Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Callanecc (Talk) & Bbb23 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Carcharoth (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 5
2–3 4
4–5 3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

[edit]

Proposed principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 03:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Decorum

[edit]

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. In content disputes, editors should comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 03:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Criticism and casting aspersions

[edit]

3) An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalised, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums.

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 14:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. T. Canens (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
And what, exactly, is the appropriate location to cast aspersions without evidence? That third sentence needs some work. Courcelles 03:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the meaning is clear that accusations should be raised only if supported by meaningful evidence. If you think the meaning isn't clear, please suggest a copyedit that would address your concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a copyedit here to remove the disputed element. Newyorkbrad, David Fuchs, AGK, are you all happy with that change? Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. AGK [•] 11:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battlegrounds and bad blood

[edit]

4) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Private e-mail exchanges or other off-wiki contact can both escalate and de-escalate such conflicts.

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 03:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm not so sure about the last sentence. While true, in isolation it seems a little out of place.  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conduct on arbitration pages

[edit]

5) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 03:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Though I'd prefer less roundabout language,  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Roger, on the 'roundabout language' comment, this principle has been used verbatim in previous cases, such as this one, where you supported it. At this late stage, I suggest we retain this language, and that in future cases copyediting to make things less wordy is done at the Workshop stage of the case. Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing practices

[edit]

6) Reviewing the edits of an editor where there are concerns may be necessary, but if not carried out in the proper manner may be perceived as a form of harassment. Relevant factors include whether an editor's contributions are viewed as problematic by multiple other editors or the community at large; whether the concerns are raised appropriately and clearly on talk pages or noticeboards; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor. When an editor contributes only in a narrow topic area, it may not be possible to distinguish between a review of that topic area, and a review of that editor's contributions.

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 03:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Good. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Okay, but it must be possible to say this in a less roundabout way.  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
This principle is already a cut-down and rewritten version of a principle from the Doncram case, see here. The last sentence was added to make clear that people that contribute only in a narrow topic area will need to be aware that people who appear to be reviewing their edits may in fact be reviewing the topic area, not their edits. Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 03:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Jurisdiction and conduct outside Wikipedia

[edit]

8) The Arbitration Committee's duties and responsibilities include the resolution of private matters unsuitable for public discussion. A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails, or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, where appropriately disclosed and verified, agreed to by both parties, and raised within Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, such conduct can be considered.

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. There are parts of this I can't agree with. a) Both parties must agree that emails be considered? b) Totally and absolutely unrelated to this case, conduct outside of Wikipedia is the basis for all of the blocks made for real-world harassment or child protection, and I consider this principle, as written, an unacceptable narrowing from Arbitration Policy, of our basis for doing those sort of blocks. Courcelles 13:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as written. We do consider off-wiki conduct in the sphere of on-wiki activities where relevant; the second sentence reads to me nebulously in clarifying that they do have an effect even if they're not within our remit (we obviously can't ban someone from another site, etc.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The third and fourth sentences are simply incorrect. AGK [•] 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. T. Canens (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Prefer 8.1. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Included due to the discussions related to a private e-mail exchange between the two primary parties to this case, and which was disclosed to the committee with the consent of both parties. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the language we used in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch and later cases might be a better fit here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly (and thanks for the suggestion), but I've found wording I'm happier with from here in the Richard Arthur Norton case. Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK, in response to what you said, the third sentence was included in this principle from the Racepacket case and that passed unanimously. Was it wrong then as well? The fourth sentence, I accept, may well be incorrect - I was trying to get at the idea that if both parties verify off-wiki conduct, then it can be examined. The point being that private e-mail exchanges are usually impossible to verify if only one party discloses them. Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant "the second and fourth sentences"; my mistake. The Racepacket principle looks sound, but it is also significantly different from the one proposed here. AGK [•] 11:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

[edit]

8.1) Per the Arbitration Policy, the Arbitration Committee has no jurisdiction outside the English Wikipedia. However, the Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia, if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors.

Support:
  1. Proposed as an alternative to principle 8. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Preferable to 8 (though I might add "directly" or similar before "impact")> Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I prefer this to P8,  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Only choice. AGK [•] 11:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 14:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain:
Comments:
Taken from a principle passed in a case earlier this year. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions and circumstances

[edit]

9) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. To the extent that past good work is sometimes a mitigating factor, as opposed to previous misconduct being an aggravating factor, yes.  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although sometimes misconduct is so egregious that it cannot be mitigated by anything; evaluating misconduct is not always like balancing an equation. AGK [•] 11:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain:
Comments:
Added as one of two extra principles following discussion with other arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct unbecoming an administrator

[edit]

10) The Administrator policy states: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. [...] administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, [...] consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another."

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 22:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 01:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 11:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain:
Comments:
Added as one of two extra principles following discussion with other arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings

[edit]

Locus of the disputes

[edit]

1) This case concerns disputes between Ignocrates (talk · contribs) and John Carter (talk · contribs) concerning the Ebionites, including the articles Ebionites, Ebionite Jewish Community (third deletion nomination), Gospel of the Ebionites, and Gospel of the Hebrews.

