Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Questions for Ignocrates

• (1) Ignocrates, I have been looking over your editing history and what struck me is that between when you started editing in 2005 and now, you have made 2386 article edits to 42 articles (primarily to Ebionites, Gospel of the Ebionites, and Gospel of the Hebrews). The 42 articles you have edited are, as far as I can tell, mostly within a very narrow topic area. In the evidence you have presented, you objected to a comment where John Carter said you are 'virtually an SPA regarding early Ebionitism'. Two questions. (i) Have you read the essay on single-purpose accounts, and what parts of that essay do you think apply to you? (ii) When people edit only in a narrow and relatively obscure topic area, it can be difficult to judge the quality of their editing. Do you understand how that can create problems given the history here? Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have read WP:SPA. I am not an SPA, and I consider it an insult to be called one. Ebionites just happened to be the first article I landed on. It was quite an educational experience working with Loremaster to bring that article up to GA and then FA quality. The reason I pushed Gospel of the Ebionites to FA was to find out if a reference format I liked was FA-compatible. The talk page record shows this was the case. link I also wanted to see if an article in this sub-topic could be brought up to FA quality and stay there. diff That provided a pathway for improvement of the Gospel of the Hebrews article, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Ebionites. I am co-developing that article with PiCo. In addition to these articles, I spent a considerable amount of time improving the Justin Martyr article because I am interested in 2nd and 3rd century biblical textual criticism. John Carter's allegation that Justin Martyr was some sort of crypto Jewish Christian is laughable. This is pure propaganda. I also spent time working on the Gospel of Mark until I got frustrated with it. Tell me how that is Jewish Christian. Look, my style is to work on few articles but go deep on them. If that's not what you want, just tell me and I'm done here. Ignocrates (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (2) The other question I have relates to what some other editors said at the request stage of this arbitration case. Nishidani said: "In brief, John's original worries were well founded, but Ignocrates has demonstrated a dedication to quality control that renders them superannuated." Do you agree with the assertion there that John's original worries were well founded? Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nishidani is talking about sources, in particular, the use of The Jesus Dynasty by James Tabor as a reliable source. All of this was hashed out on the talk page of the Ebionites article. Michael C Price introduced The Jesus Dynasty as a source. John Carter and Nishidani opposed using it. I argued for a compromise position where it could be used, but with caution. The details are all on the talk page; see my exchange with Llywrch: link, diff1, diff2, diff3. If Nishidani shared any other "original worries" with John Carter I don't know about them. Nishidani and I worked on a bi-lateral solution that would have made Ebionites 2 unnecessary. It's preserved in part on my talk page archives. link Ignocrates (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been away, and saw the notification just now. I was making an historic reconstruction from memory. To recapitulate, in the early squabbles, I saw merit in John's concerns. I personally dislike Tabor's work (I have much more esteem, but only as an aficionado of extremely convoluted philological quests into a hypothesis about the past which fails verification by normal scholarly methods, for Eisemann's intricate rewriting of the Gospels). As was his right Ignocrates fought for a compromise. My impression is Ignocrates took to heart something of my severe strictures about the dangers of these two sources. Of what I have seen over the last two years, I find only an admirable, intensely erudite scrutiny of the relevant scholarly literature in order to cover these sects. Their probable histories have been thoroughly distorted by early Church orthodoxy and manuscript suppression, and over the last two decades, scholarship has really opened up the field in several illuminating directions, and Ignocrates' growing mastery of this literature - which almost no one is harvesting for wikipedia's articles - can only find me deeply appreciative. I think the issues John worries over in Ignocrates work are effectively resolved. Mind you, the difference is, I trust Ignocrates on the basis of watching his approach evolve, and methodology refine itself. John is more comfortable with encyclopedic overviews, and I think these are somewhat lagging, being conservative. behind the scholarly developments Ignocrates is following. Of course there may be a danger that one might be tempted to lend more weight than is due to one or two theories, whose freshness is such that the wider scholarly community may not have yet had time to sort the fringe from a consensus (hence John's reservation). But, when such worries have arisen, I've found Ignocrates attentive and responsive. I blame myself because my range of interests draws beyond the special area of focus in this sector, and I haven't had time to follow it minutely. But my strong impression is that the articles Ignocrates is working on are well-crafted, superlatively sensitive to the best scholarship, and responsive to neutral challenges. My advice is to let Ignocrates continue to extend his improvements over the couple of dozen articles since he is undertaking to get them to GA and FA level. When those review processes set in, there are several who can help outsiders sort out problems. To John I would suggest that he remain in the process, but restrict his concerns or comments to very specific objections, such as any variance he might detect between scholarly sources and Ignocrates's use of them. And a recommendation that, if such concerns persist, that he phrase them in purely neutral technical terms, so that the rest of us can look into them.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (3) Ignocrates, thank-you for your answers to the questions so far. I have a follow-up set of questions concerning some edits you made to your user talk page back in June 2013: this one and this one. There, you say you are recusing yourself from editing certain articles. Around the same time you made this edit and commented it out here. Can you explain who the 'Johnny' is you are referring to there and what that is all about (including the editing recusal)? Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(a) I decided to recuse myself from three related articles to disengage from three disputes going on between Ret.Prof and various other parties. I was asked by Ret.Prof to take a look at Oral gospel traditions. I tried to help as a neutral mediator, but it was impossible to maintain my neutrality. link I withdrew and attempted to find outside help for him. link. I decided it was best to just walk away from all of it. I posted a notice of recusal so that he would stop bringing disputes to my talk page. I'm sorry I couldn't do more to calm things down. Ignocrates (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(b) The last two diffs have nothing to do with the notice of recusal. It was supposed to be a single edit (i.e., commented out from the beginning). I added it to my talk page as a test to see if John Carter was still stalking me. The only way he could have known about it was by trolling my edit logs. I had already deleted it by the time he noticed, which proved conclusively that he systematically goes through all of my edits. Ignocrates (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for John Carter

• (1) John Carter, when looking over the history that led up to this arbitration case, I was struck by how long it had been going on for. From what I can tell, you rarely edit the articles in question, but have raised objections in various fora, including the talk pages, review processes, and noticeboards. Can you say, briefly, why you don't edit the articles yourself, and why you keep coming back to this after pages and pages of discussions? What is the result you are seeking? Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• One answer is the rather regular assertion of others that I may have some form of bias regarding a topic. To my eyes the easiest way to address those concerns is to present the evidence on article talk pages, and then, assuming good faith of others, hope that they will take the material presented and act on it accordingly. Also, unfortunately, at this time, there are a lot of questions regarding a lot of topics, and it is hard to develop content on each of them. Lastly, I am, still, unfortunately, working on non-article space pages, like those currently in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, and other material which is still to be added to those lists and others not yet created, as well as adding material to Wikimedia Commons and to Wikisource, eventually, although there are distractions there and other factors which have helped prevent doing as much as I would like. I think making it easier, maybe, for several editors to improve several articles more easily in that way might be more useful than just developing a fewer number of articles myself. In at least some of the pages of discussion, I am seeking, honestly, to have concerns actually addressed, which in at least some cases does not happen. Ultimately, I guess my goals are to see the relevant concerns raised based on review of other highly regarded reference sources addressed. In some cases, like the comparatively recent discovery of Mani's having been a member of a Christian group prior to receiving his revelation, some of the older reference sources are outdated by newer information, and that clearly has to be taken into account. How many cases that may be is another question, and a rather serious one, and, to plug one of my proposals below, I think it would really help if we had some sort of rough guidelines regarding such content, particularly regarding matters as to when a newer idea, or perhaps "fringier" idea, might become significant enough to deserve mention, and how much mention. Lastly, unfortunately, at least personally, I kind of see that my own editing of material developed by others,, sometimes with great care and attention and regard for policies and guidelines, demands a bit more certainty of my own opinions than I necessarily in all cases feel. Sorry if that's a bit long-winded. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (2) In the statements made by others at the request stage, one editor stated 'John Carter started to keep an eye on Ignocrates'. Another referred to your 'rights to superintend a dozen or so of the articles Ignocrates is working [on]'. And on the workshop page for this case you referred to someone 'trying to get an article up to FA while a major watchdog on them is absent'. Do you see yourself as a 'major watchdog' in this area and how does this differ from articles in related areas that you also keep an eye on? Do you agree with Nishidani's statement that 'Ignocrates is not working that area alone. Several of us keep an eye on them.'? Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The phrasing there on my part was very poor, and I regret to say that over the years dealing with the comments of others I acknowledge that my temper can, and particularly sometimes around Ignocrates does, get the best of me. I do see myself as being someone who has regular access to many, probably most, of the major recent literature on this topic, and I am not sure that others can say the same. Had I been actively acting at the time of the FA candicacy, as opposed to developing some of the lists mentioned above, I would have raised the objections then, and, possibly?, they would have been addressed or the article might not have been promoted. Regarding Nishidani's point, I know that In ictu oculi and he and some others may well be watching him in a general sense, and am extremely grateful for such, believe me, but also that in at least a few cases I get e-mails or other correspondence from some such people regarding this conduct anyway. On that basis, while I acknowledge and am grateful for the oversight of this editor from other individuals, I believe that having perhaps less experience of him, such as his conduct in mediation, on that basis might have less awareness of what might seem to be that editor's most regular ways of trying to distract attention and/or refuse to deal with concerns, etc. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (3) John Carter, thank-you for the answers provided to the questions so far. I have an additional set of questions related to the first one. In the evidence you provided, you linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination). During that discussion (back in April 2011), you made this statement, with this edit summary: "responding to questions about recent inactivity, recused myself and offered to resign my adminship if the allegations of information I provided were faulty, no such accusations have been made, and material presented has been ignored since then". You also linked to User talk:John Carter/Ebionites. Could you please clarify the following:
  • (i) Are you acting in an administrative capacity on the Ebionites articles? If not, why did you make this offer to resign your adminship as some sort of guarantor of the information you provided in your userspace? Also, does this 'recusal' from editing still apply and how is it helpful?
  • (ii) Could you please clarify the deletion history at User:John Carter/Ebionites?
  • (iii) Could you please list here the pages in your userspace relating to this dispute?

One of the housekeeping tasks at the end of this case will be requiring those userspace pages to either be entered into evidence, blanked, or deleted, so having a list will help with that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(i) Am I acting in an administrative capacity. Not that I know of. The offer to resign my adminship if another admin thinks I should has been a standing rule of mine since I became an admin, such as perhaps falsification of information or selected inclusion of information, and I would assume would be applicable should any member of ArbCom, all of whom are admins, think so.

(ii) The page was created to show the information which I could find in relevant reference sources. This eventually included the full text of the reference articles, as I remember (correctly or not) that there were such challenges, as well as a list of the other sources listed in the bibliographies of those reference sources. I Believe it was deleted, for cause, as a copyvio after I withdrew from the stonewalling I saw, later recreated by me for the purposes of getting a copy, with me stupidly not deleting it thereafter,and then deleted again.

