Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

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:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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:

Questions to the parties

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)

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)

• (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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

• (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)

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)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Llywrch

Proposed principles

Religion and controversy

1) Articles about religion tend to be very controversial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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:

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)

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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

Intentions of involved parties

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Ignocrates

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)

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Unenforceable. -- llywrch (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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)

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)

@ 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Proposals by John Carter

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)

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Ignocrates cannot consistently abide by guidelines and policy

1) 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)

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

1) 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)

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)

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)

Disruptive editing by My very best wishes

3) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Comment by others:

• I would like to comment in response to claims by John Carter about "delusional paranoia of Ignocrates on this page"[11] and that Ignocrates "absolutely crossed the line of basic sanity" [12]. 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 [13] 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)

@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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)‎

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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:

Proposals by User:Smeat75

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.[14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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)

• Oh yes, he certainly has [15], [16] [17]. 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)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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:

Analysis of evidence

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:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: