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

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

Case opened on 08:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Case closed on 15:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, or you are adding yourself as a party to this case. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. (However, lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be copied to the talk page.) Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Ignocrates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Uninvolved parties added while case is open

Smeat75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), request, added 13:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Statement by Ignocrates[edit]

The recent edit conflict on the Gospel of the Ebionites article (hereinafter "GEbi") was deliberately initiated by John Carter to create support for his proposal to draft new Religion Manual of Style guidelines (hereinafter "RMoS"), and in addition, to petition ArbCom to grant admins the ability to impose discretionary sanctions on articles related to early Christianity. (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5) A similar article on the "GEbi" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (hereinafter "ABD") was used to create a straw-man dispute over content; however, the dispute was really intended to demonstrate my lack of fitness as an editor to the participants in the "RMoS" discussion, predicated on an assumption of intrinsic bias based on my presumed religious beliefs and group affiliations. (diff1, diff2) The time-stamps on the diffs from the Current discussions subsection of the guidelines discussion and the beginning of the edit war on the “GEbi” talk page are almost identical, (diff1, diff2) showing that the edit war was timed to support the discussion over guidelines. Please note that I have not been directly involved in any edit conflicts on the "GEbi" article or talk page before John Carter initiated this dispute. By way of background, it should also be noted that the edit war started the day after the Gospel of the Ebionites article was promoted to FA diff1 and that John Carter prematurely took the article to FAR diff2. FAR was recently closed with a result of "Kept". diff3.

At Nishidani's request, I held off on filing a case until September in the hope this dispute would die down. Unfortunately, John Carter propagated the dispute to a new article, the Gospel of the Hebrews (hereinafter "GHeb"), by interrupting a GA-review in-progress to argue that the scope and layout of the article should be changed to conform to the "ABD" in a similar approach to the "GEbi" article. (diff1,diff2) He has so far ignored an emerging consensus resulting from a RfC to maintain the present scope with some clarifications, and instead tagged the article, disrupting the review in the process (which has now passed GA). He has also made renewed calls for discretionary sanctions by ArbCom. diff