(iii) That page is probably about the only one other than the User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence page with the relevant talk pages, which was prepared for this case before the one-year limitation was imposed. I can and will purge all myself if such a request is made, if there are othersl. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank-you. Your response to (iii) seems to stop mid-sentence, and there was an additional question in (i) that you didn't answer: 'does this 'recusal' from editing still apply and how is it helpful?' My reading of this dispute is that part of the reason it has been has prolonged as it is (apart from the friction between you and Ignocrates) is the rather disjointed way it has proceeded, with Ignocrates editing the articles (with others) and you mostly not, but critiquing the approach at various points. I get (I think) the arguments you both make related to the articles, but those are largely content matters that ArbCom does not decide. We decide on editor conduct, and whether the approach either of you is taking is impeding or aiding the editing process. I am now going to put up some proposed principles, so I will leave you both to consider whether the approach either of you have taken up to now has aided or impeded the editing process and the related discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the typo to iii. Regarding (i), honestly, I'm not sure if that is my call to make, which is why I didn't answer it initiailly. Alternately, it might be just as reasonable, I think, to question whether Ignocrates should have been editing the articles himself, or whether he should have been doing as I did, proposing changes, and then having some uninvolved editor review his proposals and any related discussion and acting on them. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Religion and controversy

1) Articles about religion tend to be very controversial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a overly broad generalisation and not the form principles take. Principles should be based on existing policies. Carcharoth (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Stating the obvious -- llywrch (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

John Carter and Ignocrates dispute

1) Users John Carter & Ignocrates have been feuding over certain Christianity-related articles for years

Comment by Arbitrators:

I intend to present a finding that will give a timeline of the dispute prior to and including this year, but yes, it has been going on a long time. Carcharoth (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed. However, it should be noted that the scope of these "certain Christianity-related articles" is exceedingly narrow. Specifically, this feud is a hangover from the Ebionites 2 dispute about the Ebionites article, which was suspended without being brought to a resolution. The migration of an old lingering grudge to new articles, i.e. the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Hebrews, is very recent, and that spread of an old dispute to new articles is why we are here. Ignocrates (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Acknowledging a fact that has perhaps made this dispute more acrimonious than it should have been: attitudes calcify, people see what they want to see, etc. -- llywrch (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that this case wouldn't be here at ARBCOM if Editors had been able to leave the past, in the past. And without an interaction ban, I really don't see Ebionites 3 resolving long-standing grudges. Editors have been told to, "Please, move on!" but this seems to be an impossible step for some. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relationship between Judaism and early Christianity

2) Early Christianity & Judaism of the 1st century CE have a number of beliefs & concepts in common; determining what they are should be performed on the discussion pages of the relevant talk pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

The locus of the dispute will be presented in one of the findings, but how the Wikipedia editing community handles the content of those pages is not within ArbCom's remit, though we may apply measures to control the conduct of editors in that area if necessary. Carcharoth (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

I rather disagree with this proposal, actually. The question really isn't about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, but rather about the amount of weight to give content relating to certain modern views of the early Christian community, more specifically regarding the James-led Jewish Christians of Jeruslaem. There does seem to me, based on having looked over a number of recent reference sources dealing with the topic, to be rather widespread support for a "Jewish-Christian" core group of early Christians in Jerusalem, but serious question regarding the amount of strength that those sources give such, and even more question regarding exactly how to support this belief. I would also note that in general this falls within the broad field of early Christianity, which is itself a matter of serious contention within and without the academic community right now, and that more or less is the basis for my proposal for some sort of discretionary sanctions or quick-trigger for the imposition of discretionary sanctions in my section below. John Carter (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with this statement and Llywrch's comment in support of it - this relationship is a content issue and as such should be outside the scope of this case. Ignocrates (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a content issue, except in the eyes of editors who seem to rather regularly place their own opinions before policies and guidelines. That behavior does not constitue a "content issue," but rather I believe a long-standing refusal on the part of one editor to apply to himself policies and guidelines which do not support his personal view of a topic regarding which he has an extremely obvious and I believe long-standing bias which I believe makes him far less than competent to judge the related content, even if he personally seems to believe that his long-standing bias makes him somehow the only person competent to judge the content. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

This is what the John Carter vs. Ignocrates feud is ostensibly about; no matter how ArbCom decides this case, resolving the relevance & validity of these facts is not one of them & should be left to such Wikipedia processes as WP:BRD. -- llywrch (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. But, not every edit to an article has to go back to a Talk Page to determine consensus. What I see happening is the same arguments (over sources) just being repeated ad nauseam. Disputes get brought to forums like Talk Pages and RSN and consensus is arrived at but, once again, old debates get stirred up that should be considered settled. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intentions of involved parties

3) Both parties involved in this dispute are acting in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Given the recent references to e-mail exchanges, I'm not so sure. It is possible this dispute started out in good faith, but it has clearly deteriorated over the years. Carcharoth (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

I agree that both parties are acting in good faith, as far as the betterment of the encyclopedia as each party sees it. However, those end-goals have to be consistent with the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia as Community norms, and not just one person's good-faith idea of what the encyclopedia should be like. Ignocrates (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. First, the snide commentary in the end of the comment seems to ignore the facts once again, including the basic premise of wikipedia, as per the third pillar, that it is an encyclopedia. In all honesty, this seems to me to be an attempt at diversion from the not unreasonable question as to whether the history of Ignocrates' edits has ever been anything but an attempt of one party to determine on his own, with little if any regard for the reservations of others, most often based on existing policies and guidelines, about what Ignocrates thinks an encyclopedia is supposed to look like. It is hard for me to imagine a more obvious effort of an individual shooring themselves in the foot than this one. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to Liz, I'm not sure I've seen any such comments from Ignocrates to respond to. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

After reading the contributions so far, this needs to be expressed stated. For one thing, it has been very easy for one side to succumb to temptation & villify the other. For another, if one or both were acting maliciously, this would be a very simple case to decide & apply an effective & conclusive solution: an indef block & lock talk pages. (Some of the involved parties ought to think about that fact.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well said. However, your own observation about a "suspicion of all things Jewish Christian" must be factored in here. Ignocrates (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And my thanks to Ignocrates for the above comment, in which he once again demonstrates how he cannot resist the compulsion to engage in any sort of spin, even when, as per the comment above, he more or less demonstrates that he is at times not acting in good faith. Also, his obvious suspicion of highly regarded reference sources and at times misrepresentation of the content of those and other sources must be factored in here. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes and no. I think that both Editors are trying to honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia, they have that goal in common. But they don't AGF with each other. That's pretty much mutual.

But, while he can be sarcastic, I've seen Ignocrates acknowledge John Carter's criticisms when he has edited articles and try to address his concerns. But I have not seen any similar accommodation from John towards Ignocrates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed 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.

Interaction ban

1) John Carter & Ignocrates shall neither communicate with nor comment upon each other directly or indirectly on any page in the English Wikipedia, & shall report any perceived violations to the ArbCom. Violations shall be handled by an uninvolved Admin per terms the ArbCom will decide.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This remedy is one that is likely to be considered. Carcharoth (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

His editing history will reveal Ignocrates' edits are more or less limited to the "Jewish-Christian" range of early Ebionites (Nazarene Ebionites are both "more" Christian than the others and a topic he has rarely if ever dealt with). My edits, by and large, tend to in recent times be over a rather broader area, although I also in general prefer edits to talk pages of existing articles to direct editing of them, and unfortunately Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles is still taking a lot of time away from efforts to help develop missing articles, which I hope I will be able to do on the completion of some more basic list materials, whenever that gets finished. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mvbw's suggestion of a one-sided interaction ban is also relevant as a way to minimize disruption without resorting to a topic ban. This is an important factor to consider because my interests as an editor are also broad (e.g., see my work on Justin Martyr). It is the present scope of the dispute which is narrow. Ignocrates (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignocrates, only someone with as little experience as you have displayed to date would consider that editing one article of an individual whose only real notability falls within the scope of early Christianity, Justin Martyr, as being an indication of your "broad interests." All that material clearly falls within one topic area. This comment above seems to me to be more an attempt at trying to spin something to what one editor apparently hopes are people who have little if any knowledge of the topic of something which no one of any real knowledge of the subject would believe. It is also worth noting that given the early dating of Justin, he may well (and probably does) count as being an early exponent of non-Pauline or Jewish-Christian Christianity, and is probably used as such by several individuals and groups today who seek to promote such beliefs. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Based on Ks0stm's suggestion, & slavishly cribbed from this ArbCom decision. I consider this the point of departure for discussion: based on evidence provided, the ArbCom may decide to be more or less strict, or decide another remedy is more appropriate. -- llywrch (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This might be reasonable, unless Arbs can find more serious violations by sides than appear right now. The last part ("shall report any perceived violations to the ArbCom. Violations shall be handled by an uninvolved Admin per terms the ArbCom will decide.") is unnecessary because any violations will be reported to WP:AE. However, I have a serious concern about such remedy because two sides have a full overlap of interest. Interaction bans were proven to be rather inefficient in the past. If this is implemented, perhaps it would be necessary to also issue a recommendation for John Carter not to interfere with Ignocrates in his significantly more narrow area of interest. My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how this is possible without one or both being topic banned from articles within the dispute.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems the most obvious solution and one that could potentially resolve conflict. But since John Carter has made watching over Ignocrates' work part of his regular wikiwork, I'm not sure he could uphold an IBan. It will require restraint on his part. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Carcharoth. If this is implemented, JC and Ignocrates should not edit the same articles, but they probably will. This may result in one of the sides claiming violation of the ban and unnecessary drama at WP:AE (that is what had happen during other I-bans). I would suggest one-sided interaction ban for JC to avoid such problems. Ignocrates looks to me as someone relatively "peaceful", unlikely to bring insignificant violations to AE, and edits a significantly more narrow set of pages. My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

FAC and FAR processes

1) The integrity of the FAC evaluation and FAR review processes must be maintained.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Editors should have full confidence in the standards of the FAC and FAR processes. Ignocrates (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

2) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts or carry on ideological battles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia should not be used as a forum to perpetuate old disputes. Ignocrates (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Boilerplate,should be included. -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely, 100%. Holding grudges is understandable human behavior but has no place on Wikipedia, especially in the area of dispute resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not a game

3) Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia. Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia should not be disrupted to push an agenda as an end-run around community consensus, even if the editor perceives the end-goal to be a benefit to Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, although, honestly, I personally believe that this particular proposal would have much more damning application to the proposer than to anyone else. And I also believe the fact that this statement rather clearly does not come close to reflecting the real content or even title of the page it apparently seems to be citing, WP:GAME, is possibly a further example of one editor's lack of familiarity, and apparently refusal to become familiar with, the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Agreed. But I don't think gaming is a primary sticking point in this dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Premature filing of FAR

1) Premature filing of FAR cast doubt on the integrity of the FAC process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Premature filing of FAR by John Carter created confusion and implied the Gospel of the Ebionites FAC evaluation was flawed. link1, link2 Ignocrates (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The timing of the FAC, while I was inactive, also raises doubts about whether it was expected that the article would get more thorough review, and, the later review did make it clear that the article needed work, even according to the editor who reviewed it. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Unenforceable. -- llywrch (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sanctionable for those involved here. This was the responsibility for those at FAR to deny this review as being ill-timed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carrying on a long-standing grudge

2) Wikipedia was disrupted by propagating an old dispute to new articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

John Carter resumed an old dispute, which originated on the Ebionites article, on user talk pages and then migrated the dispute to the Gospel of the Ebionites and Gospel of the Hebrews articles. link1, link2, link3 Ignocrates (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I urge everyone to consider the material in User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence, which I believe makes it rather clear that the dispute was neither "old" nor one sided, and that Ignocrates had been actively carrying on the grudge for some time now himself. The limits of the evidence to the past year does not mean that the parties are free to try to gloss over that material by casting it as "old", or of implying that it was one-sided, which it rather clearly was not. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

