Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 5

message: === Discussion of the summary ===
the following summary of part of the discussion is EXCLUSIVELY the work of CheeseDreams. She created this summary by 2 passes
*1st pass - cut out extraneous comments which do no more than duplicate prior comment by the same person (note, nothing is added at this point, or paraphrased) - this pass is still viewable (and declared) via the edit history
*2nd pass - cut out non-essential detail still remaining, and convert to prose commentary (note that in this pass, much of the wording is kept (partly due to the immense amount of time it would take to change it), merely re-arranged. Where insults are hurled, they are paraphrased into less offensive descriptions.)
Some dispute its accuracy and NPOV. (and then edited it to suit their opinion. It has been restored.) These include Wesley and Slrubenstein.
CheeseDreams asserts that she did her utmost to retain the POV expressed by the persons in the text within her summary. She also accepts that the resulting summary of the discussion may show some people in a worse light, since such details are often obscured by swamps of extraneous text. She further reminds readers that the original form of this text can be found in full within Archive 5.
After the summary follows a section where those who dispute the summary express their version.
Disputed sentences are referenced and numbered in bold and in parenthesis (brackets) an example would be (0).
: Good grief. I dispute the process, and the entire summary. The above text is apparently by some wikipedian who didn't sign their own text, imagining it to be so neutral as not to need signing, or else not wanting to own up to it. They also deleted what I actually said about the below. I don't have time to play games voting each sentence up or down, playing with colored beads. I strenuously object to my comments on this page being deleted and then "summarized" or rephrased by someone else though. Wesley 03:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Summarised 29-11-2004

message: the following summary of part of the discussion is EXCLUSIVELY the work of CheeseDreams. She created this summary by 2 passes
*1st pass - cut out extraneous comments which do no more than duplicate prior comment by the same person (note, nothing is added at this point, or paraphrased) - this pass is still viewable (and declared) via the edit history
*2nd pass - cut out non-essential detail still remaining, and convert to prose commentary (note that in this pass, much of the wording is kept (partly due to the immense amount of time it would take to change it), merely re-arranged. Where insults are hurled, they are paraphrased into less offensive descriptions.)
Some dispute its accuracy and NPOV. (and then edited it to suit their opinion. It has been restored.) These include Wesley and Slrubenstein.
CheeseDreams asserts that she did her utmost to retain the POV expressed by the persons in the text within her summary. She also accepts that the resulting summary of the discussion may show some people in a worse light, since such details are often obscured by swamps of extraneous text. She further reminds readers that the original form of this text can be found in full within Archive 5.
After the summary follows a section where those who dispute the summary express their version.
Disputed sentences are referenced and numbered in bold and in parenthesis (brackets) an example would be (0).
: Good grief. I dispute the process, and the entire summary. The above text is apparently by some wikipedian who didn't sign their own text, imagining it to be so neutral as not to need signing, or else not wanting to own up to it. They also deleted what I actually said about the below. I don't have time to play games voting each sentence up or down, playing with colored beads. I strenuously object to my comments on this page being deleted and then "summarized" or rephrased by someone else though. Wesley 03:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the summary 

message: History of article dispute:
I have been involved in trying to help participants in this article reach consensus for several weeks now. A visible and tentative consensus was reached on several key points, and a large number of wording suggestions. Based upon those, and several weeks listening to each side, and noticing that there was no neutral version yet, I drafted a version for discussion, containing both accurate material as well as material which needed a consensus as to accuracy and appropriateness.
* A long period of informal mediation (as in, listening to and working with both sides) produuced a large amount of compromise or consensus wording. 
* An early consensus indicated that the article needed fully recasting/rewriting in a manner which did not put the gospels first nor saw it as a historic view on Christianity.
* A draft version was produced which was deliberately stated in the talk page to be for discussion, please let stand briefly so others can read it and comment.   and talk page 
:* It was a consensus version in the sense that it retained material for discussion by others (even where needing discussion) not just a single POV. 
:* It was neutral in the sense that it was neither oriented around Jesus, nor assumed a reader had read (or cared) about the stories of him. 
:* It was organised and more encyclopediac in the sense that different relevant aspects of the culture were highlighted in their own right for comment.
* SIrubenstein overwrote it with an approach that had already been criticised by some people for being 
:* POV (gospel oriented)  and
:* Lacking in approach (treated it one-dimensionally as a historic narrative leading up to christianity and thereafter. 
* This version was reverted and reinstated a few times.
* Rather than an edit war, I requested an RFC on the two versions.
* The revert activity continuing, Theresa re-locked the article.
Comments on present RFC:
That said, this RFC is not about article content primarily. It is the contributors right to edit well or poorly, and it is the right of others to revert work they feel lacking. It is about whether locking the page is appropriate. Comments:
#The page became unlocked to give consensus a chance
#Within 24 hours one of the initial disputants (SIrubenstein) had ignored a request to allow the page to stand a day for comment and consensus building, and had mass-reverted it, thus plunging the article back into an edit war.
#There were views both ways, some users stated they did not approve of this, or that they felt it was inappropriate or POV (CheeseDreams, Amgine, Amgine again, Maurreen). I myself feel that it was quite disrespectful, given that it was a version stated to be for comment with a request for a day or 2 for others to contribute, in order that both sides could cool down, build consensus and deal with any material lacking in merit which had been introduced or brought forward.
#The other contender (CheeseDreams) did not in fact add any of their own edits, but reverted it to the version for discussion, which was undone several times.
#After several repeats of this a different sysop (Theresa) locked the page once more.
#Theresa has not been involved in the page previously
#The page had previously been locked for exactly the same reason up until very few days ago
Based on this history, I cannot personally find fault in the decision to re-lock the page. It was clear that one of the contenders had shown little interest in others opinions as it related to consensus-building and informal mediation, even for as short a period as 24-48 hours. 
I would suggest arbitration is an appropriate avenue for this article; in light of recent experience, I see little reason to believe mediation would accomplish much different. FT2 03:20, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone else, aside from Me, and FT2, think that Slrubenstein will need to go to Arbitration before he will stop trying to impose his will on the article rather than submit to consensus? CheeseDreams 23:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: FT2s account 

message: Would someone please summarise the summaries, and subsequent discussion, and tell us what the important points are, and where the article goes from here? CheeseDreams 16:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's already been done,  Slrubenstein
Again I ask. Would someone do it
*in a neutral way
*who is not one of the 2 vehemently opposed persons
*taking into account ALL the points
*drawing up what the general feeling is OF EACH SIDE
CheeseDreams 20:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for something completely different