After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.
3) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.
And what, exactly, is the appropriate location to cast aspersions without evidence? That third sentence needs some work. Courcelles 03:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the meaning is clear that accusations should be raised only if supported by meaningful evidence. If you think the meaning isn't clear, please suggest a copyedit that would address your concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a copyedit here to remove the disputed element. Newyorkbrad, David Fuchs, AGK, are you all happy with that change? Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Private e-mail exchanges or other off-wiki contact can both escalate and de-escalate such conflicts.
5) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
Roger, on the 'roundabout language' comment, this principle has been used verbatim in previous cases, such as this one, where you supported it. At this late stage, I suggest we retain this language, and that in future cases copyediting to make things less wordy is done at the Workshop stage of the case. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing practices
6) Reviewing the edits of an editor where there are concerns may be necessary, but if not carried out in the proper manner may be perceived as a form of harassment. Relevant factors include whether an editor's contributions are viewed as problematic by multiple other editors or the community at large; whether the concerns are raised appropriately and clearly on talk pages or noticeboards; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. When an editor contributes only in a narrow topic area, it may not be possible to distinguish between a review of that topic area, and a review of that editor's contributions.
This principle is already a cut-down and rewritten version of a principle from the Doncram case, see here. The last sentence was added to make clear that people that contribute only in a narrow topic area will need to be aware that people who appear to be reviewing their edits may in fact be reviewing the topic area, not their edits. Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8) The Arbitration Committee's duties and responsibilities include the resolution of private matters unsuitable for public discussion. A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails, or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, where appropriately disclosed and verified, agreed to by both parties, and raised within Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, such conduct can be considered.
There are parts of this I can't agree with. a) Both parties must agree that emails be considered? b) Totally and absolutely unrelated to this case, conduct outside of Wikipedia is the basis for all of the blocks made for real-world harassment or child protection, and I consider this principle, as written, an unacceptable narrowing from Arbitration Policy, of our basis for doing those sort of blocks. Courcelles 13:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written. We do consider off-wiki conduct in the sphere of on-wiki activities where relevant; the second sentence reads to me nebulously in clarifying that they do have an effect even if they're not within our remit (we obviously can't ban someone from another site, etc.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The third and fourth sentences are simply incorrect. AGK[•] 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Included due to the discussions related to a private e-mail exchange between the two primary parties to this case, and which was disclosed to the committee with the consent of both parties. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly (and thanks for the suggestion), but I've found wording I'm happier with from here in the Richard Arthur Norton case. Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK, in response to what you said, the third sentence was included in this principle from the Racepacket case and that passed unanimously. Was it wrong then as well? The fourth sentence, I accept, may well be incorrect - I was trying to get at the idea that if both parties verify off-wiki conduct, then it can be examined. The point being that private e-mail exchanges are usually impossible to verify if only one party discloses them. Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant "the second and fourth sentences"; my mistake. The Racepacket principle looks sound, but it is also significantly different from the one proposed here. AGK[•] 11:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee
8.1) Per the Arbitration Policy, the Arbitration Committee has no jurisdiction outside the English Wikipedia. However, the Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia, if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors.
Support:
Proposed as an alternative to principle 8. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preferable to 8 (though I might add "directly" or similar before "impact")> Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.
To the extent that past good work is sometimes a mitigating factor, as opposed to previous misconduct being an aggravating factor, yes. Roger Daviestalk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although sometimes misconduct is so egregious that it cannot be mitigated by anything; evaluating misconduct is not always like balancing an equation. AGK[•] 11:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added as one of two extra principles following discussion with other arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conduct unbecoming an administrator
10) The Administrator policy states: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. [...] administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, [...] consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another."
Possibly - do you think not including that may cause problems later? Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the latest issue. Courcelles 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles, I have included that article in the locus. I will ping those who have voted to check if they are OK with that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background finding. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC) I agree with the copyedit made by AGK - thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accurate, though I wish we could drop this "is not an admin" language, as it implies that status is somehow lacking. Courcelles 13:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to Courcelles' proposed change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with dropping the language. While I understand its usage (when we're talking about behavioral standards being an admin does come with raised expectations) using it here does come off as dismissive in a way not intended. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the copyedit suggested above; revert if you object. AGK[•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some have vouched for the editing done by Ignocrates, and some of the articles he has worked on have been through various review processes (details below). Some (including the other editor involved in this dispute, John Carter) have raised concerns at times. The numbers are provided here to show the degree of focus in the editing - i.e. it is the actual editing that matters, not the numbers. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not included, but to give additional context: as of 8 October 2013, John Carter had made 149,553 edits, nearly half of these to article talk pages (71,275, at 47.66%), with around 74,000 edits made in his first year of editing, and a total to date of 14,710 article edits. The numbers are provided here to show the range and extent of editing - i.e. it is the actual editing that matters, not the numbers. See workshop comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to what Roger said about the 'total edit count' - the more I look at people with 100,000+ edit counts and years of editing, the more I realise it is almost impossible to summarise such editing histories. Edit counts can be very misleading. John Carter left a note recently saying that the edit count will have changed as he has deleted a number of WikiProject banner sandboxes in his userspace. Also, he said that many of his talk page edits were adding WikiProject banners and assessments. It is ultimately, as I said above, the actual editing that matters, not the numbers. The numbers are just a starting point, to see when and where an editor is editing, not what they are actually doing. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article histories
4) Partial context for the dispute between Ignocrates and John Carter is provided by the following condensed account of the article histories:
Included to give a sense of the progress (or not) made on these articles and the verdict delivered by various community processes (including articles for deletion and formal review processes). Both parties participated in the 2nd and 3rd deletion discussions for the Ebionite Jewish Community article; they nominated the FAC and FAR respectively for Gospel of the Ebionites; and both were involved at various points in the Ebionites article, though that primarily involved other editors. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution timeline
5) More context to the dispute is provided by the following timeline of dispute resolution involving both parties to this case:
September 2007: Initial request for mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites and its talk page were both deleted to protect the privileged nature of formal mediation during the first and second arbitration requests.
