This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Please note the following for this case: This is not a re-opening of the Ebionites 2 request/case from March 2011. The initial case scope is limited to conduct within the past year. Please do not post any evidence or commentary which relates events before September 2012. Evidence submission for this case has closed. Please do not submit further evidence, it will be removed.

I have asked the clerk for this arbitration, Callanecc, for some temporary leeway on the length of evidence, as I previously explained here. Once I strip out the principles, the total words will fall below the 1000 limit. I want them in front of me temporarily so I can stare at them while I put the arguments and evidence into final form. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, wouldn't linking to prior versions of the evidence page as a means of circumventing the length requirement be considered an abuse of process? diff That is apparently being done and may require some adjustments. Ignocrates (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer both your questions here: some temporary leeway on evidence length is OK. As the arbitrator who has volunteered to draft this case, I intend to review the evidence submitted so far at the end of this coming weekend, and give directions on how helpful the evidence is, and ways to shorten/improve the evidence based on my review at that point. This will help focus things and hopefully avoided wasted effort. Unfortunately I won't be around between now and then, so the best thing for you both to do is to keep things as short and concise as you can, and not let things descend into a back-and-forth between you two. In my absence, please follow instructions given by the clerks or other arbs. Best for now to focus on your own arguments, and not be drawn into rebuttals of what others have said. I will give some time later for rebuttals. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Arbs, are we allowed to show evidence of interactions with uninvolved 3rd parties if those interactions have nothing directly to do with the other party named in this two-person case? Ignocrates (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked for clarification. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My view (depending on what clarification Callanecc receives from other arbs or clerks) is that it is best to keep the focus purely on interactions between the two of you (Ignocrates and John Carter) for now. Once the extent of that is clear, we can then consider widening the scope if needed. So "possibly, but not now". Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. The scope is currently not being limited to interactions between the two named parties. diff Ignocrates (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I informed the clerk for this arbitration, Callanecc, that the restriction placed on the scope limiting evidence to the past 12 months is being violated. Ignocrates (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no such violation. I see presentation of evidence which happened over a year ago which directly relates to one of your own points of evidence, and, on that basis, I believe it falls within the parameters of discussion. You yourself refer to this in your at this time extant section "Alleging a conspiracy among editors and with an outside religious group to push a POV". Quoting your comment as it now stands, "John Carter has demonstrated a battleground mentality by making unsupported accusations of biased editing based on an assumed religious affiliation. He poisoned the well by making unsubstantiated claims of collusion with other editors as well as a religious group and the group’s leader, including an attempt to "out" my personal religious beliefs.' Well, that link supports the "accusation," and thus reasonably merits inclusion because it pretty clearly indicates your own allegation is inaccurate. And, yes, I believe it reasonable to indicate that misstatements of fact in the evidence section are in fact misstatements of fact. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are in arbitration, not on some user's talk page. Please direct your comments and queries to the clerk or the Committee. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I was also directly responding to your own allegations, therefore, it seemed reasonable to indicate as much. Also, honestly, considering you say in your own comment that you posted the matter on the ArbCom clerk's page, honestly, if you were to follow your the rules you yourself seek to impose, your own comment starting this thread might well qualify as basically redundant, considering that they would respond. If one is going to attempt to dictate the conduct of others, would it not make sense if they followed the rules they seek to impose themselves? The talk page is for talking about the evidence, and I responded directly to your allegations of misuse with at least one piece of evidence which can be seen as repudiating your allegation, and indicating here that the evidence was added for the purpose of repudiating the allegation submitted in evidence. That is, I believe, a reasonable use of talk pages, although I am not sure posturing comments necessarily are. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting the scope to the past 12 months is intended to: (a) keep the scope manageable; and (b) to avoid stirring up old grievances. I intend at the beginning of next week to prepare some notes on the background to this, which will cover some of what happened prior to the last 12 months, starting from the original Ebionites case and working forward, but I don't want the two of you rehashing all that. This will be intended as a brief summary and background material only. I know it may be difficult, but please do keep to the initial scope. I will also, after reviewing the evidence posted by the end of this weekend, have some questions for you both which should help focus matters. As I said above, please focus on your own arguments and not those of others. I will give time for rebuttals later. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and, although no one has said this yet, you seem to be the driving factor in this arbitration being accepted, and I think you deserve some thanks for that. However, honestly, I still believe it reasonable to indicate misstatements of fact, or what others might call more bluntly "lying," in the evidence presented as well. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not supposed to answer back to the "involved" parties on the evidence page, I guess, I hope it is OK to make a comment here as to what is said about my "evidence" there. John Carter says "The specific discussion which got Smeat involved was my saying Ehrman is not considered a "fringe"y source for his recent comments regarding the oral gospel tradition, an idea which, while acknowledged, has gotten little real support in the academic community beyond him and a few others". Doesn't he mean Ehrman is considered a "fringe-y" source? (in John Carter's opinion, of course). And he also says "Smeat also regularly ended the comments defending Ehrman with a statement that he is a NYT best selling author". Once. I did that once, nor "regularly" and what I said was that writing NYT bestsellers does not disqualify someone from being a WP:RS, as John Carter seemed to think.Smeat75 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental comment: Smeat75, we went through the same thing with James Tabor in mediation 2. To this day, John Carter refuses to acknowledge that Tabor is a reliable source. diff He recently blanked an entire section of reliably sourced content in the Ebionites article containing Tabor as a source, among others. diff Ignocrates (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to review the evidence submitted so far, and will comment on this talk page after that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I'm wondering whether maybe extending the evidence phase beyond the first, depending on when the comments are finished, might not be inappropriate. Regarding the blanking of content, it seems once again Ignocrates is displaying a remarkable inability to remember even his own history here. The previous discussion regarding Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty, on the talk page of Ebionites and elsewhere, was rather clearly that the work is very "fringey." Ignocrates' regular inability to remember his own history is apparently becoming a very serious and repeated problem. John Carter (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, I think we should stick to the timetable you established and be prepared to conclude the evidence gathering phase on October 1. Special pleading for delays serves no useful purpose and puts additional demands on everyone's time. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was my assumption that the questions would qualify as "evidence," and that, on that basis, submitting responses to those questions would qualify in the evidence phase. While I note the almost knee-jerk opposition to Ignocrates to anything, I think it worth noting that circumstances more or less limit my involvement severely on Monday-Wednesday, the period during which the close takes place. My proposal was, basically, just to take that into account. Considering those "questions", if they are asked, are probably not going to be asked today in time for me to respond today, I would hope that the time allotted to respond to them might be extended to Friday of this week, which would allow me to review the questions and gather together a response. Also, per the comments above, Ignocrates has yet to demonstrated that the material from Tabor relevant to the articles does not qualify as Fringe, which was why it was removed, and, it is I believe worth noting, that in his comment above he once again seems to indicate that isn't relevant, and also misstate the realities in leading ways which do not deal or even address many of the real issues involved. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board with an extension until Friday, as long as we stay on task. Everyone else has time commitments to manage too. Ignocrates (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the general thrust of the evidence submitted so far, and from the diffs provided I should be able to locate the full discussions relating to those diffs (to give them context), i.e. links to talk page archives of the full discussions and/or page history links to current discussions (ones not yet archived), plus dates for the links and discussions. It would help if those presenting evidence provided those links as well - please ask if you need help doing that.

