We are currently waiting for the earliest of the primary parties to this discussion, User:Loremaster, to return to activity. He has been inactive for a few days, and I'm personally not real sure of his schedule for editing. However, he is also the first of the petitioners involved in the discussion on this page, and the rest of us have kind of agreed to maybe trying to present the case in chronological fashion, which might mean his going first. If we should not hear from him regarding this matter in the next few days, however, I anticipate the other petitioners, of which I am one, will present their case without his assistance. Simply advising any interested parties in the reason for the current delay. John Carter 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to proffer my apologiez to the Committee. My hard disk is, apparently, on the point of being fatally compromised, to the point that I am never sure from one hour to another, whether I can access the Internet, and, struggling with the technical difficulties, all new to me, as to how to repair the apparent damage, have stopped me from drafting my remarks (itself difficult, since I have to learn things (how to cite 'diffs' etc) of which I have no experience. Give me an academic page format, and I am comfortable. To present a case in the dialect of the digital, and I flounder. But I will endeavour, if things can be mended in time, to contribute. Regards Nishidani 15:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the current workload of the Arbitration Committee, a few days should definitely not be a problem. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay in presenting my evidence. We are under extreme time pressure in FAR to fix the problems, so I am putting my immediate efforts there, but I will begin work on this shortly. Dbachmann is keeping a watchfull eye on things to prevent short-term disruption of our progress, but we need a lasting solution to this endless conflict via arbitration. Ovadyah 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed content issues have been dealt with for FAR, so I am able to focus my time and attention on this arbitration proceeding. I will be making my opening statement shortly. Ovadyah 12:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the presentation of my initial evidence and the presentation of evidence on behalf of Loremaster. Ovadyah 03:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would the arbitrators please comment on the proposed finding of fact and the proposed remedy on the workshop page before closing the case. Both have been affirmed by the participants to the dispute (except Michael Price, of course). I would appreciate it if the arbitrators take a position as to whether Michael Price introduced misleading and fraudulent content into the article. Personally, I see this behavior as far more serious than edit-warring. It cuts to the very integrity of the encyclopedia. Ovadyah 03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the accusation of fraud is the more serious issue. That, and the continual assumption of bad faith, are the cause of the trouble since it prevents rational debate. Any edit warring is a symptom or effect of this deeper malaise. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that perhaps even more serious than the accusation of fraud is whether such conduct in fact took place at all. I grant that the word "fraud" may be a bit strong, but falsification of references and conflation/synthesis of ideas could, I guess, be seen as being substantially equivalent. John Carter 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to hear that it is finally admitted that the accusations of "fraud" may be a bit strong. A shame this was not realised many months back. What references do you claim were falsified -- remembering that falsification is a strong claim, far beyond a mere honest mistake which we are all capable of. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that Michael is trying to draw you into another substantive discussion. Don't take the bait. Ovadyah 14:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that preferable to flinging around accusations of bad faith? --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can't have forgotten that, after being specifically told by me on your user talk page that what the citations needed templates I added to the page were there to indicate that not only the citations but also the exact quotations were being requested, you seemingly only included the index listing of the subject? Which were later found by others to not at all support your contention? And then, thereafter, angrily saying something to the effect that we were "lucky" to have gotten the useless information that you did deign to add? My only reason for questioning the use of the word "fraud" is because that is also a term used in criminal court, which might have unfortunate repercussions here. However, if the finding is not closed before tomorrow, I will continue to add all the relevant data and diffs to my own comments to substantiate these claims. If it does close before then, there clearly won't be any reason for me to do so. John Carter 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I supplied, at the request of yourself and others, many exact quotations for the references -- most or all of which have since been removed by yourself and others, in one of the typical acts of hypocrisy that abounds at the Ebionite article. Your claim that the quotations did not support the references is of course disputed. I simply got tired of arguing with people who would shamelessly claim that white is black to push an agenda. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intended analogy was a civil proceeding rather than a criminal trial, where the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. I think that analogy fits well here. And don't overplay your hand with the bad faith accusations, Michael. I can easily pull up many diffs where I was cordial to you and I sided with your position over other editors. I have no desire bring more shame on you than you have already done to yourself. Let it go. Ovadyah 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing robust presentation of evidence with accusations of bad faith. I have always acknowledged that all the editors are honestly motivated -- its their objectivity and judgement that is questionable. Also I do not deny that you were sometimes cordial and sided with me -- one of the saddest aspects of this affair is how you have allowed your presumption of bad faith to overwhelm your critical faculties until you are in the state where you can state: Please be aware that Michael is trying to draw you into another substantive discussion. Don't take the bait. and not see the prejudicial nature of such a statement. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]