This grudge has been disruptive but I don't believe it has damaged Wikipedia. It just has been a colossal source of frustration and great waste of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pre-planned dispute

3) A content dispute was deliberately initiated to enlist the support of a RMoS work group and the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

John Carter initiated a dispute on the Gospel of the Ebionites article intended to garner support for new Religion MoS guidelines and discretionary sanctions in the topic area of early Christianity. link Ignocrates (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In all honestsy, the only thing this does is demonstrate how completely Ignocrates has at least in my eyes completely and absolutely crossed the line of basic sanity, particular as there is no real evidence presented to support this paranoic assertion. And I also believe it worth noting that this seems to be yet another in Ignocrates's regular attempts to ignore his own regular inability to behave in a manner consistent with policies and guidelines and try to shuffle the attention to something other than his own failures to abide by guidelines, which have been indicated in evidence, and the fact that knowing of his long-standing history of being incapable of adhering to reasonable regulations was what drew my attention to these problems. John Carter (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ User:Keithbob: I believe a review of Ignocrates' own conduct will reveal that he has been making it "personal" for some time. I also believe his paranoic jumps to conclusions that I was "trying to limit articles to five or six encyclopedias" (which the existing available evidence clearly contradicted), and several of his other clearly disruptive and unacceptable actions have, unfortunately, been such that he has clearly regularly tried to distract attention from his own rather regular misconduct by seeking to turn the attention to anything else available. I personally see no reason to require someone who honestly believes someone else has, unfortunately, displayed pathological behavior not to be able to say such clearly, and I regret to say that I have had very serious concerns regarding Ignocrates/Ovadyah's, well, grip on reality, since the time of his editing under the name Ovadyah. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The second, unsigned, frankly paranoic, comment below, later signed by Liz, really merits some attention. If it is who I think it is (it isn't Mvbw, so it isn't), it is yet another indicator of perhaps serious problematic input from that individual. There is an overt assertion of a paranoic claim about something the editor in question apparently knows little or anything, and such conduct in arbitration pages really deserves serious consideration. And, I would urge Liz to actually perhaps read the section I linked to on Nishidani's talk page at User talk:Nishidani#Ebionites arbitration in the section specifically indicating some areas I think such guidelines should address and why, because I believe perhaps actually reading the ideas proposed, as opposed to jumping to preemptive, pejorative declarations of what one is "certain" about based on no actual knowledge of the topic raises very serious questions regarding the judgment of the person who makes such statements. Also, I believe I indicated that I myself would not attempt to write such guidelines, which I think makes it really hard to see how I could use things I would myself have no control over, but only offer some preliminary input at an early stage, to in some way plan to "use" against anyone. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The misrepresentation of the the material I proposed, including the additional more recent, highly regarded, reference sources since the ABD, in a matter Smeat apparently did not seem to completely review, should also be taken into account, particularly considering one of the main subjects I consider requires resolution, Deism and its more recent manifestation, is completely unrelated to the ABD. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

JC, In my view you have overly personalized this discussion and made an unnecessarily aggressive and incivil statement. You may want to dial it back a bit.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no doubt that John Carter would use these Religion MoS guidelines, as he sees them, to lessen Ignocrates' contribution to Wikipedia. But I think they are a red herring to the central conflict of this case. For one thing, I don't think any Religion MoS guidelines has a chance of wining over a consensus so I think that issue is moot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sincerely hope there is no chance of the Arbitration Committee actually taking any steps towards implementing these proposed guidelines, which in my opinion boil down to "make areas of religious topics that John Carter takes an interest in agree with the Anchor Bible Dictionary". One of the most valuable things about WP is that it is easily updated with the latest information, we do not have to copy reference works from more than twenty years ago.Smeat75 (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed 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.

FAR guidelines should be enforced

1) A mechanism of enforcement should be established to discourage frivolous or tendentious filings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nikkimaria and Dana boomer should be allowed to apply sanctions as needed to maintain the integrity of the FAR process. John Carter should be admonished for abuse of process. Ignocrates (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is to be enacted, then I believe that there should also be provision established for the FA people to be able to indicate that the standard six month waiting period be voided in some cases, particularly if reasonable evidence which indicates that matters which were not presented in the original FAC, possibly by editors to seeking to game the system while others are away, is presented. There can be, and I think probably has, at some point, been attempts to sneak something through in such ways before, and we should not permit those who nominate articles to be able to game the system in such ways. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nikkimaria, I think 90% of the time a word of caution or at most an admonition will suffice. It all comes down to a question of intent. People make mistakes, and all that should be required is an explanation in that case. However, when someone has an axe to grind, that is disruptive, and FAR shouldn't be used as a forum to grind it. That's what I meant - the point is to discourage the deliberate misuse the FAR process to gain leverage in a content dispute or perpetuate an old grudge. Ignocrates (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that would include the deliberate misuse of the system on the part of individuals who use the processes of wikipedia to game the system by, for instance, trying to get an article up to FA while a major watchdog on them is absent, trying to use WP:IDHT and claiming "abuse of process" on the part of others as an attempt to distract attention from apparent weaknesses of the article, and other such deliberate misuse of policies and guidelines in an attempt to game the system. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree that the FAR in question was suboptimal for a number of reasons, but what kind of sanctions are you suggesting? Standard discretionary sanctions are quite broad and would definitely be overkill in all but the most extreme of situations wrt FAR; the actual "sanction" which was used in this case, the removal of personal commentary, doesn't explicitly fall under discretionary sanctions at all, as I understand them. I'm also a bit leery of the "no early FAR ever" argument; while its merits in this particular case are arguable, there are certain circumstances under which an early FAR would in fact be appropriate. Finally, if something to this effect is to be passed, there needs to be clarity on what exactly it covers: frivolous filings only, or all "FAR guidelines" (which include several other points that might potentially merit enforcement)? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The deliberate misuse of the system on the part of individuals who use the processes of wikipedia to game the system by, for instance, trying to get an article up to FA while a major watchdog on them is absent"...this says it all to me.

I don't believe that Ignocrates keeps track of when John Carter is away from keyboard in order to time a FA proposal. And, personally, I don't know any Editor who would continue to edit if they had "a major watchdog on them." Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mutual interaction ban

2) The involved parties shall refrain from communicating with each other or commenting upon each other directly or indirectly on any page of English Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

John Carter & Ignocrates should be banned from communicating or making comments about each other directly or indirectly on all pages, including attack pages in user space, for an indefinite period. A topic ban of John Carter on the subcategory of Jewish-Christian articles should be considered, perhaps as a sanction to be imposed later, if the interaction ban alone is deemed insufficient. Ignocrates (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Such comments as the comment by Mvbw below, of course, carry much more weight from an individual who has capable of adhering to the stated rules of this arbitration, and I believe the above comment and all the conduct of Mvbw here is perhaps a better evidence of his own problems dropping grudges he himself has apparently carried for some time, and at attempts at diversion from his own inability to adhere to simple rules. And I cannot but laugh at one party who has done little but over-dramatize this situation talking about "unnecessary drama." John Carter (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

At the first glance, this looks to me as two people involved in prolonged bickering, rather than "personal attacks". But since this case landed in Arbcom, Arbs probably have no other choice, but to issue you I-ban. Never ever bring your disputes to Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mutual interaction bans are sometimes needed after a prolonged dispute but its not possible unless or both are topic banned from the topic area under consideration in this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• After recent unprovoked one-sided personal attack by John Carter (Ignocrates "absolutely crossed the line of basic sanity" and so on) [1], [2] and looking at response by John Carter [3], I think the best minimalist solution would be a one-sided interaction ban for John Carter. That will allow Ignocrates to continue working in the project. If you issue two-sided I-ban, John Carter will bring Ignocrates to WP:AE claiming that he violated I-ban by editing articles which were previously edited (or discussed) by John Carter. That will ensure unnecessary drama and blocking Ignocrates. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Carter. You tell: "dropping grudges he himself has apparently carried for some time". What grudges you are talking about? Any diffs? My very best wishes (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was for a mutual Iban but am now leaning towards My very best wishes's point of view. Ignocrates contributes good work and shouldn't face any ban that prevents him from editing articles in his field of interest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with My very best wishes and Liz, the best solution in my opinion would be for John Carter to be banned from interaction with Ignocrates. This is a long standing dispute of which I have no knowledge of any but recent months, however the last year is specifically what this arbitration case is about. What I see is one reasonable, diligent editor (Ignocrates) producing well sourced work in a rather obscure topic area and another (John Carter) getting very emotional about Ignocrates' edits for some reason I cannot understand and flinging personal attacks and wild accusations around, including on this very page. As editor Nishidani has said in some passages linked to on this page, other editors besides John Carter watch the articles in question, if Ignocrates is POV pushing or producing biased articles, they will see it,John Carter's oversight is not required and he has been disruptive.Smeat75 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Carter admonished

3) John Carter shall be admonished for disrupting Wikipedia to garner support for discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Discretionary sanctions are not required in the topic area of early Christianity based on a two-person dispute. Creating a dispute to bring to ArbCom because the Community would not support new RMoS guidelines or sanctions in the past is gaming the system. Ignocrates (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In regard to the suggestion that I be site-banned, I think it's important to point out that it was made previously by John Carter in the form of a threat to be implemented if I ever returned to active editing. diff Ignocrates (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I regret to say that workshop pages are at best dubiously places for parties to make statements which both make extremely dubious, and at least borderline paranoic, rushes to judgment about the motivations of others, a habit the above editor has regularly displayeD. Ignocrates, you have several times made irrational, unsupportable statements in which you make such irrational jumps to conclusions, at least once, in a matter submitted as evidence, regarding a matter which was itself more or less clearly discounted by the evidence. The regular display of such apparently blind acceptance of any conspiracy theory you can quickly create for little if no reason than for the purpose of impugning others, can I believe do nothing but raise very serious questions whether you are capable of rational discussion, which I believe raises very serious questions whether you can reasonably be trusted to edit even talk pages responsibly, and, by extension, whether a site ban might not be the best and only alternative to prevent further irrational unfounded jumps to conclusions on your part. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

An admonishment isn't warranted unless John Carter refuses to drop the stick. I believe that all "others" want is to move on from this, not settling scores. I support whatever causes that to occur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Discretionary sanctions

1) Ability to impose discretionary sanctions should be granted to maintain control of the FAR process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nikkimaria and Dana boomer should be granted the ability to impose discretionary sanctions as needed. Ignocrates (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

ArbCom enforcement

2) Enforcement of mutual interaction ban and possible topic ban

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ban violations shall be reported by email to ArbCom with sanctions to be determined by ArbCom Enforcement. Ignocrates (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Template

1) WP:HARASS

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe that the conduct of several editors, crosses this line. I would specifically include My very best wishes, for seeking to involve himself in something about which he rather clearly knows nothing, and Ignocrates as well. John Carter (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Ignocrates is not demonstrably capable of good judgment