On my review so far, what I see so far is plenty of allegations arising from, and evidence of, disagreements and arguments between the two of you (John Carter and Ignocrates), mostly on article talk pages. The motivations and underlying reasons for such persistent disagreements, however, are not something that can be easily drawn out from a series of diffs. What I intend to do after looking through this some more is ask both of you some questions on the workshop page in the section reserved for that. I will post those questions in a few days time, along with a summary of the background leading up to this case.

What I am also looking for is evidence that the two of you are able to work together productively (please go as far back as needed to answer this) - is there any evidence for that? I am also looking for is evidence of either or both of you being able to work productively with other editors, both on this and other topics. Overall, I'm looking to answer the question of whether these issues are limited just to this topic area, to the interactions between the two of you, or a combination of both. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links added to Evidence per your request. Ignocrates (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Blueboar to comment on a similar incident that happened earlier this year here. Ignocrates (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment to give. I don't think the "incident" that I was involved with (a minor disagreement on on an unrelated page), has any baring on this arbitration. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, it seems to me that what you are asking for in the preliminary comments is some understanding of the tipping point of this conflict between John Carter and myself. There was already an edit conflict underway on the Ebionites article between John Carter and Michael Price in May 2010, which I was trying to mediate. I think my entry point into that dispute can be narrowed down to this diff and the conversation around it link. This is where, imo, John Carter made this conflict personal and no longer only about sources. Ignocrates (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is so completely ridiculous it is hard to know where to start, and contains I believe further evidence of either the abject dishonesty of that editor, or a really miserable ability to remember anything, which I believe might certainly related to his basic WP:COMPETENCE. I believe the material in the first arbitration will make it clear that Ovadyah/Ignocrates left a message at the Christianity WikiProject talk page, and that was my first involvement, back in 2007, when the first Ebionites arbitration took place [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites here]. His disagreement with Michael was the cause of that request. I think that this further evidence of Ignocrates' continuing to try to warp reality to make it more easily fit into what seems to me a delusionally high opinion of hismself. I also believe that it was clearly personal to Ovadyah/Ignocrates from the very beginning of his editing, considering he has edited little if anything outside of the Ebionite subject field, with which he has clear rather transparent biases. And I believe his long-standing support of fringe sources which seem to among the few to support the beliefs of the non-notable EJC is clear evidence that it has never been anything but personal to him. Also, I would ask anyone to review the recent history of the Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites page and see how clearly Ignocrates seems to refuse to even address matters relating to sources. At least from the time he requested my desysoping, I believe it has been clear that his motivations in contact with me have been almost exclusively driven by his own personal biases. But, FWIW, I acknowledge that I have misused the phrase RS when I should have used fringe more than once. If that occasional misuse of words is considered actionable, I have made it clear from the time I became an admin that I would revoke my adminship if another admin said they saw sufficient cause, and all the members of ArbCom are admins,, so they all qualify. If they were to wish to do so on their own, without consulting me in advance, under the circumstances, that would be acceptable as well. And, honestly, I find it rather amusing that Ignocrates, of all people, someone who rarely if ever directly addresses the concerns of others, sees himself fit to moderate anything. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those who have submitted evidence so far. The evidence phase is technically closed now, so if anyone wants to submit evidence they should ask first. Above, I said I would be asking questions of the parties. That will be delayed until this weekend, at which point I hope to put up some proposals on the workshop page. I see some have started drafting their own proposals as well, so comments and further proposals are best left over there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply wish to point out that my schedule will be the same next week, and that responding on Monday-Wednesday would be problematic. Therefore, I would hope that the time to respond to any questions filed late this weekend, such that I cannot respond to them over the weekend, be perhaps extended to next Thursday for Friday as well. While noting the attempt at continuing efforts at one-upsmanship and similar behavior in Ignocrates' comment above responding to my earlier request in this matter, it is really more than a little difficult to have either the time or energy to devote to matters such as this immediately before or after a 12 hour shift, or, in some cases, longer, when members of the next shift don't show up as they're supposed to and/or don't give much notice. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be a problem to extend the case to give the time needed to answer questions. Let's sort that out when we get to that stage. One question you could both consider right now is what you both want out of this arbitration case. That is in part what the Workshop page is for, for you both to propose what you see as the best way to resolve this dispute with a binding result. Carcharoth (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's slow down here. (i) My very best wishes, if you want to submit evidence, please ask first. Please note that expanding the scope is unlikely to be done without good reason. Are you part of the disputes between these two or not, or are you trying to bring a separate dispute into this case? (ii) John Carter, please don't respond to off-topic matters. The current scope is limited to the dispute between you and Ignocrates. I would like to keep it that way unless there is good reason to expand the scope. Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not check arbitration pages lately and missed deadline and specific requirements for the case. I thought my diffs are relevant to the case (please see explanations above), however if they are not, it should not be a problem to ignore. No, I am completely uninvolved in this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, you have never dealt with this content, and that the only apparent purpose of your input at all is to perpetrate a grudge which you have apparently been carrying for over a year, and that you somehow seem to believe that your own conclusions regarding those older matters, some of which are at best dubious themselves, are of such overwhelming importance that you feel yourself free to continue to use this arbitration to continue to harass individuals with whom you had a disagreement you apparently cannot or will not let go of. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by John Carter

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.