Further comments, supplementaries and replies

@Hahc21, this is not as simple a two-person dispute as you make it sound. The same hostile behaviors have been directed toward other editors such as Ret.Prof (diff1, diff2) and Pass a Method (link). Since it is not a symmetrical dispute, I think the name of this complaint is appropriate. You say it is not an agency relationship; however, I see one here and here in his request that you assist in the preparation of his opening statement. As I suggested previously, you might want to file your own complaint naming me and let the Committee see the scope of all the evidence before any decisions are made about the structure of the case filing going forward. Ignocrates (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahc21 #2, re WP:FRINGE, no one has ever produced even one diff of a problematic edit to article content I have made in my 8 years of editing Wikipedia. Please feel free to list them. Ignocrates (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill, this is about WP:GAMING Wikipedia by inventing a dispute to create support for new guidelines and discretionary sanctions. It is also about perpetuating a grudge that John Carter can't seem to leave in the past. Ebionites 2 arbitration This dispute was dead and buried for all the other parties, all of whom walked away from the Ebionites article over two years ago - until he recently revived it by migrating the dispute to a new article. I am going to save the examples of extreme incivility, harassment, and other long-term abusive behaviors for the evidence phase. I'm asking for an I-ban so that I can resume my editing in peace. Hope this helps. Ignocrates (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm, I support this suggestion. The many editors that know both of us are sitting on the sidelines for a reason. A means of separation is what is required here; one that encourages both parties to maximize the use of their unique capabilities to improve the encyclopedia while minimizing disruption. I brought this complaint to ArbCom specifically because I trust them to make a decision based upon reasoned judgement, as opposed to the trial by ordeal I often see happening in other venues. Ignocrates (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NW, I'm fine with a mutual voluntary recusal from the GEbi article for a period of time the Committee decides is needed (e.g. 6 months) to independently evaluate the content of the article. (Of course, that assumes a committee of editors is charged with the responsibility and does the work.) It should be noted that Nishidani was already conducting an independent review section-by-section when that process was interrupted by FAR. There is no reason why he can't simply resume the independent review. Ignocrates (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani, I will stipulate to the accuracy of your statement in toto. User:Llywrch's statement in Ebionites 2 is also relevant here as background. Also, I did contact James Tabor by email. I also contacted Mark Goodacre and attempted to contact Bart Ehrman and E. P. Sanders. I was very open about my efforts to reach out to notable scholars and the results of those efforts, see Weighting the Traditional view vs. Alternative views. With respect to John Carter's diff about James Tabor (all three statements), his allegation of a conspiracy is particularly telling. Consider that statement in the context of the essay WP:POV railroad. Ignocrates (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani #2, the whole 'penance' thing is just humorous. I can't remember exactly what I was thinking so long ago, but it was something akin to the equivalent of self-flagellation for having allowed myself to be talked into resuming editing on this article by John Carter. It was intended to be a rueful joke. That John Carter takes this nonsense literally and attaches so much significance to it says a whole lot more about him than me. Ignocrates (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch, this frank admission ("... honestly, the problem with Ignocrates is not necessarily his editing per se, but his problematic conduct.") affirms the original point of my complaint - that the conflict John Carter initiated on the GEbi article (Question of POV) was predetermined to drum up support from the Arbitration Committee for new guidelines and discretionary sanctions. That is consistent with his obduracy toward engaging in multiple attempts at dispute resolution and the premature filing of FAR. I have never seen a dispute manufactured to manipulate the Committee before, so I'm not sure there is even a Wiki-name for this conduct, and, noting the rejoinder, I think the choice of words speaks for itself. Ignocrates (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth, the elephant in the room here is Jayjg, who served as an informal mediator prior to and during the Ebionites 2 case. Unfortunately, he seems to be MIA. I also asked Keilana to be prepared to make a statement during arbitration as the informal mediator of the GEbi dispute we are discussing here. I think Brad would also want to update the rest of the Committee on the conversations he had with John Carter which I mentioned in this link. Ignocrates (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth #2, this archive Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2/Archive 1 shows the opening statements of the second informal mediation and the completed sections which were subsequently archived. Fyi, here is the link to the first informal mediation: Talk:Ebionites/Mediation. Ignocrates (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs, if the decision is to reopen Ebionites 2 and go forward with a full case, I request that In ictu oculi be added as an involved party. That said, I hope this can be resolved quickly by motion so everyone can finally move on. Ignocrates (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs #2, re scope, if the Committee chooses to "go small", in addition to Keilana, I would consider asking Smeat75 because s/he suggested an RfC/U for John Carter and that has come up several times. I would also consider asking Astynax. He participated in the Ebionites 2 mediation and the recent FAR and has expressed similar concerns as John Carter. Ret.Prof has already taken enough of a psychological battering from John Carter and I would just leave him alone. Ignocrates (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Committee: Please consider this the equivalent of an offer to settle on the eve of trial. I chose this entry point into the dispute for a reason. I believe the evidence presented so far is compelling, yet still limited in scope. If the Committee is willing to grant my request for an interaction ban, we can end this proceeding and all move on to more productive activities. All I want is to be able to build GA and FA quality articles in peace and not have John Carter following me around Wikipedia interrupting my conversations on article and user talk pages as though it was his "job". If the point of arbitration is to "break the back" of the dispute, this solution will get it done. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter[edit]

I very much hope the artibration is accepted, giving the long-standing misconduct of the editor who filed this claim, User:Ignocrates, who previously went under the name User:Ovadyah. I am, still, admittedly, going through the numerous instances in which this editor, under whatever name, has consistently engaged in unacceptable behavior, at User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence, which as some arbitrators, including NYB, know, I have been, off and on, developing for some time now. I believe that NYB also, when Ignocrates first contacted him regarding this, at a time when it was called Ebionites 2 rather than under my own name, accepted the case based on the information then presented. I believe that there is sufficient documentation on the evidence page I linked to above to indicate that there is a long standing issue of serious conduct problems regarding the editor who filed this case, of such seriousness that arbitration may be the only way to address it. I believe that there is more than sufficient grounds for a case to be accepted, to examine the behavior of all the parties involved, and, if possible, to perhaps lead to the ArbCom requesting that more clear guidelines regarding religious content, and possibly content of articles under discretionary sanctions, be developed. A recent study said two of the ten most contentious topics around here, Muhammad and Christianity, are fairly clearly in the "religion" topic range, and on that basis I very much believe that the time has come for some steps to address this problem. I also believe that the incoherence of this request by Ignocrates, which Kirill has pointed out below, is itself evidence regarding what I believe can be demonstrated to be a long-standing inability of Ovadyah/Ignocrates to adhere to and/or understand basic policies and guidelines, and I believe that matter, on its own, is probably one which may only be resolvable here. I also note the somewhat less than logical claim of the filer that the claim involves at least two other editors, Ret.Prof. and Pass a Method, neither of whom he apparently thought should be notified of this request. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ignocrates' additions above: The statement by Ignocrates above is one of the clearest indicators of what strikes me as being the greatest ongoing problem relating to this discussion, and that is his fairly regular display of both paranoic thinking and his statements which clearly indicate that he believes he can almost literally read the minds of others, both of which concerns raise serious questions regarding his basic competence. I also note at least one obvious misstatement of fact, or less politely lie, that I started the RfC. As I have said on the article talk page, I intended to do so, after gathering multiple sources, but as indicated there Ignocrates decided to start the RfC over my one preliminary comment without any discussion and before I myself intended to do so. He also once again in his statement above tries to draw conclusions about the motivations of others based on no evidence. He claims that Hahc has been acting as my "agent". I and I believe he would probably be more than willing to indicate that we have, in the past weeks, only had a few comments on his talk page, and no e-mail contact whatsoever. And the fact that he seems to think that he can request an interaction ban, without a case, is another extremely serious indicator of the to my eyes extreme lack of knowledge or understanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines, and, yes, his rationality in general, particularly as he under the name Ovadyah was involved in the first Ebionites case, and should presumably have a better understanding of what can and cannot be done here than he indicates in the above. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments, supplementaries and replies

@ Newyorkbrad: Um, the only person Ignocrates contacted about this was, apparently, me. I honestly don't know how many others might comment, based on the fact that they haven't been notified. I left a message on the Gospel of the Hebrews talk page, FWIW, but I'm not entirely sure who else to notify. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yes, as I don't remember Ignocrates having ever had any direct personal contact with Pass a Method outside of my contact with that person, I think the fact that he even knows about that conflict is itself a fairly clear evidence of stalking. John Carter (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant summation by Hahc above, although I would add that I do not "hate" Ignocrates, but that I do despise his harassment and believe that, at least on this topic, he can in no way be trusted to develop content objectively. I also have questions whether he is capable of real collaboration at all, and think there is substantive evidence of an inability in that regard as well. I would Repeat that I can produce at least comments from others indicating that the entire field of early Christianity is extremely problematic, and that much of other areas of religion are at least somewhat problematic, particularly regarding matters of historicity and other broadly historical matters, which I think do call for at least some sort of clear guidelines and, possibly, in some way, discretionary sanctions. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I believe I used the name "Ovadyah" in the above comments only under two circumstances, (1) to indicate that it was used by the same person and (2) to indicate that the comments made in discussions of that era being discussed were made by that signature. I do not believe either can be reasonably made the basis for jumping to conclusions about my motivations, and I get enough of that from Ignocrates anyway. Also, I believe I indicated that I have recused myself from editing at least the main Ebionites page, which would presumably include other articles directly related to it, which is just about the only thing Ignocrates edits. I also believe it not unreasonable to review the unusual timing of the Gospel of the Ebionites becoming FA relative to my own recent period of pronounced inactivity at wikipedia, which time I used to work in earnest on developing lists of articles in other reference books.