1) It is really remarkable that one editor who has, as per the evidence presented by Carcharoth in his question above here, seems to show little if any grasp of a fairly straightforward essay, WP:NPA, and even indicates that it would be an "insult" to describe him in such a way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This eeems to me to be fairly straightfoward denial of reality type commentary, and I think it not unreasonable to recognize it as such, particularly as it is far from an isolated incident. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Ignocrates cannot consistently abide by guidelines and policy

2) Ignocrates has indicated that he is at best insufficiently familiar with a number of policies and guidelines, as can be seen in evidence. This includes accurately and fairly representing the sources. This failure to make a reasonable effort to understand and adhere to guidelines and policies should very much be taken into account, particularly in those instances where he indicates that his judgment of material should be given greater attention than those of others. This includes his inability to accurately represent sources, his inability to accurately represent the statements and motivations of others regarding my intentions to limit the number of sources to a few encyclopedias, and repeated jumps to conclusions about the motivations of others, particularly, rather frequently, myself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not sure this conclusion is supported by the evidence presented.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignocrates has engaged in personal attacks and refusal to get to the point

3) Ignocrates has violated WP:NPA and WP:IDHT. representing the sources. This failure to make a reasonable effort to understand and adhere to guidelines and policies should very much be taken into account, particularly in those instances where he indicates that his judgment of material should be given greater attention than those of others. This includes his inability to accurately represent sources, his inability to accurately represent the statements and motivations of others regarding my intentions to limit the number of sources to a few encyclopedias, and repeated jumps to conclusions about the motivations of others, particularly, rather frequently, myself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

One of the best most specific examples of this is here, in which he refuses to make any sort of directly relevant comment regarding discussion, engages in personal attacks, and uses his edit summary as an attempt to label the actions of others. Please note that there is nothing in the comment which in any way directly addresses the concerns raised. Another example of similar misconduct can be found on the same user talk page in the bottom section here. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, the comment by Ignocrates (first diff) obviously goes against WP:NPA. Comment on content, not on the contributor (even if Ignocrates was right about John Carter in his comment). However, I saw a much larger number of comments by John Carter (e.g. 2nd diff above) where he relentlessly commented you, you, you on Ignocrates (also a contributor). And while acting as a highly experienced administrator, he followed Ignocrates and brought him to various administrative forums. So, in fact, Ignocrates looks to me as someone rather patient.My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know. My intention was to refer to the behavior, not the person. It was a careless mistake and not one of my better moments. :0( Ignocrates (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference I see is that, in that diff, Ignocrates is complaining about John Carter's behavior that he find frustrating. John's personal attacks, on the other hard, are usually directed at Ignocrates himself, as a person, that he is an ignorant, dishonest, irrational person. Neither behavior is appropriate but I also do not find the PA to be proportionate at all. I'm actually surprised that John raises this issue considering how often he berated Ignocrates (I would characterize it as "unceasingly"). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive editing by My very best wishes

4) My very best wishes has involved himself in the arbitration after the fact as a party not involved in the earlier stages, in defiance of the principles placed at the top of the page, to basically discuss matters related to the Falun Gong 2 arbitration, which is over a year old, having closed in July 2012, and to make aspersions on others on the basis of it. His apparent reason to do so is to engage in a form of harassment of one of the parties regarding his expression of an opinion earlier.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My very best wishes has pretty much violated every principle included in the template at the top of this particular arbitration. He also seems to have taken part in the arbitration more or less solely on the basis of his own dubiously founded conclusions regarding others based on the Falun Gong 2 arbitration, apparently including a misreading of the evidence for a conclusion presented there. This apparent insistence on holding a grudge with at best dubious foundation for over a year, and then coming to this arbitration and acting contrary to the guidelines placed at the top of the page, apparently not even bothering to read them, raises serious questions regarding his judgment and ability to take part in matters of this kind in a reasonable manner. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to Mvbw below, I note that he also made the apparently insupportable jump to conclusions that I wanted his input on religion articles, which, honestly, had never even entered my thinking. I am aware that that editor, under all his names, has gotten a bit of a dubious reputation around here, and it was my intention, at the time, to indicate that one way he might be able to improve his reputation was the rather straightforward matter of developing notable, although possibly older and less popular content, here and on other WF entities, which would be completely non-controversial (at least in the translation elsewhere, I think) and also clearly and directly useful to that entity, and, possibly or probably, here as well. However, it apparently never occurred to him that someone whom he had already developed a rather absolutist opinion about might ever be able to act in a way which would not support that presupposition of his. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

No, absolutely not. My Evidence was about current and ungoing problems related to John Carter-Ignocrates. Let me repeat this Evidence. These statements by John Carter [4] [5] were not provoked by Ignocrates who only made his suggestions on workshop page [6] (it is entirely his right to make such proposals). In response to my criticism [7], John Carter defended his accusations as legitimate [8] instead of issuing an apology to Ignocrates. Yes, I also noted similar problems in the past, with diffs [9][10], as usually done in such discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe comments by "others" is invited in this process. I think you should AGF of My very best wishes or present diffs to back up this claim that he/she is holding a grudge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. John Carter said above something about my alleged "own problems dropping grudges he himself has apparently carried for some time", but did not provide supporting diffs. Why exactly I would have any grudges against John Carter? Yes, I saw his comments during FG-2 case, found them very troubling, and therefore tried to minimize any further interactions with John Carter later. He came with a couple of comments and suggestions to my talk page [11][12][13], but I politely declined them [14]. This is all I can remember right now. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignocrates has violated WP:CIVILITY through dishonesty

5) Ignocrates states here, at 19:08 on October 13, and I quote, "this is the first time I have responded directly to John Carter in either Evidence or Workshop. On the contrary, I have deliberately refrained from doing that," despite having actually done exactly what he said he had never extactly that at 01:52 on October 11 on these arbitration pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Not only is the first statement a transparent falsehood, and a rather categorical, absolutist falsehood easily and quickly proven to be so, it is also rather a pointless falsehood, because the second false statement really isn't even that useful for Ignocrates. This is, I believe, just the most recent in a rather long history of prejudicial and sometimes I believe clearly dishonest statements. However, the fact that there was so little to gain by this falsehood, but it was made anyway, is an indicator of how quickly and easily this individual is willing to engage in such rather transparent misrepresentation, and that I believe is something that the arbitrators should seriously consider. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Mvbw that it is troubling. I stated that I had not yet responded directly to John Carter at that point diff, and that is a true statement. My previous statement was a direct response to the first question asked by Carcharoth diff; a detail that was conveniently ignored. The complaint about a personal attack that followed demonstrates an inability to distinguish between the criticism of an idea, a behavior, or a person. link That inability is one of the central problems in this case. Every criticism is interpreted as an attack on John Carter personally and responded to in kind. The attempt to link the Christological (non-trinitarian) beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses to my (assumed) personal beliefs is also troubling; it could be considered a form of "outing". Ignocrates (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@My very best wishes, time will tell if bringing up those emails was the right thing to do or will boomerang on me. I thought it was important for the Arbs to understand the context of the editing environment I have been laboring under for the past year, and what I was able to accomplish despite those adverse conditions. Ignocrates (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Describing a potential error in a minor detail (who said what and when, exactly) as "absolutist falsehood" is troubling. This statement by John Carter is a proof that draconian measures Carcharoth talked about in the same diff (at the top here) may indeed be necessary, at least with respect to person who makes such a big deal from nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ignocrates. But same might apply to you. I do not know what really was in this email (and I do not want to know), but this may be interpreted by Arbs as WP:BATTLE on your part, depending on email content and other considerations. Please do not answer me about this - I really do not want to know. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ignocrates. I would not comment on email, but I think that: (a) Carcharoth was right about bickering and very poor quality of evidence provided by you both; (b) calling you an SPA is indeed questionable - agree; (c) statements by John Carter, even on these pages are very troubling - a lot of highly negative comments about several contributors without supporting diffs (and he still believes he was right about them); (d) further participation by John Carter as an administrator on WP:AE is a matter of concern because of his poor judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed 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.

Mandated editor review of Ignocrates

1) Ignocrates be subject to mandated editor review in the broad topic area of early Christianity, broadly construed, for an indefinite period. This would include the prohibition of keeping any pages in user space regarding that topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ignocrates can be a competent editor in producing material from sources. However, his demonstrable lack of understanding of basic policies and guidelines, his unwillingness to make changes in accord with guidelines and policies, and the fact of his having a fairly well documented bias regarding this topic, which is just about the only one he has ever shown any interest in, under either name, give me reason to believe that his edits regarding this topic would best be made under the review of independent administrators. Doing so would remove the likelihood of his engaging in the tendentious editing and refusal to directly address concerns raised by others which he has recently displayed, and also probably help him get over the rather obvious arrogance he rather regularly displays in his attempts to insult and minimalize the impact of the sometimes documentable instances of prejudicial editing which he has recently displayed. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In light of the continuing display of what seems to me to be delusional paranoia of Ignocrates on this page, I think it might also be reasonable to at least consider an outright site ban. John Carter (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re Mvbw below: *I was referring to the above to the comments Ignocrates made in his section, which are among the several things Mvbw apparently hasn't bothered to read before commenting about? And I also note again that his involvement began with out-of-process comments against the rules clearly stated at the top of the page, that Mvbw himself has made not particularly well-supported and judgmental conclusions about me on talk pages, which I believe were rather clearly misrepresentative of the full discussion to which they were referring, and that, in general, his behavior in this matter has been rather dubious. I realize that he seems to believe he can make judgmental comments without actually bothering to read the relevant discussions, and that should be taken into account as well. And I also note that he went on the counter-offensive on the talk page where his out-of-process comments were moved when his own errors were noted, which very seriously raises the question how much your his involvement might be driven by his own inability to even acknowledge his own obvious misconduct in this mater. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree with proposed remedy per Keithbob & f/up comment to Keithbob by Mvbw. Ignocrates (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Proposed decision#mandated external review, the previous arbitration in which the principle was established. I did not feel the need to provide a link to it, because I believe the arbitrators are already familiar with it. I did not, however, apparently take into account the fact that others not knowing about it would object to it on the basis of lack of familiarity with it. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz, this proposal is chillingly similar to the BruceGrubb fiasco and John Carter's proposal to "mentor" him. Ignocrates (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

• I would like to comment in response to claims by John Carter about "delusional paranoia of Ignocrates on this page"[15] and that Ignocrates "absolutely crossed the line of basic sanity" [16]. I did notice that some suggestions by Ignocrates were unrealistic and said him about this very frankly, with a reference to a biting satire (I could only imagine what would happen if I said something like this to John Carter - my critical discussion with him went very differently!). The response by Ignocrates [17] was very much reasonable. Based on that, I must conclude that not only Ignocrates is a sane person, but he is someone who takes criticisms by others much better than John Carter. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Carter. Indeed, I only looked at statements by Ignocrates on this page and think they are legitimate. Could you pleas provide any diffs with problematic comments by Ignocrates? My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Carter. Yes, I looked at comments by Ignocrates on this page and did not find anything illegal. Since you are not providing any diffs, it's hard to tell what exactly you are talking about.My very best wishes (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure this proposal is warranted given the evidence presented.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree. In addition, this seems impractical. What administrator familiar with this subject area will conduct review? My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is ridiculous. This means that a newly registered or an IP account would have more editing privileges and freedom than an Editor who brought an article to FA status. While competency is expected, Wikipedia does not administer Editor reviews except when the Editor requests one. And, like My very best wishes suggests, exactly who would administer such an indefinite review? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom request preparation of guidelines regarding religion

