Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-05 John Zizioulas

Request details

 * Under the umbrella of "unreliable sources", other party keeps rejecting valid academic sources. His rejections are not supported by any valid reference and represent merely his own opinion.
 * Under the umbrella of "not suitable for BLP", other party keeps rejecting references to valid academic criticisms. His rejections are not supported by any valid reference and represent merely his own opinion.
 * Other party keeps changing title Traditional Orthodox to "traditional", turning it into negative connotation.
 * Other party needs to learn that there are people who do not accept innovations of the J.Z. and in order to make the article NPOV, existence of those people needs to be recognized.
 * Other party needs to learn that Traditional Orthodox constitute part of the Church that does not accept the work of J.Z. and do not recognize him and his work as Orthodox. Author of such a heterodox writings is heterodox as well. Fact that J.Z. is still (sadly) member of the Orthodox clergy, does not automatically make his work Orthodox. We have numerous examples in the history of the Church when Orthodox clergy produced heterodox thoughts, ideas, writings, and were consequently rejected by the Church and even anathemized.
 * Having said that, in the article, his work must be clearly distinguished from the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Clear statement should be placed stating that his work and thought do NOT represent teachings of the Orthodox Church.
 * New section of the article should be added, about Zizioulas' involvement in the Ecumenical Movement, WCC, etc.
 * Other party came to the article recently, but instead of making conversation prior to making any changes under the umbrella of "turning the article into NPOV", he expressed butcher’s type of the behavior failing to create any constructive dialogue that could possibly lead to the consensus. While he was constantly saying that he is ready to work towards consensus, he maintained his butchering attitude to the present day. Sadly, his behavior gained sympathies of certain administrators as he employed tactic of constant complaints to them, convincing them that his version of the article and the image description is valid.

Additional Request Details added by User:Seminarist
Seminarist (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Cebactokpatop has been acting as a WP:SPA editing the John Zizioulas page to promote a religious fringe-view, which he calls 'traditional Orthodoxy', and which has identified himself as representing on wikipedia.
 * Cebactokpatop has placed POV accusations on this page that Zizioulas, a Greek Orthodox Metropolitan, is 'heterodox' and has added various sarcastic anti-Zizioulas comments to the image of Zizioulas on this page. When I first encountered the article, half of it was filled with his anti-Zizioulas polemic, including accusation that Zizioulas is 'heterodox'. Such assessment violates WP:NPOV.
 * Cebactokpatop is insisting on using the expression 'traditional Orthodoxy' on the John Zizioulas page in a contentious manner to mean his own anti-Zizoulas views and the views of those with whom he agrees, thus again violating WP:NPOV. His use of 'traditional Orthodoxy' entails that Zizioulas, a Greek Orthodox Metropolitan, holds views which are incompatible with traditional Orthodoxy. This is in violation of WP:NPOV. Informal mediation and myself consider his usage of 'traditional' to violate WP:WEASEL also.
 * Cebactokpratop represents his anti-Zizioulas position as a general 'traditional Orthodox' hostility to Zizioulas thought. Yet, I can see no evidence to suggest that the criticisms he groups together as 'traditional Orthodox' criticisms are anything other than the criticisms of isolated individuals. As such, it seems to me mistake to represent these criticisms as a unified 'traditional Orthodox' criticism of Zizioulas' thought.
 * Cebactokpatop is trying to include on the page every negative remark he can find about Zizioulas. In more than one case, the link he provides is no more than a passing one-line statement that a person disagrees with Zizioulas, with no reason given for the disagreement, etc. Such links do not meet the requirements of WP:SOURCES.
 * Cebactokpatop is insisting on the inclusion of links to questionable sources on the John Zizioulas page which do not conform to the requirements of WP:SOURCES and WP:BLP. The source he is most concerned with is a web-page which consists almost entirely of unsupported assertions, and accuses Zizioulas of being 'deceitful'; it is categorically not an academic source. Informal mediation and myself have agreed such sources should not be included in wikipedia's John Zizioulas article.
 * Cebactokpatop has been incivil throughout, making a number of personal attacks, and has made constructive discussion very difficult. He has repeatedly falsely accused me of being a liar and vandal. He has repeatedly tried to remove all constructive edits of mine through repeated reversion, including violations of WP:3RR, which led to page being protected, and his receiving two blocks.

Reason for Collapse of Previous Attempt at Mediation
Previous mediation broke down because Cebactokpatop would not abide by guidelines laid down by mediator, and previous mediator did not consider himself able to enforce his own guidelines for mediation. Seminarist (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not true. Other party expected mediator to comply with their vision of the article. Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Cebactopkatop is dissimulating (again). My stated reason is correct. See my explanation on the discussion page for details of the previous breakdown of mediation. Seminarist (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Collapse of Second Attempt at Mediation
Mediator sided with other party in the dispute, despite warning, which was unacceptable behavior. Cebactokpatop (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are the involved parties?

 * , filing party

What's going on?
See above section "Request details".

What would you like to change about that?
Section "Request details" has listed points that should be worked out.

Mediator notes
Ground rules:
 * 1) In mediation, there is no way to "win". I am not going to decide for you what version is better than any other. The only way you can win is to come to an agreement. Both parties "lose" when we don't come to an agreement, as both parties are unhappy with the way things are going now.
 * 2) As mediator, I will do my best to help you come to an agreement by guiding your discussions. I am willing to reword things if you both want that, but I have no final say over anything.
 * 3) In this mediation, we will focus on content, and content only. No meta discussion, no discussing behavior of editors.
 * 4) The only time when I will make changes to the content is when I believe that there are violations of WP:BLP.

Administrative notes
I've added my name to the list of mediators - hope that's ok with everyone. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome and wish you a successful mediation here. Cebactokpatop (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil, please see my response to your comments on my talk page. Seminarist (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
As the formal mediation was rejected, I am filing the request for mediation here. Little bit of disappointment as I think that we have reached the point when mediators should lock the article, two of us supply the material we want to add to the article, and mediators format/reword our material as per their desire, and add it in that form to the article.

Cebactokpatop (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This mediation has currently broken down. In around 80-90% of Cebactokpatop's contributions to mediation, he has either gone directly against the parameters of the mediation (e.g. adding and removing text when it was explicitly stipulated by the mediator that at that point no text was to be added or removed), or he has successively reverted proposals of mine on false grounds (i.e. three times reverting a proposal I made, accusing me of deleting material, when in fact I had not deleted any material - and even though I explained clearly that I had not deleted any material). Unfortunately, the mediator was not willing to intervene to keep the mediation on track, but rather (in his own expression) sought to 'evade' intervening. This effectively amounted to there being no mediator at all. With Cebactokpatop's disruptive actions and a mediator who could not bring him into line with the parameters of constructive mediation, mediation became intenable.

This is disappointing for me. As previously observed above, it has been a recurring tactic of Cebactokpatop's to try to force his way through repeated reversion of any material he doesn't like. He has been twice blocked for such activity. If there is to be any resumption of mediation, it can only be with a mediator who is willing to ensure that Cebatokpatop remains within the parameters of the honest and constructive mediation. Seminarist (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)