indeed there is a long-standing problem here. However, the problem is not one of bad faith. It is a persistent pattern of editorial synthesis, purposeful misattribution, evasion, and obfuscation. As I have stated elsewhere on the talk page, Michael Price has repeatedly introduced content into the Ebionites article that is knowingly false with the intent to deceive.

[11] [12] [13] [14] He is engaging in an effort to push a fringe POV that is not stated even by the fringe sources he heavily relies upon. It is my hope that the article, now under FAR, can be restored to FA quality. But it can only happen when this user conduct problem is dealt with once and for all. Ovadyah 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith, which Michael Price goes on so much about, happen for a reason. They are a symptom, not a problem. They are reactions to ceasless edit-warring, editorial bullying, personal attacks, a stone-deaf ear, and a contemptible regard for the opinions of other editors. As if this were not enough, there is a pernicious mendacity in his editorial behavior that requires other editors to verify his work and root out purposelful mistatements and misattributions. I agree with Loremaster's summary conclusion. This editor must be stopped from doing further damage to the Ebionites article. Ovadyah 12:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

I recollect at least one RfC this summer on the Religion/Philosophy subpage. The evidence issues were beyond my competence to address quickly, and I did not have time for an in depth consideration. I don't know if the community gave any input to the RfC. But I note for the committee that an RfC was also tried, in addition to an RfM. The talk page of the article also demonstrates at least one call on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. GRBerry 21:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I chanced upon the page, to correct a minor mispelling, and, noting a disagreement between MichaelCPrice and Ovadyah, attempted a mediation, in which at first I gave some backing to MichaelCPrice. Subsequently, I found it impossible, even by extensive analyses, to get MichaelCPrice to at least see both the critical position others held, and to give some reflection to the frailties, extensively documented, of his own positions (I use the plural advisedly because, when he yields on what strikes others, after unnecessarily numerous comments from a majority of other contributors, as untenable, he changes his stance, but only slightly). Ovadyah, I think correctly, likened his attitude in these endless exchanges to the labile chromatic switches proverbially associated with chameleons.

'Michael, I can't help but notice you're constantly shifting positions like a chameleon. First, you made the absolute statement that archaeology supports a settlement of vegetarian Essenes at Qumran. Then you changed your story to Qumran after 31 BCE, then it was not Qumran but Ein Gedi. Now you're saying a whole group of settlements but not Qumran (Masada, Herodium Jericho, Ein Gedi, Ein Boqeq, Ein Feshkha, Kallirrhoe, Machaerus). I think you have no idea, and you are just grasping at any headlines you happen find on the web. From now on, please bring your evidence here in the form of direct quotations that we can read for ourselves.Ovadyah 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To this Michael CPrice replied:-

'I have no problem with changing my mind about things. Glad you noticed.'

I think evidence has been provided that the passage he stoutly defended, while refusing to provide evidence for its several assertions, is definitely a 'synthesis' based on his guesswork, of two distinct books, which he conflated, and then attributed his own OR conclusions back to both authors. The point was obvious from the outset, but required a considerable amount of time and labour to do, and was met with a very late, perhaps last ditch, offer to reconsider a fragmentary part of it. I won't cite my own technical arguments, but conclude with the following exchange, which I think puts the finger on the problem.

'I produced a quotation of exactly what Pliny said about the Essenes, and pointed out to you that Pliny made no remarks about the Essene's vegetarianism. You made no attempt to correct this mistake in the article, even after several days, so I can only conclude that the statement you inserted into the article was knowingly false. Ovadyah 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

MichaelCPrice replied.

'I left the quote in because, for the moment, I am undecided.'

That I which I highlight, is the problem. Ovadyah meticulously gave detailed evidence that invalidated MichaelCPrice's claim, MichaelCPrice refused to adjust his post after the refutation, and when asked why answered that he wouldn't withdraw a false claim because (though false) he personally hadn't decided one way or another what he might do about it.

An article that achieved FA standard is at risk of being degraded, and some of its best authors disenchanted of maintaining its quality, predominantly because of difficulties one editor is making, virtually for everyone else. He doesn't appear to appreciate that 'collaboration' on a collective article is not a synonym for getting one's own way by sheer attrition Nishidani 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Loremaster

Months after having worked hard to ensure that Ebionites became a featured article, I chose to permanently stop contributing partly because I was no longer willing to tolerate MichealCPrice's use of wikilawyering to undermine the neutral point of view of the article in order to give undue weight to fringe theories and, worse, his systematic personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him in order to intimidate them into surrendering to his agenda. Bottom line: This user must be stopped. --Loremaster 00:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Str1977

It is hard to say anything that has not already been said, so I will try to make this brief: the ongoing problem on Ebionites (and less pressingly other pages) is MichealCPrice's behaviour that has driven of two regular editors and made the Ebionite article unstable. In contrast to what he claims above, no editor has tried to removed Tabor's view from the article - it was rather ensuring NPOV in as much as Tabor's view is not the only scholarly view (that has been achieved), not giving it undue weight (not solved yet) and distinguishing Tabor's view from other views instead of creating a synthesis (not solved yet). Another problem has been the insitence on including things not directly relevant to the article, often creating a POV problem thereby. Recently the problem has been augmented by Michael's refusal to give references (stating that he gave them once upon a time). As for assuming bad faith: certainly some of his opponents hold Michael to be acting in bad faith but that is the result of bad experiences with him, so it is rather concluding bad faith. I personally think that Michael is honestly so much immersed into Tabor's view that he can't see anything else. OTOH, I have seen Michael assuming bad faith on practically every occasion. His withdrawal from the mediation also seems unwarranted as the issue to be solved was content and not behaviour. If we agreed on content, behaviour would no longer be a current issue. His withdrawal prevented this. And this is why we are here. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)

• Accept. We can help here. Good faith attempts at mediation by impartial editors have failed so I do not think further ordinary dispute resolution attempts will help. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Recuse. I reject the idea of a lengthy featured article regarding a subject about which almost nothing is known and for which there are no reliable sources. Fred Bauder 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Paul August ☎ 15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Consensus

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Passed 5 to 0 at 04:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact

MichaelCPrice

1) MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring ([15]).

Passed 5 to 0 at 04:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

MichaelCPrice restricted

1) MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. MichaelCPrice is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should MichaelCPrice exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, MichaelCPrice may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 5 to 0 at 04:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.