2) The Arbitration Committee will request that experienced editors who have not been particularly strongly involved in content relating to religion will draft preliminary guidelines for religious content to be submitted to the community for review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There are, according to one source, about 20,000 different Christian denominations extant, and an unknown number of other religious groups. Considering that in many cases these religious groups will hold as central points matters of philosophy or belief which might be well out of step with the independent academic community, whatever it might be, both individually and collectively, and any number of other concerns particularly regarding matters relating to FRINGE and WEIGHT, I think there is more than sufficient reason to have discussion on how to treat these matters being given serious consideration. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Such guidelines, on the basic subject field of religion and other belief systems, including the so-called "secular faiths" and a lot of pseudoscience type material, most of which share the same basic quality of positing a belief which is more or less broadly "non"-scientific and attempting to create a rational philosophical system based on them, would probably be useful in all sorts of areas, including a discussion on the amount of weight to give specific content of the Men in Black article currently at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. John Carter (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As one possible way to determine what the possible draft guidelines might cover, it might be a good idea for there to be an RfC to gather information on topics or subjects which would benefit from having some sort of rough guideline in place, present the list to those who might draft the guidelines, and then present the draft to the community for any action it might choose reasonable, which would of course include not accepting them as guidelines at all. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, User talk:Nishidani#Ebionites arbitration indicates at least some of the major concerns, broadly phrased, which I believe indicate the need for some sort of guidelines, and there are probably others, specifically regarding when and where to use sacred texts as "reliable sources", which would probably need some sort of guidelines. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree with proposed remedy per Keithbob. Ignocrates (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it very, very reasonable to indicate that Ignocrates in the above seems to indicate that he believes that there should not be any sort of guidelines for religious content at all. I believe that this apparent possibility that he wants there not to be any sort of broad indicators of what should be included in articles might well be at least in part driven by perhaps his awareness that at least a significant amount of that which he seeks to include and perhaps exclude from pages would not meet any such guidelines, drafted by anyone. On that basis, I believe that might, not unreasonably, raise some questions once again whether he is here to contribute to an encyclopedia, which generally does have some sort of guidelines, or whether he might at least in part be motivated by soapboxing or other similar reasons which might be seen as being counterproductive to the project. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the recent discussion on which I commented here and another current discussion here are some recent discussions relating to the broad area of the "religion" field which would probably benefit from at least some sort of real guidelines. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

This seems like a rather ill defined, unnecessary and un-enforceable proposal.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than enumerate all of the problems with such a proposal, I'll just acknowledge that ARBCOM does not dictate guidelines about content, preferring to leave that to the consensus process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Discretionary sanctions or similar on early Christianity

3) ArbCom will place content related to the topic of early Christianity, broadly construed, under discretionary sanctions or under some form of specific oversight which would allow ArbCom to impose discretionary sanctions on specific content related to early Christianity through arbitration amendment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There have been several subtopics of early Christianity in recent years which have been plagued by problematic editors and in some cases disputes regarding the amount of weight to give certain recent or academically fringe ideas, including some relating to smaller and/or non-notable or barely notable groups. These discussions often become problematic, particularly if the editors involved include some who are associated with groups that hold such beliefs. Making it possible to impose such sanctions comparatively early in such discussions might help reduce the length and amount of acrimony generated regarding such topics. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to Liz below, I would agree that any topic can become one which involves intractable disputes. However, I also think that the topic of religion, by and large, generally involves editors who have some degree of alliance or affiliation with one belief or another, which tends to make them even less likely to engage in rational discussion. Also, there have been I think at least two attempts to get together MOS for religion, which have failed for various reasons. ArbCom has in the past requested an effort made to develop guidelines in some topics, and, honestly, I think that input from senior editors who have not regularly edited religious content, and as a result haven't been seen by editors who have conflicting beliefs as "biased," but have with luck some history of developing guidelines, possibly with the input of some religious editors, would be among the kinds of proposals to present to the community which would not receive the sometimes knee-jerk reaction of "bias" form certain editors. And, yeah, I think it worth noting that the drafts would be submitted to the community as a working proposal still needing further input and review, not one presented to the community as some sort of final draft. John Carter (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other instances involving long standing disputes regarding early Christianity, many of which wound up resulting in editors being banned or retiring, involve Christ myth theory and User:BruceGrubb, Josephus on Jesus and Ignocrates' old friend User: Lung salad, and User:Ret.Prof's sometimes dubious conduct regarding the necessity of inclusion of material from modern well received sources, even if that good reception never translated into the theories being promoted by those sources ever getting enough support outside of the books themselves to demonstrably merit inclusion in main articles on the topics. Those are among those disputes which most quickly come to mind, and it is certainly possible that all those editors might still be active (although it is an open question whether that would necessary be good in and of itself) if the content in question were more clearly under supervision, and, thus, the editors involved knowing they would have to be on better behavior. Also, as User:In ictu oculi said in his comments in the request, there is some content, he specifically indicated Jewish Christianity, which needs more eyes on it. It is often difficult to find such additional eyes, and, on that basis, it can be and sometimes is the case that such lesser-known material is well "hijacked" by editors who are perhaps more fanatically devoted to the specific topics involved than other, less biased, editors. There are, unfortunately, rather a lot of topics of that type involving Christianity, and some other religions as well to my knowledge. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree with proposed remedy per Liz, Mvbw & Llywrch. Ignocrates (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simply commenting here to note the almost obsessive way My very best wishes seems to use every possible opportunity to make aspersions on me. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

If you review cases that have been brought to ARBCOM, you can find equally intense disputes over politics, sexual identity, race, intelligence, ethnicity, nationalism, tree shaping, infoboxes and the Monty Hall Problem, not only religion. Any subject can become contentious.

If Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion wants to draft advisory guidelines for writing articles about religion, that would be useful. But FRINGE is usually a label applied to those with whom we disagree. And I don't understand why the proposed guidelines would be drafted by editors who haven't written much about religion or why ARBCOM would want to get involved in setting up this kind of panel. ARBCOM typically does not get involved in debates about content or making guidelines about how Editors should edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No, I think, this is unreasonable because the conflict appear to be only between two editors. I do not see any wider and clearly demonstrated problems in this area. This can be handled either by issuing topic ban(s) or/and an interaction ban. My personal suggestion for the project would be to review and gradually nullify all areas of discretionary sanctions that are currently unproblematic, as can be easily checked from history of WP:AE sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It seems strange to me that "discretionary sanctions" are being proposed due to disagreements in the really quite obscure area of fragments of early Jewish-Christian gospels and early Christian movements that wanted to keep Jewish roots and Jewish custom and law. The main Jesus articles were recently disrupted by a user who started posting all over the place that the Bible states that Jesus was a flying spaghetti monster zombie and we had to go to AN/I to beg admins to do something about it, and even then it was not until he blanked the entire Jesus page and filled it with crude obscenities that anything was done. This was only shortly after there was a similar drama with an editor who repetitively argued for months and months that the classical historian Michael Grant could not be used as a source for the statement that such a person as Jesus existed because he wrote "popular books" and only knew about Roman coins, and Bart Ehrman could not be used either because he went to Bible college. We could use more help from admins with these sort of problems,which occur quite regularly, but I do not think that discretionary sanctions are the answer.Smeat75 (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smeat75, while these cases sound like a pain to deal with, they sound like issues of vandalism and reliable sources and there are noticeboards and places where these problems can be dealt with. It afflicts many topics on Wikipedia, I don't setting up a panel to devise guidelines for religious subjects to be any solution. If anything, WikiProject Christianity and WikiProject Religion have to mobilize and address problems when they are found. Content guidelines is an extra filter which means another level of bureaucracy to deal with the filter and I'm not sure whether a) this is necessary and b) there are competent Editors who have the time to devote to this project.

As Smeat75 says, the topic under question is a small area of early Christianity and Ancient Religions study. I am doubtful about coming up with a system-wide solution to what I perceive to be a limited dispute, between two Editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)‎Reply[reply]

I concur with Liz & MVBW here: this case is not directly a problem of the controversial side of Christianity, but of two editors who don't play well together. Yes, there are problems with Christianity articles, & yes they required more attention from uninvolved Admins, but they are not systemic ones, as found in such topics areas as, say, Israel vs. Palestine. In this case, were both individuals banned from Wikipedia (not a solution I would approve of), this problem would be solved; but in the case of Israel vs. Palestine disputes, from my experience, we could ban any pair of clashing contributors & the problem would not be solved. In this case we need to find a way to either make these two play nice together, or not play together at all. -- llywrch (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree with Liz, Llywrch and Smeat75. Moreover, after talking with Ignocrates and looking at various diffs and statements by sides, I now believe this is not really a conflict between two people, but inappropriate behavior by only one person, and that is John Carter who stalked Ignocrates. Which makes discretionary sanctions even less justifiable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Carter. What aspersions? I only made a point that discretionary sanctions are not justifiable because, in my opinion, there is proven misbehavior by only one person. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preparation of guidelines regarding articles under discretionary sanctions

4) ArbCom will request of the community development of guidelines specifically for developing content under discretionary sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There are a number of articles and topics already under discretionary sanctions. Unfortunately, given the nature of discretionary sanctions, the fact of the discretionary sanctions themselves might make several editors more than a bit hesitant to propose required changes. I think it might be a good idea to perhaps prepare a page of rough guidelines which can be linked to on the talk page template regarding discretionary sanctions for how to least problematically develop such content. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Reprimand and/or restrictions of My very best wishes