@NW: My goals would be as follows. (1) Place the content related to Ebionites, and possibly relating to early Christianity in general, either under existing discretionary sanctions or, possibly, declare them in some way under "administrative supervision" or something and make specific articles related to the topic eligible for imposition of discretionary sanctions through amendment at a later date. There are a lot of problematic articles related to that topic, and others which might become problematic, which would now benefit from, or might in the future benefit from, discretionary sanctions. (2) To get some sort of clear guidelines regarding religion, specifically regarding content relating to "revival" movements of earlier belief systems, and the amount of relative weight to give them in content relating to the topic, particularly when they may be less notable than the original group. It would probably also be beneficial to have guidelines regarding which secondary and reference sources would be best for use in developing our content. If ArbCom were to specifically request editors to help draft such religion guidelines, I think that might help bring them about. (3) Also, given the sheer number of topics already under discretionary sanctions, maybe having some sort of broad guidelines regarding how to develop and make major changes in them might also be reasonable, and again, ArbCom perhaps requesting some input from others to help draft such guidelines would definitely be useful. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I think it is worth noting that at various locations, which can be produced in evidence, that Ignocrates as per this comment still cannot seem to deal with the fact that James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty, a work Ovadyah held in such esteem that Tabor was the "expert" he wanted to review the article, and that request might be what brought Tabor here in the first place. The biases displayed by Ovadyah still apparently exist in Ignocrates, and considering the conduct Ovadyah indulged in regarding that topic, I believe that raises serious questions whether perhaps Ignocrates may still be driven by and acting on the same motivations, if perhaps less obviously now. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no reason to believe that an editor who specifically describes his editing on this topic as penance, as Ovadyah did here, to be particularly capable of objectivity on the topic of his "penance', nor do I have reason to believe that the fact that Ignocrates continues to edit almost exclusively the same topic of his "penance" is free from the same rather clear religious motivation that Ovadyah rather clearly implies was the driving force behind his own editing of the topic. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: No, I think the error in this case may well be on your part, at least based on the information I have available. I think it is specifically regarding the way in which you seem to assume that Ignocrates' religious practices are necessarily Jewish. I myself know nothing about the practices of Neo-Ebionites such as the Ebionite Jewish Community or whatever belief system Ignocrates has now, so I would be in no position to make such declarations as you made without better evidence than I have. I also very much have to believe that when someone rather clearly indicates a religious motivation for their edits, and their subsequent edits seem consistent with the edits made at the time of that declaration, even without subsequent similar declarations, there is I think reasonable cause to believe the motivations expressed then have not changed. In fact, logically, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would think most people would come to the same conclusion. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Honestly, I very very much regret the obvious jump to conclusions in your last comment below. I did not at any time indicate that I was asking about private beliefs, although your very first sentence in response seems to claim otherwise. There is a difference between inquiting about beliefs and noting that individuals have apparently clearly indicated their beliefs, which is an entirely separate matter. And it is certainly well within reason to indicate that the existing evidence regarding a user strongly indicates that they may be almost exclusively engaging in editing which could perhaps not unreasonably be seen as being, at least potentially, WP:SOAPBOXING either for the Ebionite Jewish Community/Ebionite Community or perhaps some other group, or even for one's own unique beliefs. So, yes, while at no time did I indicate that I was inquiring about anyone's beliefs (at least intentionally) I do believe that there is in this instance sufficient cause to at least inquire if a person's edits are consistent with what seems to me, based on rather a lot of evidence, to be a longstanding, somewhat consistent, history of POV-pushing and soapboxing. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbs:It is my understanding that, as the individual who did not file this request, I was not as obliged to prevent evidence. I have gathered rather abundant evidence, much of which relates to the specific behavior of Ignocrates since taking that name, at User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. And I acknowledge that, having been the subject of rather regular willful misconduct on the part of Ignocrates in recent times, and seeing his efforts with other problematic editors, including User:Ret.Prof and User:Lung salad (the latter specifically on Josephus on Jesus and related pages), to engage in what was apparently problematic conduct to promote "modern", generally not well received, theories, I freely admitted that I have grown more than a little disgusted with Ignocrates' problematic conduct. In response to Llwyrch below, and I hope I spelled that right, my primary concern regarding this matter is, actually, the regular regular abusive misconduct of the editor Ignocrates, including his dishonesty, harassment, and other forms of misconduct. One editor above, Hahc21, has reviewed the recent history of the conduct of Ignocrates, at my request, and made the statements he made entirely on his own, without any form of collusion with me, although, considering he says he thinks I hate Ignocrates, I think that last part is kinda self-evident. Based on my own rather substantial history of regularly reviewing, if not acting on, the recent behavior of Ignocrates, honestly, the problem with Ignocrates is not necessarily his editing per se, but his problematic conduct. I believe that conduct, which I have outlined at least some aspects of in the evidence page, is more than sufficient for review. And, by the way, I am seriously beginning to wonder just how common telepathy is among editors here. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Thank you for the clarification. I regret to say that I have gotten rather used to the seemingly willfully deceptive statements which rather regularly come from Ignocrates lately, which include the rather blatant attempts at misrepresentative spindoctoring and insults, at the same time no less, that Ignocrates recently displayed in the conversation at the bottom of the page here. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: I think it might not be inappropriate to get comments from the mediator User:Jayjg, provided the rules of mediation would permit that. User:Ret.Prof might be capable of contributing something, but he has recently for at least a time apparently retired, so that might not be productive. I also believe that an e-mail I forwarded to ArbCom, which Elen of the Roads responded to, might conceivably be relevant, depending on how the case progresses. I think I still have that e-mail, somewhere, in a mountain of them, so I could probably find it without Elen if it becomes relevant. There were I think two recent requests to reopen the case, one on NYB's talk page and another somewhere else, and I seem to remember in the latter the case was declined given the amount of time that had elapsed. I would myself assume that the scope of this arbitration, should it be accepted, would be conduct since the last arbitration, the first completed Ebionites case, and, in general, like all ArbCom cases, conduct issues per se, not content issues, the latter would, presumably, include comments which directly relate to content and don't contain any clearly problematic conduct. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: First, while I understand your reservations, I regret to say that I think I've been here often enough to understand how arbitration works. ;) The early comments were about if I remember right reopening the case, and at this thread Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Reopening a case I think it was NW who more or less indicated that the older case would not be reopened given the length of time involved and that a new one would have to be filed. What has, basically, changed in the interim is that the (never particularly strong, but real) hopes that I held regarding Ignocrates perhaps becoming an editor who would be willing to work to develop the encyclopedia, as opposed to being someone narrowly focused on contentiously developing material which might qualify as soapboxing have been, basically, indicated to be baseless, and his conduct overall has, if anything, maybe gotten a bit worse, at least IMHO. I thought at the time that bringing this to ArbCom would likely result in a ban of Ignocrates, and, despite my low opinion of him even then, I wanted to at least defer that possibility then. I hope this addresses some of your points. The mediation page is Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2, based on discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites 2. I didn't link to it earlier because rules change quite a bit over time here and I didn't know whether they might have in this regard as well. But, considering Jay's last edit was May 27th as per here, I doubt we could get him to say anything at this point anyway. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: As I remember, and it has been a while, I withdrew from the mediation because of my serious concerns regarding WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:STONEWALL regarding Ovadyah and Michael. Nishidani, in one of his comments on the bottom of the mediation page, also indicates that it seemed to basically be a consistent 2-1 discussion. At that time, the only one who might have referred the situation back was me, and honestly, on a strictly personal basis, I was thoroughly disgusted with the conduct there that for a time I was looking forward to never hearing the word "Ebionite" again, so there was no attempt to return the matter to ArbCom at that time, and I am myself unaware of anyone related to the ArbCom or the MedCom actively following up on the mediation/arbitration to ensure that it would be taken up once I withdrew from the mediation. Seeing Nishidani's comment below, I do see that User:Astynax did become involved toward the end, and he is still an active editor, but at this point I do not remember him specifically involving himself in the discussion to any great extent. Having said that, it would probably be reasonable to contact him, and, probably, User:Michael C Price as well. Considering Ignocrates started this request in a way involving User:Pass a Method, it would seem reasonable to perhaps notify that individual as well, depending on the exact nature of the case. I believe that matter to be basically completely irrelevant to any discussion regarding the conduct regarding the Ebionites and related articles in general, which I believe is pretty much the only thing Ignocrates has ever edited, other than the Josephus on Jesus article. From that page, User:Lung salad, whom he seemed to be allied with, has been banned, and User:History2007 has disappeared. I am unsure if there might be any way for the ArbCom to contact him/her, if the editor is still active under another name, which seems unlikely, or whether we even should. It might also be reasonable to contact User:Dougweller, but I think he is already aware of this discussion, and has, for his own reasons, not made any statements here yet. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding this edit above: Ignocrates seems once again to indulge in the remarkably laughable attempts at telepathy yet again. I do believe there are more than sufficient reasons for some guidelines for religious content, yes, but I am not quite so pathologically obsessed with that idea as Ignocrates seems to be about the Ebionites. He also seems to once again in it completely ignore the possibility that the points made were reasonable in and of themselves. The fact that his comment seems to indicate that he finds it impossible for anyone to believe people could disagree with him on the basis of policy and guidelines, rather than being motivated by some overwhelming monomaniacal passion, may well reflect more on him than on anyone else. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse I helped John Carter with general Arbitration matters and intend to participate on this case. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse given that I've commented on the case request. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/1/1/1>[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