Actually, Johnh Carter has long-term problems with civility in other areas as well. For example, he tells: "if you had actually read most any of the books in the field, you would know that Xinhua had repeatedly mentioned..."[9]. And he is telling this to Homunculus who is well familiar with Chinese affairs! Even I know that Xinhua is not an RS on the matter in question. Or here: I have said elsewhere that there is an old joke about how the CIA and State department employ some of our best contributors on international affairs. Nothing I have seen in the recent history of the articles as per the discussion leads me to think that might not be the case here, although I make no specific statements about specific editors. This is casting aspirations at best.

Honestly, no it isn't, because I can say honestly that was not my intention when making that comment over a year ago. Therefore, the above comment itself seems to me to be not only once again seeking to introduce material over a year old, but also to be jumping to conclusions which are not actually true, and are also, honestly, not particularly well supported by the evidence. I am sorry that Mvbw does not seem to have much of an understanding of time, specifically including the length of one year, and that he seems to believe that it is reasonable to use this page as a form of alternate-evidence-presentation, which is not its purpose. This inability to drop old grudges, and to misuse the pages of this arbitration for discussion of old, closed matters not directly related to it, is to my eyes even more clearly casting aspersions, and in this case unfounded aspersions, than the material he introduced himself. He himself clearly cannot or will not abide by even the most expressly stated guidelines for this arbitration, and seems intent on using talk pages to continue his own long standing grudge regarding matters which were, clearly, already known to arbitrators. I have every reason to believe that this continuing refusal to use these talk pages to continue an old, now long-standing (over a year) grudge, rather clearly qualifies as harassment, and I believe it not unreasonable to request the arbitrators to note it as such. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignocrates is a reasonable contributor

I made this comment [10] on talk page of Ignocrates, with a reference to a biting satire by Gogol. Rather than claiming that my comment was inappropriate (which it well could be), Ignocrates responded this, demonstrating that he is very much capable to constructively interact with others, even under the duress of arbitration.

Hence, I would suggest 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 be able to bring Ignocrates to WP:AE claiming that Ignocrates violated I-ban by editing articles which were previously edited or discussed by John Carter (unnecessary drama).

If you think these diffs might be helpful for arbitrators, please move them to main Evidence page? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed these diffs, and while conduct during arbitration by all parties is and will be taken into account, it would be best not to expand the scope of the case to include that as formal evidence right now (otherwise it would keep getting added to as the case goes on, in a never-ending spiral). Ditto for the interactions with another editor. So please leave this evidence here and don't add further to it. If you want to make a request to add more evidence, please describe the scope and nature of the evidence before asking. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this is entirely up to you. However, if people can not control themselves even during arbitration, this is very bad sign. Therefore, I still believe this is an important piece of evidence, possibly more important than others. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it seems to me that the person who has demonstrated the least ability to control themselves in this matter is My very best wishes himself, and I believe his refusal to abide by any of the regulations of this arbitration is probably the most important evidence and about the only trustworthy evidence he is probably able to present. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this now went to the phase of pure wikidrama and therefore will not respond to this, especially since this is something drafting arbitrator asked about [11]. There is plenty of material for Arbs to examine on this page.My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that the comment you link to is clearly after the fact, and that in no way does the comment you linked to really support the assertion that the drafting arbitrator "asked about it". The fact that you seem to have misrepresented Carcharoth's own statement above is certainly further evidence which can be considered regarding the behavior of individuals in this arbitration. So while I agree that just about everything you have done in this arbitration is pure wikidrama of the type you linked to, I also believe that there is more than sufficient cause for at least consideration of some sort of ArbCom statement against it. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a diff to instruction by Carcharoth, and I think he was unequivocal about this. I also provided all other supporting diffs above about recent and ungoing personal attacks [12] [13]. If you still did not apologize to Ignocrates and insist that declaring another contributor insane was OK, defense rests.My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that, hopefully, after reading the rules, finally, you continued to believe that your opinion matters more than those rules speaks volumes about you. I believe that a review by the arbitrators of your own actions on these pages, including violations of the stated rules at the top of these pages from the very beginning of your involvement, your own jumping to conclusions about my motivations in citing a report from Xinhua which is itself the source used by virtually every western source I have encountered regarding a matter which they considered significant enough to mention in their works, although, apparently, you didn't bother to realize that in your own poorly judged jump to conclusions, and your own insistence on misrepresenting something you apparently understood at best poorly from the beginning is more than sufficient cause for you to be, basically, reprimanded for continuing to beat the dead horse to the point that it is now just a skeleton. Regarding your further perjorative comments about how what I believe is an honest statement of my opinion of Ignocrates' pathology, I was unaware that presenting a statement of opinion was in and of itself not permitted, and, certainly, you have done almost nothing else yourself. Your own conduct itself, including the comment above, and the dare I say stupidly arrogant demand of withdrawal of a statement of opinion made about an editor after years of dealing with him, is I believe something that the arbitrators will have to consider as well. So, yes, please take a rest from beating the bones of the dead horse. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, can diffs from Ret.Prof's user talk page of John Carter commenting to Ret.Prof about me (or vice versa) be included as evidence? Ret.Prof isn't here to speak for himself; however, an uninvolved editor could go through the record and report any relevant evidence from the past 12 months on his behalf. Ignocrates (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And they should also review the rather lengthy history of the above editor on such talk pages, where he rather regularly has made his trademark aspersions of others. Personally, I have to say that Ret. Prof would certainly be capable of speaking for himself, but has chosen not do by being inactive. That is his choice. And, if we are going to review the behavior of editors not here, I also believe it would be extremely relevant to review the history of interactions between the banned User:Lung salad and Ignocrates. An e-mail had been forwarded by me to ArbCom from that party. Elen received it, and I believe the statements in it, and the history of interaction of that editor with others here, mighty also be relevant. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, I contacted Ret.Prof by email. He is ok with me submitting evidence on his behalf. As soon as I get the green light from you, I would like to do that. Ignocrates (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I would have serious reservations about allowing introduction of additional material three days before the scheduled time for the closing of the workshop. On that basis, if there is reasonable cause for such input, I believe it would be reasonable to request a second arbitration based on that evidence, rather than force us to extend by at least another week or more the evidence section and the workshop as well as the conclusion. Also, if there is permitted to be more evidence, in all honesty, I believe it would be reasonable to allow at least several days for other editors to ensure that the full spectrum of relevant evidence regarding that user is allowed to be presented. However, honestly, I cannot believe that it would make sense, particularly this late in the game, to allow such input in this case, which as it stands is only days away from the decision stage. Also, I believe, under the circumstances, that it would not be unreasonable for the e-mails themselves to be directly forwarded to ArbCom, so that they can see the exact nature of the communications involved, and make judgment on those comments as well, if they believe such to be called for. It might also be reasonable to allow all those involved to see some sort of summary of the content of those e-mails, given the I think not unreasonable question as to whether they might be some dubious commentary in them from either party that Ignocrates might perhaps prejudicially edit out. Particularly considering Ret.Prof is not now under any sort of administrative sanctions, there is no reason for him to have to have someone else present the information for him, as he could freely do so himself. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to the above:

• (1) Ignocrates, no, you may not present evidence on behalf of User:Ret.Prof. This is a case about the dispute between you and John Carter. I've been reading through some of the past history here (and there is a lot of it), and I can see where Ret.Prof comes into it, but the reason the scope for evidence presentation was limited to the past 12 months was because trying to deal with everything that happened over the past 6 years would take too long. The hope was that you would both focus on just the past 12 months, but it seems that both of you are more interested in bringing up old grievances. If you both want to argue over what happened between you two and others going back years, we will be here until Christmas. You both need to take a step back and wait for us to work out the best way forward at this point.
• (2) John Carter, there will be no need to ask to see any e-mail correspondence, as I've told Ignocrates that he may not present evidence on behalf of other users. Users are free to e-mail and correspond with each other - though I share your concerns about such communications, all we can do is ask that people be open about such communications. If Ret.Prof wants to be a party to this case, he (not Ignocrates or anyone else) can request that, but that is not likely to be granted at this stage. Mainly because I am busy making notes on a proposed decision.