5) My very best wishes is reprimanded for his actions in defiance of the rules regarding this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I believe a reprimand is certainly called for, and that it is probably worthwhile to see if there is a habit of this sort of conduct from this editor on noticeboards or elsewhere. If there is such a pattern of misconduct, then the committee should perhaps consider some sort of restrictions or sanctions upon him. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In all honesty, the fact that there is absolutely nothing in the alleged "honest reply" by Mvbw wishes below which even remotely relates to this matter, just a continuance of his own dubious conduct, his obvious refusal to actually bother to produce any evidence of his wildly broad and completely unsupported (and unsupportable) statements, has to be taken into account. His sole basis, so far as I can tell, for any action here is his own irrational and unfounded jump to conclusions that one primary source which I gave as part of the reason for my conclusions regarding another topic is one he doesn't himself like. Please note that there is nothing presented by this editor below which actually substantiates his own jumps to conclusions, or arrogance and disruptive behavior in rather ridiculously continuing to display his own questionable thinking in this matter. He accused me of being involved in a "conspiracy theory" without real evidence, made a clearly dubiously founded personal attack on that basis, and seemingly doesn't have enough sense to bother to provide any real evidence other than his own poorly researched bias. It is also worth noting that in one of his own comments he himself seemed to allege some sort of "conspiracy theory" regarding how ArbCom simply repeats my own conclusions, which I think on review of all the times I have been here will be found unsupportable. I believe, on that basis, there is more than sufficient grounds to question his judgment. I am sorry he has never bothered to actually study any conduct of mine beyond this case and Falun Gong 2, and even more sorry that he stupidly thinks he can draw a reasonable conclusion on that very questionable basis. The very poor judgment he has displayed throughout these matters is something that I believe should be seriously taken into account. And the fact that he ridiculously calls requests on these pages "demands" as he does below here shows just how poorly he understands anything done here, and is yet another matter to be considered regarding his own basic competency in taking part in matters of this type. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disagree with proposed remedy & agree with comment by Mvbw. Ignocrates (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, Ignocrates, you disagree with any sort of sanction on yourself or your allies. And the fact that I have not proposed similar sanctions on Smeat75 on these pages, or any number of others with whom I have disagreed over time, probably says much more about you than anything else, as it pretty much invalidates the blanket statement he made and you agreed to. So, basically, you agree with something which is clearly contrary to the evidenced of these pages itself. That says a great deal. In complete honesty, to quote Mvbw below, his statement of "complete honesty" contains at least one significant blanket distortion, factual inaccuracy, or clear lack of complete honesty, and that is something that very much should be noted and taken into account. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And in response to Mvbw below, the implicit assumption you make is so far as I can tell solely in your own head, and one I can myself say was never necessarily intended, and that your obsession with that matter over a year later and insistent repeated discussion of it is an extremely good indicator of the frequency, intensity, and personal insistence on your own bad ideas. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the last comment below from Mvbw, he apparently thinks that it is "stalking" for me to comment on material in this arbitration, as it is about the only place I've seen his name lately, and, yes, I do think it reasonable to respond here. The fact that he can call that "stalking" as he does below shows to my eyes non-existent judgment on his part. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liz, your assertion that I "steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any mistakes" is both inherently biased and I believe one which cannot be substantially supported by a review of the facts. It is in my opinion not my place to cast judgment on my own actions here. That is more or less up to the ArbCom. The fact that you apparently can't understand that is extremely troubling to me, and the fact that you even believe yourself justified in making conclusions based on such assumptions that my choosing not to engage in commentary of any sort which might unfairly influence the judgment of the arbitrators about my actions is a "steadfast refusal to acknowledge any mistakes" is to my eyes even more troubling. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Please check my statement with diffs here and decide if description by John Carter above was correct and objective. And let me be completely honest here, please. John Carter: (a) makes personal attacks on a regular basis and does not understands that his behavior was problematic; (b) he aggressively follows and demands sanctions with regard to every contributor he disagrees with. I am not sure he is fit to continue his work as an administrator. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. In his statement above JC tells: "that he stupidly thinks..." (about FG-2 case). Yes, I stupidly think that implicitly accusing editors who worked on Chinese subjects of collaboration with CIA (3rd paragraph from the bottom) was very bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Carter (last comment). If you still believe, as you apparently do, that I did not provide any diffs showing that your recent behavior was problematic (e.g. diffs here), this denial is significantly most troubling than anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Carcharoth has said [18] all that needs to be said on this point. -- llywrch (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the most troubling aspect is that John Carter relentlessly watches and follows all editors he perceives as troublemakers (now me too), and in doing so he frequently exercises poor judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that John Carter requests a reprimand on a relatively uninvolved participant in this process but steadfastly refuses to acknowledge any mistakes in his own behavior (even minor ones) is troubling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, the defensiveness, bad faith and personal attacks that I've seen from John Carter on the pages of this case, --accusing people of being delusional (paranoid) on multiple occasions here-- on Liz's talk page [19] and elsewhere [20] are deeply troubling. I can see how it would be very difficult to work constructively with an editor who behaves like this and its quite chilling for me to think of him as having access to Admin tools.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Administrators and civility

1) "Administrators are trusted members of the community, and expected to lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." From an Arbcom final decision.[21]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. The role of an administrator, beyond the technical use of tools, needs to be emphasized. Ignocrates (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree 100%. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable secondary sources are preferred on wikipedia

2) "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." (from WP:WPNOTRS)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Although, tertiary encyclopedic sources can be useful as a review for the introduction of topics, secondary sources have primacy on Wikipedia. There is no basis in current policy for the use of reference sources, such as religious dictionaries and encyclopedias, preferentially over reliable secondary sources, nor is there a basis for restricting the use of secondary sources to only those which have been previously cited by tertiary sources. Ignocrates (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

John Carter has a history of making personal attacks

1) John Carter, an administrator, has a history of stating on talk pages that editors he is in disagreement with are irrational, dishonest, need to seek outside help,etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The formatting of this section might need work. No real objections to this per se, but I believe there is no reason to single out one editor for such conduct, when there has been a rather long history of at best dubious conduct regarding several matters from many if not most of those who have been involved in these discussions for some time. Nishidani is probably the only one with a history here who I would exclude from that grouping. But the sometimes bizarre and dubious conduct which prompted such behavior would, I think reasonably, have to be taken into account as well. John Carter (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I regret to say, in response to Mwbw below, virtually everything he says about me can just as easily be applied to him, particularly including allegations of buying into a "conspiracy theory", and his own continuing apparent abuse of this arbitration to do little if anything but engage in attacks based on his own misunderstanding and misrepresentation of events of over a year ago. He also shows a rather ridiculous degree of cherry-picking in his own comments. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The material is still on her talk page. I note the workshop is, more or less, actually supposed to be closed now, not that anyone seems to care, and that I believe the overstatement Liz makes regarding my comments is just that, a rather remarkable overstatement. John Carter (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree per Keithbob, Liz & Mvbw. The breadth and depth of evidence for this behavior across articles, editors, and time is overwhelming. I recommend tightening up the wording to link this finding to WP:CIVIL and emphasize the higher standards expected of an administrator to lead by example. Ignocrates (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@My very best wishes, the original email is out of scope (May 2012); however, John Carter's detailed description of the threat on the Workshop talk page (which I never disclosed) is within the present scope. The point is that the threat to seek a site ban in arbitration was preexisting should I ever decide to return to active editing. Ignocrates (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Threat to seek a site ban in arbitration" against you is not really a threat. He could do it per rules. In fact, it is you who are seeking sanctions against JC right now... My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a fair point, although an admonishment hardly seems proportional to a site ban. Anyway I thought it was important to mention that it didn't arise based entirely on the proceedings here. Ignocrates (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Not the best wording but a less general, revised version of this proposal regarding civility and personal attacks might be appropriate based on what I've seen in evidence and on this page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oh yes, he certainly has [22], [23] [24]. But there are other, no less important problems: John Carter does not understand that his allegations about others being insane were inappropriate, defends his actions, does not apologize, and seeks sanctions with respect to previously uninvolved contributors who criticized him. His basic mode of response to criticism is attacking all critics. This all should be clear from his own statements on this page.My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Carter. You tell: "in response to Mwbw below, virtually everything he says about me can just as easily be applied to him". Any diffs proving my incivility/personal attacks, please? My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's unfortunate that despite John Carter's history of good contributions to Wikipedia, my association with him is reading his personal attacks on others and criticism of their work.

I must acknowledge though that John's disrespect is not directed towards everyone. For example, I have disagreed with John Carter (as is evidenced in my remarks in these proceedings) and he has never attacked me. So, it is not his general behavior, it is targeted towards specific individuals. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to take back these remarks. After I posted my comments on this case, John came to my Talk Page, basically called me incompetent and implied that I have forever ruined any chance I had at becoming an Admin (which is not a goal of mine). It's a shame as I do have respect for John in other work that he does as an Editor and Admin, despite my criticism here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Liz, after reading this post by John Carter on your talk page today, [25] it would seem to me that you have now been added to his 'attack list'.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keithbob, this was the first blow. I chalk it up to the stress of being a participant in an ARBCOM case that is coming down to the proposed decisions day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Liz, You are right, Arbcom can be hard on involved parties and stressful too. Well, the workshop is now closed and it's the Arbs turn. Let's see how they assess things.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• John Carter made a number of contentious claims about me on this very page without providing any supporting diffs. All thess claims count as personal attacks per WP:NPA. John Carter probably does not understand it, which makes the situation even worse.My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And, guess what, Mvbw, you didn't provide any diffs either, so you have no clear evidence to point to yourself. Apparently, you don't understand that yourself. Regarding your conduct issues, which all more or less relate to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 case, which you became involved in after the filing. And I cannot see any reasonable basis for you, who apparently did not believe the template at the top of the evidence pages applied to you, particularly including the material regarding scope and how non-parties should add comments, however much you choose to ignore that, calls into question even more your own involvement here. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• What this is all about?. Another personal attack by John Carter two days ago ("pathological") and an email threat to Ignocrates? My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Carter has a history of seeking to prevent use of reliable secondary sources in favor of tertiary sources

2) John Carter makes many efforts, some of them successful, to prevent use of reliable secondary sources in WP articles in favor of tertiary sources such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary or other reference works from years ago. John Carter also seeks to prevent use of works by respected scholars such as Bart Ehrman who he perceives as "fringe" based on little else than his own personal judgement. link

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. John Carter should review the policies on the use of secondary vs. tertiary sources. link There is a troubling attitude of "I don't like it, so why don't you fix it". Consensus opinions reached on RSN and FTN noticeboards in favor of the use of specific secondary sources are often ignored. link Ignocrates (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is, I regret to say, apparently solely based on a matter regarding which I and Smeat have disagreed in the past, visible on the talk page of Ret.Prof, my talk page, and others, about how Smeat apparently seems to consider Bart Ehrman, a person I generally hold in high esteem, not only a reliable source as per WP:RS, but apparently the most reliable source, even when the matter about which he is discussing, in this case apparently the Hebrew gospel hypothesis, is one which has more or less marginal support in the academic community. A review of Smeat's user talk page will indicate not only that there is reasonable cause to believe that such jumps to conclusions regarding every comment made by a given author must necessarily be counted as reliable, but that they also must more or less automatically be counted as meeting WP:WEIGHT requirements, which is another matter entirely. I also note that Smeat has provided no evidence of the claim that these conclusions are based solely on personal judgment, as is stated above. I also note that the lengthy articles in many specialist encyclopedias where the authors of articles are selected from specialists in the field are actually not necessarily counted as "tertiary," but as "secondary" summations, more or less equivalent to our own articles. I am sorry that Smeat still apparently has extreme difficulty understanding that WP:WEIGHT is also relevant. As I have indicated elsewhere, I believe that the best indicators of weight are reference sources, specifically those which are written to be reference sources. That does not mean that I believe those sources should necessarily be used as the sources in the articles themselves, as Smeat says above, but they are I believe generally counted as being the best indicators of weight. I regret that Smeat has apparently both misrepresented my own comments (or at least intentions in my comments) here, and has also jumped to conclusions regarding matters based on that jump to conclusions. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

John Carter should be admonished to remain civil

1) John Carter should be admonished to maintain civil and polite discussions even with editors with whom he is in disagreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree w this proposal and comment by Liz. There should be a discussion about whether an admin with this propensity should be entrusted with the tools. Ignocrates (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this is basic civility expected of all Editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Carter should be instructed to follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV

2) John Carter should be admonished to follow WP policies and guidelines with reference with WP:RS and WP:NPOV especially when seeking to provide guidance and instructions to other editors, and told that it is not a requirement of WP articles on religion that they follow articles on the same subjects in other encyclopedias or reference works.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed, particularly given John Carter's self-description as a "major watchdog" on article talk pages. Also relevant here is John Carter's statement on the Evidence talk page about confusing the concepts of WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. diff Ignocrates (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editorial focus

3) Editors who do not diversify their contributions outside their initial area of interest are expected to contribute neutrally without editing from their own point of view. In particular, they should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Interesting idea; I have done some copy-edits. Not sure this is quite right yet, though; second sentence may be redundant. Risker (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conflicts of interest