@Ignocrates: I've read your statement a dozen times, and I can't really make heads or tails of it. Could you please explain, in simple terms, what the actual dispute that you would like the Committee to resolve is? Kirill ^[talk] 01:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept per David. Kirill ^[talk] 01:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and refer the underlying inter-personal dispute to RFC or another community forum. This dispute does not require arbitration at this time. AGK [•] 13:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of dispute that the community is entirely capable of resolving at RFC. If they deliver a resolution through a community-authorised interaction ban, then so be it. Six weeks of arbitration is the most painful way of getting to what is probably a rather easy result, so my vote remains to decline. AGK [•] 22:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting a couple of days for Hahc21's statement and any other input before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept (under a neutral case title). Regretfully so, given the history, but apparently necessary. To my colleagues who have suggested the possibility resolving this by motion, what motion do you suggest? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I think it's unfortunate that both parties don't seem more interested in talking out their issues, but the fact that they are gung-ho for arbitration makes me think that it's unlikely other dispute resolution steps will be effective… Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept David Fuchs is on to something here, that this is a two-party dispute where both parties are more interested in arbitration than talking. Courcelles 23:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - though I would be amenable to resolving this by motion. As there have been arbitration cases on this topic in the past, conduct since then will likely be part of any case. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier comments. Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the further (late but relevant) comments made since I voted to accept, I'm going to ask whether those who have commented here and appear to know most about this dispute (John Carter, Ignocrates, In ictu oculi, Nishidani, and Llywrch) can think of anyone else who should be asked to make a statement here? The references to an Ebionites 2 arbitration case misled me slightly, as looking into that in more detail, I see that it was a request (not a full case) that the committee at the time accepted but deferred by motion to allow mediation. I am presuming from this (pointed out above, but easy to miss) that nothing happened and the committee at the time (2 years ago) were not asked to do anything further despite a request having been accepted and deferred (what has changed between then and now?). I would still accept a case, but would suggest that the scope needs to be discussed before evidence submissions are accepted (i.e. open the case but keep the evidence page closed until the scope has been clarified). Carcharoth (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @John Carter: the rules of mediation mean that what takes place during formal mediation (see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee) is privileged and not available for the purposes of arbitration (hence why the mediation cases were deleted last time). Unless you say when and where this mediation that involved Jayjg took place, it is not possible to say whether it was formal mediation or not. Some of what you and others say here makes me think that you may not quite be understanding how arbitration works - your reference to a case request on an arbitrator's talk page being declined makes no sense - comments made on an arbitrator's talk page (or indeed at the clerks noticeboard), have zero weight or authority when compared with a formal decision voted on by the committee as a whole. This page right here is the formal start to arbitration, everything else is informal. I'm also not sure you understand the purposes of arbitration. It is the final stage in dispute resolution when all other avenues have been exhausted, and the results are binding on all parties. You will both have to accept the result, however harsh you may think it is, so it is not a step to be taken lightly. If you are both looking for a community request for comment, or yet more mediation, then take that step first. What I can't get my head around is why a case request was accepted last time, deferred for mediation, seemingly no mediation took place, and then neither of you bothered to come back to ArbCom for two years. What was the point of the previous request given that nothing actually seems to have happened back then? Carcharoth (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, John. The link to Talk:Ebionites/Mediation 2 (from May 2011) is what I wanted. That at least indicates that after the arbitration committee accepted a case in March 2011, and voted on a motion to defer (see here and the motion further down here) that mediation did indeed take place in May 2011 (though whether it was formal and privileged is not clear yet). However, I'm still not clear what happened after that (or what the mediation actually achieved). The motion at the time said "the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed." What I can't find is any formal record of whether the mediation was successful or not, and whether the committee ever did re-examine the situation and either proceed with the case or dismiss it. It is not terribly important, but it does help to get clear what actually happened and how we got from there to here. I need to check a few things with my colleagues, but after that it should be clearer how to proceed here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those who replied to the questions I had. On case scope and other matters, I've asked the clerks to open the case as follows, the aim being to make clear that this is not a re-opening of the Ebionites 2 request/case from March 2011:

Open case as 'Ebionites 3'.
The initial case scope is limited to conduct within the past year.
The evidence submission limits will be the same as usual (clerks to advise parties).
Extensions to scope or evidence will be considered, but need to be requested and reasons provided.
Anyone who did not make a statement at the request stage and wishes to add evidence is asked to first provide a statement (on the evidence talk page) or ask the case clerk to add them as a party to the case.

I've asked the clerks to leave notices on case pages detailing the above. Any questions are best asked on the case pages. Carcharoth (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if an imposed mutual interaction ban as well as a voluntary no-fault topic ban from the Gospel of the Ebionites might be a way we could proceed (@Ignocrates and John Carter:), though I suspect not; I see some various problems on pages not strictly within the GEbi topic area. I'm pretty agnostic on how to proceed. I could see a case going really well and a case turning out pretty miserably. And to the rest of the Committee members, I wonder how this case request might relate to the thread I posted last night (Post-mortem thoughts on TPM and ideas for the future). NW (Talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still thinking, though I see that the case would normally be opened soon. Any chance we could hold off for a day or two? Nishidani, your statement was quite helpful. I want to thank you for writing it. NW (Talk) 02:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, although I'd be also willing to consider adopting a motion instead of hearing a fully-fledged case. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept mostly per Courcelles. Roger Davies ^talk 03:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based on the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

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.