Support:
  1. Background finding to set the scene. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Copyedit made per NYB's suggestion. Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, but suggested copyedit: This case concerns disputes between Ignocrates (talk · contribs) and John Carter (talk · contribs) concerning the Ebionites, including the articles Ebionites, Ebionite Jewish Community (third deletion nomination), and Gospel of the Ebionites. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. T. Canens (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Okay, good now. Courcelles 23:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Without the Gospel of teh Hebrews included, I must oppose. Courcelles 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
See workshop comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gospel of the Hebrews should be included here. Courcelles 13:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly - do you think not including that may cause problems later? Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the latest issue. Courcelles 22:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles, I have included that article in the locus. I will ping those who have voted to check if they are OK with that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, AGK and T. Canens, are you all OK with the addition of Gospel of the Hebrews as proposed by Courcelles, which I have implemented above? Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that change. AGK [•] 23:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon rereading that seems fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignocrates

[edit]

2) Ignocrates (talk · contribs) created his account on 13 July 2005. The account was renamed from Ovadyah to Ignocrates on 21 September 2011. As of 8 October 2013, he had made 2386 article edits to 42 articles, with the top three edited articles being (number of edits in brackets): Gospel of the Ebionites (805); Ebionites (519); Gospel of the Hebrews (433).

Support:
  1. Background finding. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC) I agree with the copyedit made by AGK - thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Accurate, though I wish we could drop this "is not an admin" language, as it implies that status is somehow lacking. Courcelles 13:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No objection to Courcelles' proposed change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with dropping the language. While I understand its usage (when we're talking about behavioral standards being an admin does come with raised expectations) using it here does come off as dismissive in a way not intended. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've implemented the copyedit suggested above; revert if you object. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Some have vouched for the editing done by Ignocrates, and some of the articles he has worked on have been through various review processes (details below). Some (including the other editor involved in this dispute, John Carter) have raised concerns at times. The numbers are provided here to show the degree of focus in the editing - i.e. it is the actual editing that matters, not the numbers. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter

[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Background finding. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 13:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. T. Canens (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'd be tempted to add something about the total edit count, for completeness.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Not included, but to give additional context: as of 8 October 2013, John Carter had made 149,553 edits, nearly half of these to article talk pages (71,275, at 47.66%), with around 74,000 edits made in his first year of editing, and a total to date of 14,710 article edits. The numbers are provided here to show the range and extent of editing - i.e. it is the actual editing that matters, not the numbers. See workshop comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to what Roger said about the 'total edit count' - the more I look at people with 100,000+ edit counts and years of editing, the more I realise it is almost impossible to summarise such editing histories. Edit counts can be very misleading. John Carter left a note recently saying that the edit count will have changed as he has deleted a number of WikiProject banner sandboxes in his userspace. Also, he said that many of his talk page edits were adding WikiProject banners and assessments. It is ultimately, as I said above, the actual editing that matters, not the numbers. The numbers are just a starting point, to see when and where an editor is editing, not what they are actually doing. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article histories

[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Background finding. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 22:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Included to give a sense of the progress (or not) made on these articles and the verdict delivered by various community processes (including articles for deletion and formal review processes). Both parties participated in the 2nd and 3rd deletion discussions for the Ebionite Jewish Community article; they nominated the FAC and FAR respectively for Gospel of the Ebionites; and both were involved at various points in the Ebionites article, though that primarily involved other editors. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution timeline

[edit]

5) More context to the dispute is provided by the following timeline of dispute resolution involving both parties to this case:

  • September 2007: Initial request for mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites and its talk page were both deleted to protect the privileged nature of formal mediation during the first and second arbitration requests.
  • October and November 2007: Ebionites arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). Filed 26 September 2007 by John Carter (then editing as Warlordjohncarter). Result was a single principle, a single finding, and a single remedy imposing an editing restriction on MichaelCPrice (now Michael C Price) for one year. Also party to the case were Ovadyah (now Ignocrates) and Nishidani.
  • June to September 2010: first talk page mediation at Talk:Ebionites/Mediation.
  • September 2010 to January 2011: Second request for mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites 2, closed 21 January 2011 as 'no mediator available'. The talk page was deleted in February 2011 due to the second arbitration request.
  • February and March 2011: Second arbitration case. Filed 28 February 2011 by John Carter. The case was accepted but not formally opened, instead being held in abeyance (to allow mediation) by a motion that was enacted 7 March 2011. The parties to this second arbitration request included Ovadyah (now Ignocrates) and John Carter, as well as Nishidani and Michael C Price.
  • March to May 2011: second talk page mediation at Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2 (archive).
  • September 2013: Ebionites 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). Filed 4 September 2013 by Ignocrates (previously Ovadyah).
Support:
  1. A final background finding. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. More detail than we usually provide, but that may be a good thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 22:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Additional background is available at the (extensive) talk page archives at Talk:Ebionites and Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites. There are also several noticeboard discussions that help provide context (a comprehensive list of these would help) and talk page requests for comments. My understanding of the previous arbitration cases is that the first one was a relatively minor case, and not much was examined or was available to be examined. The second case would have been a good point to actually examine the dispute more closely, but for reasons that are not clear the deferral to mediation appears not to have been followed up and when that second informal mediation essentially petered out, the dispute carried on (this time to a different article, the Gospel of the Ebionites), bringing us to this third arbitration case. It should be noted that this third arbitration case was opened with a scope limited to the year prior to the case opening, and these findings are background findings only. See workshop comments and list of noticeboard discussions provided there. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012 retirement of Ignocrates

[edit]

5) On 4 May 2012, Ignocrates announced his intent to retire from editing Wikipedia ([1]). The next edit he made to his talk page, three days later, claimed he had received "stalking emails and vicious personal attacks" from John Carter. This was followed by an edit in October (adding the word "threats") and an edit on 28 November saying he was returning to editing and referring to this edit by John Carter. This was followed later the same day by this response from John Carter. Ignocrates then asked John Carter to stay off his talk page (archived thread).

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 22:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
This finding is proposed to provide context for the conduct by both parties over the months following the return of Ignocrates, leading up to this arbitration case. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012 e-mail exchange

[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 22:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
This finding is intended to demonstrate the approach taken by both parties after that e-mail exchange. Clearly both should have done something about it at the time. That neither did and both continued to discuss it or dwell on it is of some concern. Having reviewed the e-mail exchange, I consider both parties to be at fault, but John Carter more so for making the contact in the first place following the retirement. See workshop comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignocrates has made personal attacks

[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 22:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
The second comment may be due to frustration, but the first is not acceptable. Neither is 'testing' to see if someone is watching you. See workshop comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter has made personal attacks

[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Atrocious conduct by John. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 22:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
The pattern of comments is consistent, and these are clear personal attacks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Laying out the context of what happened at the FAR. See workshop comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdogs and constructive discussions

[edit]

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

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Highlighting some constructive discussion when in a more managed environment, and a partial acknowledgement by John Carter that he goes too far when commenting on Ignocrates. See workshop comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

[edit]

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.

Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban

[edit]

1) Ignocrates (talk · contribs) and John Carter (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Courcelles 22:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 01:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 15:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

John Carter topic-banned

[edit]

2) John Carter (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Ebionites, broadly construed.

Support:
  1. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd actually be minded to levy a site-ban instead of a topic-ban, on account of the quantity and long-running nature of John's misconduct, but I recognise we wish to keep the focus of this decision narrow. AGK [•] 11:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Given that the main issues have been with a single issue and editor, I don't think a site-ban would be appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Necessary but in no way sufficient. A desysop is absolutely required for this level of misconduct. Courcelles 22:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 01:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 15:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
To answer llywrch, I think Courcelles did mean 'but' instead of 'by' (just a slip). Technically, you are meant to ask that sort of question on the PD talk page, but I'll link with a diff. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter's administrator status

[edit]

3) John Carter (talk · contribs) requested removal of his administrator rights on 1 November 2013, while these arbitration proceedings were in progress (log of removal). John Carter may regain these rights only through a new request for adminship.

Support:
  1. Clarifying the status here in light of these new developments. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Courcelles 22:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 23:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 01:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 15:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
One of the precedents here was the MZMcBride 2 case, where the corresponding principle was 'Return of access levels'. It is not necessary to incorporate that principle into this case, but I am pointing it out here to give context. This remedy is not strictly required, as John has indicated he won't be asking for the tools back, but is needed to ensure there is no confusion here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

[edit]

Standard enforcement

[edit]

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]
  • Just want to note that Carcharoth's comments with respect to various proposals were very helpful in understanding the rationale behind the proposals, making it easier to reach a decision on my votes. I'd encourage other drafters of decisions to consider doing this in the future. Thanks, Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

[edit]

Implementation notes

[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 9 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Decorum 9 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Criticism and casting aspersions 9 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Battlegrounds and bad blood 9 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Conduct on arbitration pages 9 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Reviewing practices 9 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Harassment 9 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Jurisdiction and conduct outside Wikipedia 1 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
8.1 Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee 9 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Sanctions and circumstances 9 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Conduct unbecoming an administrator 9 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of the disputes 9 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Ignocrates 9 0 0 PASSING ·
3 John Carter 9 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Article histories 9 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Dispute resolution timeline 9 0 0 PASSING ·
6 May 2012 retirement of Ignocrates 9 0 0 PASSING ·
7 May 2012 e-mail exchange 9 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Ignocrates has made personal attacks 9 0 0 PASSING ·
9 John Carter has made personal attacks 9 0 0 PASSING ·
10 John Carter's conduct at the July 2013 featured article review 8 0 0 PASSING ·
11 Watchdogs and constructive discussions 8 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2 John Carter topic-banned 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3 John Carter's administrator status 8 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Standard enforcement 0 0 0 PASSING 5
Notes


Vote

[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. I have completed my voting and most proposals have sufficient votes to determine their outcome. I anticipate that my colleagues will complete their voting promptly so that this matter can be finalized. Risker (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] 15:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AGK [•] 19:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites_3/Proposed_decision&oldid=1136116038"