I do still have those questions to ask you both. I apologise for the delay in that, but I too have had very little spare time this week. I will have those questions up later tonight. Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor has stated that he returned to editing based on a request he received from Ignocrates. On that basis, I believe it not unreasonable to request of him a clear statement of the nature of that contact, preferably through comments here, but I suppose another way for the information to be presented would be through his forwarding any correspondence he may have received, or perhaps a statement to ArbCom through e-mail, of any other forms of contact which he might have received, because I believe it is very relevant to know what sort of material was presented to him which he considered sufficient for him to return to editing. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think my return was suspicious. First, I've been lurking on Wikipedia since I grew disenchanted with editing here back in November 2011; anyone who glances at my Talk page (relevant entries can be found on archive 13) will see that I replied to any posts there within a few days. Second, after a flurry of edits to articles related to Early Christianity, I've been mostly editing articles related to the Empire of Trebizond & other successor states to the Byzantine Empire -- & Cplakidas quite kindly gave me a barnstar for my efforts there, which was another reason I'm still editing.

But the message Ignocrates sent me which resulted in my return (amounting to an average of half a dozen edits a day) was this one. I don't know why that message lured me back, & not messages from Dougweller or Gyrofrog; maybe it was that our subsequent interaction on that article was a pleasant change from what I had encountered editing over 2011; maybe it was that I've paid more attention to my family this time than before I left.

Anyway, all subsequent communications between Ignocrates & me have been on-wiki, either on our talk pages, or the talk pages related to the Gospel of the Ebionites article, to the best of my knowledge. I'll double-check my email to see if he has sent me any email, but I doubt he has. The only other Wikipedians who have sent me email are Richard Keatinge, concerning edits to Ammianus Marcellinus & we managed to resolve a disagreement about that article to my, & I'd like to think to his, satisfaction; & Ret.Prof, who asked me to see if he had made any problematic contributions over the last few years & if so, explain to him what they are. (So far, I haven't found any & am of the opinion he's been treated harshly; but it's slow work, I don't have that much time to give him, I'm only about half-way thru his edits, & I feel guilty that I haven't worked more on this project, so I could be wrong.) In short, there's nothing to see. -- llywrch (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS, the reason I'm posting here is that when I opened Wikipedia this morning, the little red box at the top of the browser window alerted me that my username had been mentioned here. So please don't read anything into that. -- llywrch (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I regret that you seem to have jumped to conclusions which are not necessary stated in the material to which you responded, and that you also seem to be jumping to conclusions which were not necessarily suggested. And, adding a link User:Llywrch here to start the little red box again, I believe that it would be best for me to say that there did seem a real chance that the nature of the contact could have been of a type in which one individual used extremely prejudicial language, and that such prejudicial language might, not unreasonably, prejudice the input of someone who saw it. possibly similar to the clearly prejudicial nature of Ignocrates' comment to the clerk here at User talk:Callanecc/Archive 7#Ebionites 3 restriction of scope to the prior 12 months. I thought it might be worthwhile to know if there may have been an attempt to prejudice the input of another individual in this instance. John Carter (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was to provide the information John Carter asked for, with as little bias a possible. When in doubt about what to include, I follow my training as a QA tester & supply more. I hope Carcharoth doesn't mind. -- llywrch (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I suggest it would be better for the parties to focus on the questions asked of them on the Workshop page, and the proposed decision to be posted shortly. Non-parties should continue to provide input on the Workshop page (either by commenting on or proposing decisions) and talk page. Further discussion on this page probably won't be helpful to the Committee given that the case is in the closing stages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]