4) Editing with a conflict of interest ("COI") is discouraged but not prohibited. This is because conflicts of interest can lead to violation of policies such as neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Determining conflicts of interest

5) When determining possible cases of editing with a conflict of interest, editors must comply fully with the outing policy. Editors repeatedly seeking private information (either via on-wiki questioning or via off-wiki investigations) contribute to a hostile editing environment, which may rise to the level of harassment. Wikipedia's policy against harassment and outing takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Good faith actions and disruption

6) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions over a period of time are disruptive and detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

7) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Criticism and casting aspersions

8) 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 without evidence in an inappropriate location 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Very apropos, & relevant to this case. -- llywrch (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accuracy of sourcing

9) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

10) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

IIRC, I took this wording from the arbitration case on the dispute around the Franco-Mongol alliance article. If there is a better or more recent wording of this principle, I would be happy to use that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This phrase "those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support " is problematic. It's ambiguous. (support from who?) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we would need to specify who is giving the support. Is it the academic community or the WP community or consensus on the talk page? It's a good principle, I just think we need to plug that hole by being more specific.  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a different problem with statements like this (like I do with arguments about pseudoscience). There are times when the minority viewpoint is the subject of the article. There are some topics that, well, just have a minority believing they are true (like Phrenology, for example) or are just no longer believed by anyone to be true (like Flat Earth). I still think it is important to cover these subject but mention that these opinions aren't shared by "mainstream scholars". There are instances when the fringe or marginal are the main subject. I'm sorry if this opinion is incidental to the one you are making, I just see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE sometimes used in disputes to eliminate a diversity of opinion. There are many Editors who view mainstream/fringe divide as a white/black dichotomy but life is more complicated than that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, this principle may not be necessary. I do not think there is proof that any of participants willingly violated WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battlegrounds and bad blood

11) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conduct on arbitration pages

12) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fresh eyes

13) Wikipedia contributors are expected to pursue dispute resolution if local discussion alone does not yield consensus on a matter of content. This is particularly so when a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion. Insulating a content dispute from the views of uninvolved contributors for long periods can lead to the disputants' positions become entrenched. Therefore, unresolved questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—through a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reviewing practices

14) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harassment

15) It is prohibited by policy to disrupt an editor's participation on Wikipedia by making threats, making repeated unwanted contacts, making repeat personal attacks, engaging in intimidation, or posting personal information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Jurisdiction and conduct outside Wikipedia

16) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sanctions and circumstances

17) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conduct unbecoming an administrator

18) 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."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with all the principles. Well done. Ignocrates (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with all principles and findings so far. This is very serious work by drafting arbitrator. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, User:Carcharoth has done an excellent job outlining the principles for this decision.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed findings

Locus of the disputes

1) The locus of the disputes between Ignocrates (talk · contribs) and John Carter (talk · contribs) is the topic area and discussions related to the following articles: Ebionites, Ebionite Jewish Community (third deletion nomination), and Gospel of the Ebionites.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background finding to set the scene. I think these three articles are the primary location of the disputes. Corrections welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

I question the inclusion of the Ebionite Jewish Community, because there really wasn't that much dispute there. I also might propose phrasing the above to something similar to "early Jewish Christianity," which would include the Gospel of the Hebrews. Based on what I've seen of the reference sources on this topic, in some ways there may not be that much of a difference between at least some "Jewish Christians" and the Ebionites, in that neither has a lot of historical material upon which to base content and, at least possibly, that the EJC, about whom little if anything is really available, might not be as "Ebionite" as the name might imply. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. This grouping follows the historical path of the dispute. I have no problem with adding Gospel of the Hebrews to the locus of the disputes, but creating your own custom definition of "Jewish Christians" is not helpful to this case. If we are going to bring in secondary loci, we should also consider adding Oral gospel traditions. Ignocrates (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignocrates, I believe the template for Jewish-Christianity supports the contention that the Template:Jewish Christianity supports my contention, thus clearly indicating that it is not just my "custom definition", but the definition according to that template. While noting in your comment about what could not unreasonably be seen as an attempt at misdirection to avoid dealing with the fact that the content is clearly "Jewish Chrstian,, and that such conduct has I believe been noted from you before, the evidence of that template and the length of time all that content has been on that template supports the linkage of all that content. However, given that the articles which constitute according to Carcharoth's findings and the fact that questions have been raised about Gospel of the Hebrews in this context, I believe it reasonable to both include that in the locus, and to recognize the fact that the extant articles all relate to "early Jewish Christianity," and that the EJC article seems to be (based on what little I have ever been able to gather about it), some sort of attempt of revival of what the members/founder see or saw as early Jewish Christianity, specifically, so far as I can tell anyway, those aspects of Jewish Christianity which have been considered related to the Christianity of James the brother of Jesus. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Ignocrates

2) Ignocrates (talk · contribs) created his account on 13 July 2005. The account was renamed from Ovadyah to Ignocrates on 21 September 2011. Ignocrates is not an administrator. As of 8 October 2013, he had made 2386 article edits to 42 articles, with the top three edited articles being (number of edits in brackets): Gospel of the Ebionites (805); Ebionites (519); Gospel of the Hebrews (433).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background finding. 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) 03:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

John Carter

3) John Carter (talk · contribs) created his account on 26 January 2007. The account was renamed from Warlordjohncarter to John Carter on 11 January 2008. John Carter became an administrator on 14 January 2008 (request for adminship). John Carter is an experienced editor (articles created or edited) and is active in several religion-based WikiProjects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background finding. 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. Carcharoth (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, John. I had thought the talk page editing might be mostly banner placement and assessment, but wasn't sure. As the numbers are not part of the finding, that doesn't need modification. I have removed the bit about being a co-ordinator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

A few comments. One, the stats for article talk pages are grossly exaggerating the amount of effort involved, as many of those edits were just banner placement and assessment for a number of WikiProjects. A lot of the other edits were done in the task of creating other WikiProjects. And the status as a coordinator of the Christianity wikiproject is kind of dubious, because so few voted in that one election and there hasn't been a subsequent one for lack of interested parties. John Carter (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, just for what little it might be worth, the current edits, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles, can take up to a month apiece or more, like with the Eerdmans/Brill Encyclopedia of Christianity on that page. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Article histories

4) Partial context for the dispute between Ignocrates and John Carter is provided by the following condensed account of the article histories:

• The Ebionites article was created on 10 November 2002. A featured article candidacy (FAC) took place in April 2007 (version at time of promotion). The article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2007. A subsequent featured article review (FAR) took place from August to October 2007, (version at time of demotion). The article has been tagged with various tags since at least 2010, with a 'needs expert attention' tag added in March 2011.
• The Gospel of the Ebionites article started as a redirect (to Gospel of the Hebrews) on 18 February 2005; turned into an article on 2 May 2005; back to a redirect on 10 May 2005; back to an article on 2 June 2005. Appears to have been an article ever since. A featured article candidacy took place from April to June 2013 (version at time of promotion). The article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 14, 2013. A subsequent featured article review took place from July to August 2013 (version at time it was kept as a featured article).
• The Ebionite Jewish Community article has been discussed at articles for deletion three times: September 2006; May 2009; and April 2011.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Background finding 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). The conduct by the parties on some of these pages will also form further background in subsequent findings (briefly: 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) 04:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.
• June to September 2010: first talk page mediation at Talk:Ebionites/Mediation.
• 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.
• March to May 2011: second talk page mediation at Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2 (archive).
• September 2013: Ebionites 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). Filed 4 September 2013 by Ignocrates (previously Ovadyah).

Comment by Arbitrators:

A final background finding. 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, though corrections and suggestions are welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive link added. Carcharoth (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

Also, Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2/Archive 1 which contains the opening statements and completed sections. Ignocrates (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant to background is that the involved parties to Ebionites 2 arbitration have not touched the Ebionites article or talk page in over two years (June 2011) other than John Carter. Ignocrates (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also relevant is, as Carcharoth pointed out above in his questions to Ignocrates, Ignocrates has to this date has edited almost exclusively within the comparatively small range of topics regarding early Jewish Christianity, including the obviously closely related Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Hebrews. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of attempts at dispute resolution on Gospel of the Ebionites per request:

Talk RfC: User talk:Llywrch/Archive13#GEbi FAR Ignocrates (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Informal mediation: User talk:Keilana/Archive15#Requesting mediation help Ignocrates (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk RfC: User talk:Nishidani#Request for a review Ignocrates (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

XT/N: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard/Archive 8#GEbi FAR Ignocrates (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

DR/N: WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 75#Gospel of the Ebionites Ignocrates (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk RfC: User talk:In ictu oculi/Archive 2013#Boismard Ignocrates (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk RfC: User talk:Nishidani#Request for a review Ignocrates (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV/N: WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 41#Gospel of the Ebionites Ignocrates (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

List of my attempts at dispute resolution in chronological order on GEbi article. Ignocrates (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

May 2012 retirement of Ignocrates

5) On 4 May 2012, Ignocrates announced his intent to retire from editing Wikipedia ([26]). 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).

Comment by Arbitrators:

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) 01:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

May 2012 e-mail exchange

7) The May 2012 e-mail exchange between John Carter and Ignocrates has been referred to directly and indirectly a number of times since by John Carter: "I believe it would be most reasonable for you to see the full exchange between Ignocrates and I, which consisted of two messages from me, and one from him, particularly considering the comment from him accused me of being some sort of supernatural entity ... Please consider this an offer to forward to you the entirety of the correspondence between Iggy and I, particularly the frankly inexcusable accusations in his own e-mail which he sent in response." (16 December 2012, User talk:Pass a Method); "But, as someone who has already been described, laughably, as Satan's stupider younger brother" (28 February 2013, User talk:Pass a Method); "First, I am more than willing to send you the entirety of the e-mail exchange between Ignocrates and myself, which consisted of three e-mails total" (4 March 2013, User talk:Jayjg); "I will say that there is no reason for those of us who have been called the devil's stupider younger brother and the like to ever go out of their way to try to get you to perhaps learn how to act like a mature, rational adult" (25 July 2013, User talk:Ret.Prof). It has also been referred to indirectly by Ignocrates, who collected a series of diffs in his user talk page archives here (these diffs were added directly to the archive page - see the diffs here that are not marked archive, some marked LOL). The matter of these e-mails came up in the arbitration case resulting in John Carter forwarding the e-mails in question, with the background discussed in this thread on the workshop page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

FWIW, I have as a someone involved in WikiProject Editor Retention fairly regularly been involved in e-mail contact with editors upon their apparent retirement, and in at least one case, Lung salad, the response from him was forwarded to ArbCom because the information he included about himself rather clearly demonstrated that he had been engaging in COI editing during almost his entire history of editing. As such, although I agree that there is some cause to question my judgment in contacting this retiree, I also believe that there is some reason to believe that even in this case it might have helped get an editor to return, if in this case only because of it increasing the level of anger felt by someone who has, at least to my eyes, long demonstrated a rather noticable belief in his own superiority. So, in a sense, I have to agree that my contacting him might have, ultimately, been one of the reasons for his later return, something I regret to say, in this case, at least in my opinion, might not have been particularly in the best interests of the project. John Carter (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

Question: So, John, your method of reaching out to a retired editor to get them to consider returning to Wikipedia was to increase their anger and provoke a response? That seems like a questionable strategy, full of pitfalls and unlikely to produce positive results. I can't believe it's an approach endorsed by WER. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignocrates has made personal attacks

8) Ignocrates has made personal attacks against John Carter: "I see my stalker Johnny jack-hole is back to make my joy complete" (16 June 2013, User talk:Ignocrates) and "Face it John Carter, you are synonymous with WP:Randy from Boise - the archetypal editor who literally knows nothing about the subject - yet you continue to pick at a point relentlessly that can be rather easily be resolved in multiple ways that would receive majority support." (2 September 2013, User talk:PiCo). When questioned during this case about the first example, Ignocrates stated that he: "added it to my talk page as a test to see if John Carter was still stalking me." (see diff. for full response).