October and November 2007: Ebionites arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). Filed 26 September 2007 by John Carter (then editing as Warlordjohncarter). Result was a single principle, a single finding, and a single remedy imposing an editing restriction on MichaelCPrice (now Michael C Price) for one year. Also party to the case were Ovadyah (now Ignocrates) and Nishidani.
September 2010 to January 2011: Second request for mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites 2, closed 21 January 2011 as 'no mediator available'. The talk page was deleted in February 2011 due to the second arbitration request.
February and March 2011: Second arbitration case. Filed 28 February 2011 by John Carter. The case was accepted but not formally opened, instead being held in abeyance (to allow mediation) by a motion that was enacted 7 March 2011. The parties to this second arbitration request included Ovadyah (now Ignocrates) and John Carter, as well as Nishidani and Michael C Price.
Additional background is available at the (extensive) talk page archives at Talk:Ebionites and Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites. There are also several noticeboard discussions that help provide context (a comprehensive list of these would help) and talk page requests for comments. My understanding of the previous arbitration cases is that the first one was a relatively minor case, and not much was examined or was available to be examined. The second case would have been a good point to actually examine the dispute more closely, but for reasons that are not clear the deferral to mediation appears not to have been followed up and when that second informal mediation essentially petered out, the dispute carried on (this time to a different article, the Gospel of the Ebionites), bringing us to this third arbitration case. It should be noted that this third arbitration case was opened with a scope limited to the year prior to the case opening, and these findings are background findings only. See workshop comments and list of noticeboard discussions provided there. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May 2012 retirement of Ignocrates
5) On 4 May 2012, Ignocrates announced his intent to retire from editing Wikipedia ([1]). The next edit he made to his talk page, three days later, claimed he had received "stalking emails and vicious personal attacks" from John Carter. This was followed by an edit in October (adding the word "threats") and an edit on 28 November saying he was returning to editing and referring to this edit by John Carter. This was followed later the same day by this response from John Carter. Ignocrates then asked John Carter to stay off his talk page (archived thread).
This finding is proposed to provide context for the conduct by both parties over the months following the return of Ignocrates, leading up to this arbitration case. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This finding is intended to demonstrate the approach taken by both parties after that e-mail exchange. Clearly both should have done something about it at the time. That neither did and both continued to discuss it or dwell on it is of some concern. Having reviewed the e-mail exchange, I consider both parties to be at fault, but John Carter more so for making the contact in the first place following the retirement. See workshop comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second comment may be due to frustration, but the first is not acceptable. Neither is 'testing' to see if someone is watching you. See workshop comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Highlighting some constructive discussion when in a more managed environment, and a partial acknowledgement by John Carter that he goes too far when commenting on Ignocrates. See workshop comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'd actually be minded to levy a site-ban instead of a topic-ban, on account of the quantity and long-running nature of John's misconduct, but I recognise we wish to keep the focus of this decision narrow. AGK[•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the main issues have been with a single issue and editor, I don't think a site-ban would be appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary but in no way sufficient. A desysop is absolutely required for this level of misconduct. Courcelles 22:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To answer llywrch, I think Courcelles did mean 'but' instead of 'by' (just a slip). Technically, you are meant to ask that sort of question on the PD talk page, but I'll link with a diff. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the precedents here was the MZMcBride 2 case, where the corresponding principle was 'Return of access levels'. It is not necessary to incorporate that principle into this case, but I am pointing it out here to give context. This remedy is not strictly required, as John has indicated he won't be asking for the tools back, but is needed to ensure there is no confusion here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)
Just want to note that Carcharoth's comments with respect to various proposals were very helpful in understanding the rationale behind the proposals, making it easier to reach a decision on my votes. I'd encourage other drafters of decisions to consider doing this in the future. Thanks, Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
Support
I have completed my voting and most proposals have sufficient votes to determine their outcome. I anticipate that my colleagues will complete their voting promptly so that this matter can be finalized. Risker (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