Comment by Arbitrators:

The second comment may be due to frustration, but the first is not acceptable. Neither is 'testing' to see if someone is watching you. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

Actually, the second was, given some review of the history, more or less obviously an attempt to indicate he knew of such matters before. I think of review of my own edit history, will indicate that I think Cailil at AE or ANI or elsewhere made reference to that page in a discussion in which I was taking part, and that Ignocrates, in his, well, "stalking", saw it and may have felt the need to show off his apparent knowledge of guidelines and policies, which has repeatedly been questioned, and also include a dig at someone else being a "hick," which someone who was a member of a non-notable religious group from Huntsville, Tennessee, might be particularly happy to throw at someone else. John Carter (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Carcharoth, I see your point and acknowledge that what I did was wrong. I apologize for my mistake. Ignocrates (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

John Carter has made personal attacks

9) John Carter has made personal attacks against Ignocrates during the arbitration case: "crossed the line of basic sanity" and "paranoic assertion" (6 October 2013); "delusional paranoia" (6 October 2013). John Carter has also made similar claims about others: "frankly paranoic" and "paranoic claim" (13 October 2013). The latter assertion referred to an unsigned comment that was later signed, with John Carter updating his comment here. This pattern of attacks dates back to before the arbitration case: "dishonest obsessive misrepresentation" ... "delusional self-aggrandizement and almost paranoic overreaction" ... "general stupidity" ... "hysterical" (25 July 2013); "paranoid bullshit" (11 August 2013); "pathological self-absorption" (11 August 2013).

Comment by Arbitrators:

The pattern of comments is consistent, and these are clear personal attacks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

John Carter's conduct at the July 2013 featured article review

10) At the featured article review for Gospel of the Ebionites (July 2013, nominated for review by John Carter), one of the delegates for that review process asked John to: "please refrain from personal and behavioural commentary"; response; "the editor of this article doesn't trust the rest of wikipedia"; 'hysterical assumptions' (edit summary); comment removed by delegate; comment removed by delegate. One comment that remained was "And, unfortunately, I have very strong reason to believe that the article has already been possibly taken over by one religious nut, but that is probably best handled in the request for arbitration regarding that editor's conduct which I intend to file in the next week or so".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Laying out the context of what happened at the FAR. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

I find the conclusion regarding the linkage of the two events questionable. Evidence on the evidence page User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence makes it clear that gathering all the material relating to the sometimes, even on these arbitration pages, fairly transparent misstaement of facts made by Ignocrates, sometimes with little or no reason, is and has been for some time grounds for an arbitration request, and that it is obvious from the amount of time it took to develop that page, which I believe should be allowed to remain even after this arbitration closes, makes it obvious that the amount of time it took to gather it all was much more than one week. While I acknowledge reviewing the whole history of at best dubious conduct of Ignocrates/Ovadyah did, in fact, serve to unfortunately intensify the disgust for his conduct which had already been there, and I regret that, I believe it somewhat understandable under the circumstances. John Carter (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it is also extremely relevant that the review was started because the FA seemed to fail to reflect the existing academic consensus on the topic, as per multiple recent independent reliable reference sources. I believe it is extremely relevant that, frankly, had it not been for one admin who according to his own statements here and elsewhere returned to editing for the specific purpose of doing that review, and that individual's statements here and elsewhere which reflect perhaps that in his eyes losing an editor might perhaps be more important than encyclopedic quality, there is a perhaps real chance that the article would never have been FA in the first place. John Carter (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Llwyrch: Yes, I am. Your statements in this arbitration that you returned to active editing to do this FAR, and that you have stated in this arbitration that you don't want to see valuable editors lost, including one who has, per Carcharoth's statistics, 75% or so of his total mainspace edits in three articles, all of which directly relate to a non-notable religious group with which he was at least formerly a member, is I believe relevant. And, considering that basically the first (and among the most highly regarded) reference sources I found on that topic provided significant reason to question the neutrality and weight of material in the article, yes, I am. I wish that were not the case, but I believe that is relevant, particularly including your comments here about your own recent history. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yet, despite the stated "focus on the issues, not the people," you apparently missed the content in at least three of the most higly regarded reference sources of recent years, including the Anchor, Oxford, and other reference sources, which pointed out significant differences in their comparatively short content and that of this article. The fact that you find the comments I made above, which, at least regarding you, are all more or less paraphrases of your own comments here, I guess means you find your own comments regarding your own involvement here, on which they were based, "insulting & offensive"? John Carter (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

John Carter, are you talking about me? -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. My intentional goals in editting Wikipedia is currently for my own enjoyment & relaxation.
2. I had left because it had stopped being fun. When I worked on this article with Ignocrates, I found it fun once again. And I have since worked with other editors on different topics who have also made it fun.
3. I focus on the issues, not the people. I have benefitted more that way.
4. I admit I make mistakes, & act in ignorance. But I act in good faith, & work towards specifics so that what I have done right is not accidentally lost by correcting or deleting what is wrong.
5. I found John Carter's criticism of this article vague & unhelpful, so any faults he claims are there I could not evaluate & address.
6. I have been reluctant to be involved in this dispute is that I saw no benefit from it. On the one hand, I sincerely believe that John Carter has done some valuable work here; on the other, Ignocrates did good work on this article. If I side with one -- either John or ignocrates -- I know the other will likely quit the project. And were I to intervene with my usual social clumsiness, I'd probably drive both away, & Wikipedia will end up the poorer for it.
7. I find John Carter's accusations about me insulting & offensive. -- llywrch (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watchdogs and constructive discussions

11) John Carter was questioned in this arbitration case about a statement he made at the workshop about editors "trying to get an article up to FA while a major watchdog on them is absent". In his response, John Carter stated that: "The phrasing there on my part was very poor, and I regret to say that over the years dealing with the comments of others I acknowledge that my temper can, and particularly sometimes around Ignocrates does, get the best of me." (see diff. for full response). Related to this, the discussion between John Carter and others in the collapsed section at the July 2013 featured article review indicates that constructive discussion is possible when John Carter avoids engaging with or commenting on Ignocrates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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. I don't intend to present any more findings about individual conduct (possibly some about content disagreements to reiterate the venues to use for resolution of those), but will put up a proposal for a mutual interaction ban tomorrow. Please hold off on discussion of that until it is posted. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by parties:

First, I regret that what seems to me one misstatement by someone who has a history of making at least somewhat joking overstatements, like my comments on my user name at times, in this case seems to be being taken literally in an instance in which he almost certainly (although, admittedly, I can't remember specifically at this point), possibly probably indulging (perhaps incorrectly) in overstatement at the time. Also, I have a question: At this time, is the i-ban the limit of the proposed remedies? I can reasonably see several others being considered. John Carter (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by others:

• "...constructive discussion is possible when John Carter avoids engaging with or commenting on Ignocrates."

Over the past four months, my experience is that John acts civilly on Wiki-related pages (at ARBCOM, WikiProject Christianity, at RfAs, etc.). It's on User Talk Pages and Article Talk Pages where the gloves come off, so to speak. And since Ignocrates and John do not post on each other's Talk Pages (a wise move), this dispute has spilled over to other Editors' Talk Pages.

I don't have the testimonies to prove my opinion but I believe there would be more Editors participating in this ARBCOM case but the individuals just do not want to engage with it and wish to keep their distance from this feud. Several other parties who were involved have simply retired from editing and at least one, User:Ret.Prof (diff), was, I believe, a casualty of this dispute as well. I realize that this Editor is not a party to this case but Carcharoth brings up John's interactions with others besides Ignocrates so I think this example is a valid interaction to bring to your attention. Reading it again just makes my jaw drop, because an Editor of 5+ years announces this feud has led to his retirement from WP and then the argument continues, at length, without his participation and with no reference to his concerns. This is not how you retain an Editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, John Carter was regularly incivil and fired unsubstantiated accusations with regard to many editors, not only Ignocrates. This had happen during this case (as one can see on this page), as well as during one of the previous arbitration cases I commented about. Yes, it looks like at least one editor has retired because of interaction with John Carter (this also appears in Evidence). However, drafting arbitrator apparently decided to limit this case only to interactions between John Carter and Ignocrates... My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize if this encounter was already presented in the evidence phase. I believe it is relevant to this particular point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh no, it is fine to bring anything from Evidence here if needed. I think you made a very good point. If a long-term contributor was forced to retire by John Carter (and this is provable - I do not really know), this alone may be a reason for sanctions. And the email exchange (above) does look to me as an attempt by John Carter to force Ignocrates from the project, which possibly makes this a trend. My very best wishes (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if Ret.Prof was "forced to retire" but he was belittled and his judgment continually called into question. He was a mild-mannered user and he just didn't want to edit in an continually adversarial environment. He wasn't blocked or banned, WP was no longer a hospitable place for him any longer. But maybe that is a distinction that, in the end, doesn't matter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that he was psychologically bullied to the point of being unable to function on Wikipedia. Ignocrates (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Liz, indeed, judging from discussion you linked to, there was a highly hostile atmosphere in this area, perhaps created by several people, but the most active of them was definitely John Carter. In such cases Arbs usually issue topic bans... My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Liz,

• this dancing on the grave of a 5yr editor who has just been driven away is deeply concerning. "Ret.Prof., as I have already noted there, your own misuse of the Christianity noticeboard for soapboxing is yet another in a comparatively long line of problematic edits you have been warned about in the past repeatedly.....I see no particular need for any further warnings regarding your sometimes very dubious conduct"
• But combined with JC's post on an uninvolved editor's user page explaining how he drives editors off the project, without violating policy is absolutely chilling. "The only thing I can add is that I have, on a few occasions, found ways to be really, really venomously condescending in a polite way. Basically, there are a few times when I have managed to say, basically, "people who belief this need to spend several days (at least several days initially, anyway) in one of the hospitals full of very polite, positive people with long white coats to determine just how many medications they really need, and find some way to manage to take them all within the required medication period. In some cases, this might require them being on constant IV's of medications." Notice that there was no directly "personal" comment involved. Granted, it doesn't work as often as I would like, but in at least one or two cases those SPA POV pushers have retired. Yeah, there still are a lot of people I personally honestly consider total idiots editing around here. I am considering just what to do with one of them right now. "
• Ignocrates has engaged in some bad behavior so an interaction ban for both is in order. However, I think the Committee should consider for JC: 1) a desysop 2) topic ban 3) a 6 month or indef WP block or ban.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the interest of clarity, Pass a Method identified himself as the editor mentioned above ("I am considering just what to do with one of them right now."). link Ignocrates (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template

12) {text of proposed finding}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: