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

Comments
1) At the "Dispute Resolution Timeline" section, you've carried over from the Workshop listing, I believe that Ignocrates provided a list of attempts to address John's concerns on Noticeboards and RFC, basically to drawn in additional Editors to break the stalemate between the two of them. Although you provide a link to this on the Workshop page, in this statement, it sounds as if the AC is still looking for a list and that has been provided.
 * "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."

2) Also, I think the two actions proposed are the most noncontroversial and straight-forward ones that could be proposed, but there has been evidence submitted that John can be very pointed, dismissive, harsh and rude to other users besides Ignocrates. While their interactions are at the heart of these proceedings, I think it would not be out of place to admonish John and urge him to refrain from attacking other users (see Workshop for just a few examples). While an interaction ban might stop John and Ignocrates from interacting with each other and now the 3 or 4 Ebionites-related articles are now off-limits to John, my gut feeling is that John will not let this go and will continue to malign Ignocrates on other Talk Pages or WikiProject Pages. Your two proposed actions do not get at the heart of this conflict which is the rude treatment of each other. I have no doubt that the AC can not make disputants get along but I do believe it is within your authority to request any user not to trash talk another user, on any forum on Wikipedia. The principles that begin the proposed decisions are worthy and to be emulated. But without sanctioning the behavior that has kept this feud alive, I'm not optimistic that it will end and it might just spill over on to other user's Talk Pages. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Liz that there should be some sort of admonishment for incivility to John Carter. On the workshop page when Carcharoth pointed out that Ignocrates had made personal attacks, Ignocrates responded "I see your point and acknowledge that what I did was wrong. John Carter, on the other hand, continues to make snippy comments directed towards others on these very pages concerning this arbitration which another editor,Llywrch, finds "insulting and offensive".. I find this particularly poor conduct from an admin as Llywrch had already specifically stated he had previously been active on WP but had more or less retired due to the fact that he no longer found it enjoyable, it is as if John Carter is still trying to rid WP of editors that he finds troublesome. I also think it would only be fair if the principle proposed by Carcharoth, "Conduct unbecoming an administrator", which can only be intended as a comment on John Carter's conduct as Ignocrates is not an admin, be specifically and formally applied to John Carter.Smeat75 (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess I should be clear, despite my criticism, I'm not advocating desyopping or anything like that. I hope John continues to edit Wikipedia. I believe he is an asset. I just hope that he will interact with others with civility, without being insulting or patronizing. So, I'm just advocating an admonishment which will hopefully encourage him to be more positive and not to carry grudges after these proceedings are over. Liz  Read! Talk! 17:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Two thoughts: (1) I think, speaking generally, Carcharoth has written a fair decision; & (2) to answer Liz's question above, uninvolved Wikipedia editors are reluctant to get involved for several reasons. To do a good job, one needs to research the dispute thoroughly -- & few people want to read tens of thousands of words of people arguing -- or to research facts on a subject they may not have any serious interest in. Or to risk making a bad call. Sadly, without community input Wikipedia isn't sustainable. -- llywrch (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Ignocrates is not an administrator"
While I understand the intent of this line, giving the identical formulations of FoFs 2 and 3, I'm concerned that it could be perceived as a negatively-weighted observation. Clearly you're not trying to say there's anything wrong with not being an admin, but that might not be immediately obvious to some, especially those who are less familiar with Wikipedia, or who wish to misrepresent the project. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  08:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are any questions about my adminship, all that would be required is, like I have said from the beginning, is for a single adminstrator to say I should stop being one. And, honestly, at this point, I think the likelihood of my ever using the tools here is remote at best, so there is no particular reason for me to keep them anyway. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban
I requested a mutual interaction ban in my opening remarks; however, several uninvolved parties identified potential problems with this approach that I had not considered. Therefore, I suggest this proposal be separated into two one-way interaction bans. This approach will allow for a more thorough discussion of the underlying nature of the conflict and some nuance in the implementation. Ignocrates (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given John Carter's stated intention of spending far less time on Wikipedia, I would appreciate it if the Arbs consider my admonishment as an alternative to a one-way interaction ban. I believe I can uphold the spirit of the I-ban without being formally sanctioned, and I would like the opportunity to prove it. Ignocrates (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see no reason for such, other than Ignocrates somehow managing to avoid facing some of the consequences of his own actions. With any luck, in time, the material developed elsewhere can be used here to develop content, and if the problematic nature of the SPA editing, which even Carcharoth considered for inclusion in his questions, remains significant enough in the indeterminate future that when I may in the future import content from those other entities, and perhaps find the same sort of problematic conduct here, I believe it would reasonable to have the ban in place to prevent further problematic conduct from him. Also, there are at least a few lists of encyclopedic articles that I haven't finished yet, and I expect I will try adding some of the missing articles from those lists here, and if any of them relate to early Jewish-Christianity, about which Charcharoth asked his question about Ignocrates being an SPA, I don't know, I can and possibly do see some possible basis for conflict then. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think John Carter's decision to spend less time on Wikipedia might be best for all. I could list many reasons why, but here I'll simply point out that the point of arbitration is not to punish people, but to stop detrimental behavior. Sheesh, let the man have some dignity here. -- llywrch (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Scope of the topic ban
The proposal currently calls for a topic ban from "all pages relating to Ebionites, broadly construed". Should this be understood to include the Gospel of the Hebrews, which is the current locus of the conflict? A clarification of which articles within the subtopic of Jewish Christianity are considered to be within the scope of the topic ban is needed to minimize the potential for future conflicts. Ignocrates (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering I am, as I said, more or less leaving this foundation entity to develop content at Wikicommons and WikiSource, I don't see that there is reason. However, I do understand that it is certainly possible to see how what I believe to have been an abjectly incompetent FA review by a recently returned editor, which honestly failed to take into account virtually any of the most recent reference sources, could lead to this. But, like I said, I have little intention to have anything to do with this particular project in the future anyway, given that some of our FAs are, honestly, probably less reliable than even the most outdated reference sources. John Carter (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

John Carter's Adminship
An Admin is expected to: User:Carcharoth, After seeing John Carter's conduct on the talk pages of other editors both before and during this proceeding and after  reading this chilling admission (see below) regarding the ways he attempts to drive editors off the project through controlled incivility. How can we allow John Carter to retain his tools for Adminship?
 * lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others..........Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.
 * The only thing I can add is that I have, on a few occasions, found ways to be really, really venomously condescending in a polite way. Basically, there are a few times when I have managed to say, basically, "people who belief this need to spend several days (at least several days initially, anyway) in one of the hospitals full of very polite, positive people with long white coats to determine just how many medications they really need, and find some way to manage to take them all within the required medication period. In some cases, this might require them being on constant IV's of medications." Notice that there was no directly "personal" comment involved. Granted, it doesn't work as often as I would like, but in at least one or two cases those SPA POV pushers have retired. Yeah, there still are a lot of people I personally honestly consider total idiots editing around here. I am considering just what to do with one of them right now. And, just for clarity, that one is not you, OK? This other editor does boast of being some form of "senior troll editor", and I have a feeling will wind up before ArbCom before long. But I do think that the "free encyclopedia anyone is allowed to edit" will always have trouble dealing with those who need surgery to remove their fingers from their eliminatory orifices. And one does get the impression that they tend to effectively breed like rabbits out there, although it should be understood that by comparing them to true lagomorphs I am in no way implying that the latter seem to have had the same sort of extreme craniotomy (or whatever the word is) that some of these editors seems to have had. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)''
 * -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As others have said before, including admins like Dbachmann, WP:CONDESCENSION is not, and probably never will be, a guideline for conduct here. And I believe that the comments made by individuals on the talk pages of other editors, who have regularly been called to task for their own incivility, should be taken for what they are. I note that there are no actual diffs to my saying to anyone the things I said above, and I believe when dealing with individual who have serious civility problems themselves, it sometimes is reasonable to, well, overstate one's own dubious conduct to someone guilty of even more dubious conduct, particularly taken in the context of the matters involving that editor at the time. The fact that the comments above do not provide any clear linkage to when I may have actually made such statements as those I indicate is also relevant. I don't know if "little white lies" or, maybe, bigger lies misrepresenting oneself, are necessarily actionable in this context. Also, I think I should point out that I have said from the time I became an admin I would revoke it should any admin say their is cause for me to do so, and, although the page linked to above is on that of an editor who was, I believe, being discussed on one of the noticeboards at the time, and the same clause for self-desysoping of me was in place then, no one seemed to have said anything to me at the time. But, I do hold the terms to still stand, should any of the arbs, who are also admins, individually, let alone collectively, believe it justified. Also, for the record, I guess I should say that, despite my comments at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585, I've never actually ogled or otherwise attempted to force any of our lovely admin lounge waitresses, specifically including Gigi, to assume suggestive postures, as I indicated there.
 * I realize the self-described "politeness police" type individuals only allow themselves to show their true colors when they can find someone they have already passed judgment upon, even if that judgment is dubiously rational. I have to think that the comment starting this thread is such an instance. There has been a rather long history of misuse of this arbitration by individuals who have chosen to use it for, basically, a toilet in which they can vent their own spleens, and I regret to say that the comment beginning this thread is apparently another instance of that. Also, for what it is worth, if anyone requests, I can send a message to OTRS which would verify that I am not now, and never have been, an employee of any local school, or in any other way associated with any academic institution since my own college days, despite Liz's repeated insinuations of such in locations such as this, and a similar willingness to describe Jeffro77, who has been busy for years fighting POV on articles on the Jehovah's Witnesses, as an SPA because of the amount of work involved in that on her user talk page at User talk:Liz. I believe both of those two individuals have displayed rather seriously dubious misconduct in this matter, and I would not myself be at all averse to seeing some sort of statement from the ArbCom to that effect, if for no other reason than to prevent such tactics of what some might describe as a McCarthyist nature from them in the future. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why John Carter thinks Liz is making some sort of insinuation about him in that link he provides and it seems very very unfair to me to characterise the discussion he links to on her talk page as her showing a "willingness to describe Jeffro77....., as an SPA" especially since she does not use that expression in that discussion, John Carter does! Regarding Jeffro, he more or less is an SPA....John Carter (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2013. I don't think Liz deserves to be attacked (nobody should be, really) in the language he uses in the post above misuse of this arbitration by individuals who have chosen to use it for, basically, a toilet. I do not feel I have interacted with John Carter enough or observed his edits for a long enough period or over a large enough range of topics to have an opinion as to whether he should be allowed to continue as an admin, but I do feel, strongly, that he should not be allowed to continue to make personal attacks on other editors on this page right here, right now, or on any other pages concerned with this arb case.Smeat75 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , John Carter has stated in the past that "Being condescending ... is so far as I know not necessarily a violation of any sort.". diff There is a fundamental disagreement on this page about whether condescending behavior is consistent with WP:Wikiquette guidelines. It would be helpful if the Arbs could weigh in with a finding of fact about John Carter's condescending behavior and whether such behavior is consistent with WP:CIVIL. Ignocrates (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fully willing to own up when I make mistakes, John, but, like Smeat75 says, I don't think those diffs demonstrate what you argue they do. I don't know what you do for a living but you yourself have repeatedly mentioned the fact you have access to academic libraries (because you offered to check out reference materials) and even mentioned several times a particular university and the city it was located in. I don't recall ever asking you about this subject at all, I just read about it in your Talk Page comments.
 * Also, I didn't describe Jeffro77 as a SPA, I was actually objecting to another Editor's language toward him regarding his edits. In fact, you describe him as a SPA in that conversation so your accusations are a bit bewildering to me. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 14:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Liz and John Carter should both reasonably know that editing across a broad topic is explicitly identified as not being an SPA account. Much of my work on Wikipedia relates to a broad subject that has its own WikiProject, which is not the context in which WP:SPA is meant to be applied (and I also edit more broadly). And please explicitly advise me if you are discussing me. Thanks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Jeffro 77, you a not a topic of discussion in this ARBCOM case. It's still not clear why this diff from a discussion from August was resurrected here. Your behavior is not being questioned.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the second time that John Carter has brought up the Jehovah's Witnesses, another category of non-traditional Christian articles that he closely "watches". It's irrelevant to this case. Ignocrates (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why was cited as an example, but he should have been informed. Here are the links to the relevant RfC and arbitration case to provide some background and context. The arbitration sanction (a reminder) was narrowly restricted to the use of tools and did not get into behavior. Presumably, that was the point. However, an absence of being sanctioned for condescending behavior in that case should not be reinterpreted as evidence showing condescension is acceptable behavior under WP:Wikiquette guidelines in this one. Ignocrates (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am just an uninvolved party here, Ignocrates, but I think that is a tangent that is just a distraction. I think the wait to hear from the arbitrators can lead to those waiting to fill up the silence. And I don't think this discussion thread has been very helpful. I guess all parties just need to keep busy and the arbitrators will weigh in whenever they feel they are ready. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, Liz. I commented on the dab case as an uninvolved party in Dec. 2007, so I was familiar with the dispute. The reference to Dbachmann is "a tangent that is just a distraction". Ignocrates (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit count
With my recent purging of most of the banner drafts and other pages in userspace, the edit count listed by Carcharoth will be significantly higher than that which is now recorded. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

AGK availability to vote
(FAO Carcharoth in particular) I will not have any wiki-time tomorrow or over the weekend, and therefore cannot vote until early next week. I apologise for this delay. AGK [•] 22:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I too will not be around until Monday, so though the proposed decision is up for voting, and some arbs may start voting, the case parties should bear the above in mind and maybe hold off until next week before commenting too much on this page. I would suggest the parties and others wait for the first couple of arbs to vote and comment before saying too much here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional principles
Jurisdiction and conduct outside Wikipedia

I hope the Arbs will take another crack at rewording this principle rather than rejecting it entirely. The last two sentences need some work. Since outside emails are an important finding of fact in this case, the finding should be tied back to a principle. Ignocrates (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Conduct unbecoming an administrator

I'm seeing a lot of talk page support from uninvolved editors for the inclusion of this principle. John Carter has been implicitly acting in the role of an administrator by claiming it is part of his duties to monitor my edits. He has intervened frequently on article and user talk pages, often responding before the intended recipient, to allege some type of misconduct on my part. Ignocrates (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was surprised that in the Watchdog section, that ARBCOM seems to view being a self-appointed watchdog as a productive, well-meaning activity. I think following another Editor, from article to article, to comment on their editing can border on harassment in some instances. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Two concepts are being conflated there. I think the intent is to show that John Carter can engage in "constructive discussion when in a more managed environment". However, this positive characterization downplays the inappropriate comments that were removed in the very same <U>managed environment</U>. Ignocrates (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The intent there was not to say whether 'watchdogs' are positive or not (there are plenty of editors that watch over areas and do so well), but to point out the language used by John Carter referring to himself, and to point out that other editors watching the area exist as well (as shown by the FAR discussion, particularly the collapsed section). That collapsed section really brings out key aspects of the dispute, and the comments made there by editors other than JC are being pointed to as well. I have brought over additional principles, so please be patient as voting takes palce on those. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood, Carcharoth. Remember we only see what's on the case pages which I imagine is the tip of the iceberg as far as discussions and drafts go. But thanks for the clarification. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that some consideration is being given by the drafter and the rest of the Committee regarding the issue of conduct unbecoming of an Admin. Thank you for taking the time to consider this aspect of the case carefully. Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Locus of the dispute on Ebionites 3
Carcharoth, the problem with not including Gospel of the Hebrews is that the dispute currently resides there. It is temporarily dormant pending the outcome of arbitration, but the dispute will resume there if a remedy is not enacted that includes this article within the scope. Ignocrates (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted. Though I am wary of expanding the scope without a proper examination of the history there. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. It is a complex and contentious history of edit wars going back to 2005. However, John Carter and I are both minor players in that history of contention prior to August 2013. Ignocrates (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If this saves you some work, all of my article talk page interactions with John Carter on the Gospel of the Hebrews are from Archive 5 to the present. The only edit John Carter has made to the article itself is the tag which is still in place. Ignocrates (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Two new principles
Noting here that two new principles have been added. 'Sanctions and circumstances' and 'Conduct unbecoming an administrator'. Before proceeding further, I would like to hear from John Carter on whether he thinks his conduct, as outlined in the findings, has fallen short of that expected from administrators. Please can others wait for John to reply before commenting. Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that I cannot myself desysop myself, which is the only reason I haven't done so myself. Regarding site ban, honestly, at this point, I wouldn't necessarily mind that either, given the apparently poor level of content which is given high regard. I believe it at best dubious to say that perhaps consulting reference books qualifies as a display of poor judgment, or that making a reasonable review of an article by someone who even Carcharoth apparently considers an SPA and likely POV pusher, but that isn't my call to make. John Carter (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the addition of these two new principles as well as the alternate version of the Jurisdiction principle. Ignocrates (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing was said about the allegation of a conspiracy in the Principles or Findings of Fact; it's not clear why that was decided. It is implied by the "poison the well" wording in the Battleground principle, but it could have been stated more explicitly in the findings and tied back to Battleground. Ignocrates (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

John Carter has since resigned as an administrator. WP:BN. --Rschen7754 19:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think a desysoping was within the realm of remedies that the ARBCOM was considering so I think this was premature. But it was John's decision to make. I think the most that will come from this case was a pretty narrow topic ban and an admonishment which, as I understand it, is a warning to curb any untoward behavior. But there are several arbitrators who have yet to weigh in. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Committee may still decide to add a remedy to indicate whether resysoping is a possibility via RfA. Ignocrates (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources
and I both presented evidence in this case for the suppression of reliable secondary sources and the issue continues to be challenged in the workshop and on this page. link1, link2, link3, link4, diff

Should this be remanded to a RfC/U for more Community input as previously discussed on my talk page here, or should something be done within the scope of this case? Opinions please. Ignocrates (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If the interaction ban passes, both you and John will have to stay away from each other and not even mention each other when talking to others. You will both have to trust that any problematic conduct not related to the interaction ban will be picked up by others. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm bringing this up as unfinished business while I can still mention it. I assume Smeat75 would present evidence in the RfC/U if the issue is not resolved here. Ignocrates (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC/U? — ΛΧΣ  21  22:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear. An argument could be made that the conduct issue involving reliable secondary sources doesn't fit within the constraints placed on this case. (It is not a two-person issue, strictly speaking, even though both parties are involved.) Therefore, a WP:RfC/U may be a better venue to work this out with the possibility of coming back to ArbCom as a new case if the dispute proves to be intractable. Ignocrates (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. RfC/U's are for individual users, not a group of them. Also, what do you mean by "conduct issue involving reliable secondary sources"? Is it related to the Ebionites topic? Or it's a more broad matter? RfC's are not made on very broad things because nothing can be accomplished from those at the end. I apolgoize but I don't follow :) — ΛΧΣ  21  00:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try again. The conduct issue is John Carter's alone. Others are involved only in the sense of being affected by the conduct or they are witnesses to the conduct. The issue affects articles within the locus of the dispute (e.g., Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Hebrews) but others as well (e.g., Oral gospel traditions). In fact, this particular conduct issue originated on Oral gospel traditions. You may be right that "nothing can be accomplished from those at the end". That is why I am asking for guidance from the Arbs about the best way to remedy this problem. Ignocrates (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for explaining further, as now I understand what you mean. My recommendation would be to try to solve as much as possible within the remit of this case and then drop the stick. It is not healthy for any of you two to keep this matter fresh before this case closes. It's best if each one of you take your own path far away from the other, and forget that all of this existed in the first place. Trying to extend the problem beyond that will definitely have nothing beneficial; not for you, and not for him either. And it would also be a violation of the interaction ban if you start, or participate in, any RfC/U or discussion about John Carter after the case closes. — ΛΧΣ  21  05:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with ΛΧΣ . Since this dispute has gone on for so many years, I understand the desire, since it has now reached ARBCOM, to get any unresolved issues settled. But with an interaction ban and a narrow topic ban for John (assuming this proposed remedy passes), it is unlikely that you two will have any future contact with each other. Although this case hasn't been finalized yet, pursuing this with a RFC/U might be seen as a violation of an interaction ban as it involves additional areas of conflict.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of you are offering good advice, so I'm going to take it and move on. Liz is correct that I was looking at this as an opportunity "to get any unresolved issues settled" in the sense that whatever can be settled now should be. However, the Arbs have come up with a clean solution that breaks the back of the dispute while minimizing collateral damage to potential counter-parties. This is really good work and I respect it. Therefore, I am dropping the stick on this issue and it will be left to others to decide what to do going forward. Ignocrates (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't here at all yesterday, and missed much of the developments, although I did write the final section below then. Ignocrates apparently chose to continue this matter based on his own apparent lack of understanding of some basics around here. ArbCom is the final consultation here. I just see this thread as having been yet another display of Ignocrates' remarkably poor grasp of basic policies and guidelines here, which has now been commented on and displayed several times. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Scope of the topic ban 2
The topic ban now has the votes to pass, as well as the other remedies. Before there is a vote on a motion to close, I am requesting clarification of the specific articles encompassed within the scope "all pages relating to Ebionites, broadly construed". A clarification of which articles within the category of Jewish Christianity are considered to be within the scope of the topic ban is needed to minimize the potential for future conflicts. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've drawn the attention of my colleagues to this question. It is possible that the case will close without a full answer being provided, but my response would be that this is not a vital question to answer considering what John Carter stated the previous time this question was asked (see here). The best answer I can give is that the topic ban applies to the articles named in the locus finding, and beyond that it is at the discretion of administrators at arbitration enforcement if they are ever asked to enforce these remedies. The hope is, of course, that requesting enforcement won't be needed. If you or John Carter are ever unclear at any point about this, the best thing to do is file a request for clarification (see WP:ARCA). Ideally it would be clarified now, but it is equally important that you both respect the interaction ban. For details, see WP:IBAN. If a situation arises in the future where you are not sure if the interaction ban would be breached, please ask first. Carcharoth (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The hope is that we will both just steer clear of each other and move on. However, based on past experience, I share Liz's concerns expressed here. My gut tells me this is going to get worse before it gets better. Therefore, I'm going to suggest a list of articles in this section for inclusion in the T-ban in addition to the three articles named in the locus of the dispute (Ebionites, Gospel of the Ebionites, and Gospel of the Hebrews). Ignocrates (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) Jewish-Christian gospels and related texts: Jewish-Christian Gospels, Gospel of the Nazoraeans, Gospel of the Twelve, Ascents of James, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, and Oral gospel traditions.


 * (2) Jewish-Christian sects and related subjects: Jewish Christian, Nazarene (sect), Ebion, and Brothers of Jesus.


 * (3) Authors writing about the subject and their respective books: James Tabor and The Jesus Dynasty; Robert Eisenman and James the Brother of Jesus (book).


 * Many of these articles were secondary loci of the dispute and their inclusion in the T-ban will help to mitigate against potential future conflicts. Ignocrates (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for the list. The case is now closing, and I am not going to be proposing a change or clarification to the limits of the topic ban. It is quite possible that the above list is too extensive or too narrow. In addition, the topic ban applies to John Carter, not to you, so it is really up to him to ask for a clarification. I will be posting a note below about the closing of this case, and then we will likely be done here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carcharoth. The interaction ban is clear and the topic ban is JC's concern. The case is closing now so best to just walk away and begin the disconnect from JC both on the WP pages and in your heart and mind.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already begun the disengagement process by archiving arbitration notices and adding a wiki-break template to my talk page. Once I clean up whatever diffs related to arbitration are specified by Carcharoth, I am heading off for a long break. Ignocrates (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Good decision. Enjoy your break and come back refreshed. Cheers! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Final comments
I expect these comments to basically get little if any attention, but think it probably at least worthwhile to make them anyway.

In all honesty, this arbitration could, easily, have been avoided. If we had had two things from the beginning. The first of these is some sort of rough but fairly clear guidelines regarding the structuring of our main articles on topics relating to religion, by which I mean those articles which deal with topics covered in a number of religion reference books. And there are literally hundreds of such books, as can be seen from a book put out in the late 90's which was simply reviews of some several hundred recent reference books on religion. Those specific articles would include the main articles on belief systems, the content on the history of those groups, the practices, philosophical theological basis, etc. Pretty much the material one would find in most reference books in articles or sections under the name of the group, and the main articles, if any, linking from them. Such reference works, including encyclopedias, college level or higher overview texts, and the like, would, I think fairly clearly, be the most reasonable indicators for the content for us to have in our own articles, with a few variations as required by space considerations and our own guidelines, if applicable. We don't have such yet, and I rather think now that there probably will never be such. Unfortunately. But we have and will continue to have people who clearly want to push their own interests over the even the existing policies and guidelines, let alone more specific ones. The other would be to develop the content relating to those groups in other sites, like WikiSource and WikiVersity and subarticles and related articles here, and to have that material sufficiently linked to and widely enough known of to be useful. So, for instance, if one were interested in the City of God by Augustine, for instance, that person might find an article or two here., basically summarizing the content, philosophy and themes, maybe a few other articles, or sections of articles, dealing with responses and opinions on it, and ready links to other content, like at WikiSource or WikiVersity, which could go into greater depth, particularly for subjects whose notability or amount of really encyclopedic content might be questionable. This might include some full text works describing the book from various perspectives, other sorts of reviews and commentaries, and, for those with way too much time on their hands, considering how huge the City of God is, the full text of the work itself in pdf or similar format.

This would not solve all of the problems, of course. But it would be a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, particularly now, without such available, I found it all but impossible to imagine the content here possibly ever getting even close to being useful for the average reader. The primary reasons for that would include at least two of the editors who have been discussed in the events leading to this case, Ret. Prof and Ignocrates, and others like them.

I've been told off for not presenting enough diffs, but that hasn't stopped me before, and won't now. Regarding Ignocrates, he has rather clearly described his remarkably focused history of editing on topics which, more or less, could reasonably be seen as “Jewish-Chrsitian”, or “Ebionite,” perspective. He even at one point called it his “penance.” And he is also, according to some of the history here, someone who was several years ago affiliated with a still non-notable group only 30 years old. Having checked the recent database records on businesses, which includes some tax information from last year, it is apparently now the case that the founder is more or less inactive, and the named vice-president of this group is now the listed contact person. The group is described in the tax records as a home-based business with a total of 3 employees. I think there is a real chance the listed contact person, Tim Philips, is the son of the founder.

So, several years ago, Ignocrates/Ovadyah was a person who even the IP editor claiming to be the founder of the group described Ovadyah/Ignocrates as a former member. How many years ago was he a member? Well, we don't know. Maybe he was one of the early members, and, honestly, I tend to myself think that the most likely. That would account for, among other things, the sometimes single-minded nature of some of his comments, such as the comment about an RfC/U above, considering he first had that emotion-laden idea some time ago, and on that basis it is one of the things he most readily remembers. “Senior moments” are, unfortunately, something Ignocrates has I think perhaps displayed before. It might also help account for his comparatively recent boasting on one of the talk pages about how he learned how to do footnoting (finally), and his apparent need to show off things he just learned recently to indicate his knowledge of the system here is greater than it actually is, like his Randy from Boise comment. Such comments might help, in the eyes of such people, to perhaps demonstrate to themselves and others that they aren't showing some of the mental deterioration associated with aging. And, of course, as individuals, they would also want to remain active here, and use that as an indicator clearly available to all, others and themselves, that they aren't having such problems.

For those of you not as old as me (going on 51 later this month), and Ret. Prof., who clearly indicated himself as “retired”, and I think Ignocrates, this idea might not be one that comes to mind or makes much apparent sense. But, trust me, as you get older, particularly if you're a male, you become much more inflexible in your thinking pattern (I think I heard in the past 55 years is when mental inflexibility becomes more noticable), and if you have any closely held beliefs regarding death and related subjects, you tend to be even more interested in helping “evangelize” others, both to help validate to yourself your own thoughts regarding your somewhat proximate death and to maybe earn some brownie points in the afterlife about doing a good job evangelizing others. So, as some of you may have seen in newspapers and elsewhere in recent years, discussion of religious & philosophical issues is even becoming not uncommon barroom discussion now, something I never saw in “Cheers” or anything similar when I was younger. Particularly for those who, like Ret. Prof and some others here, are more interested in religious matters than most. This would also probably include those who describe their editing as “penance,” like Ignocrates.

How many such editors, past present & future, are there? Well, how many baby boomers are there? They are all, probably, depending on a variety of factors, potentially going to be looking to somehow “evangelize” people regarding their closely held beliefs, and this site, given its popularity, is one of the best soapboxes out there for that purpose. And the religiously oriented aren't unfortunately, going to be the only ones doing that sort of thing. Remember, the baby boomers were the 60/70's counterculture/hippie/new age people too, and a lot of the individuals who were passionately committed to some of the other ideas put forward then which haven't yet been realized would probably be interested in setting up a shrine and soapbox here for their beliefs. I would even include many whose interests are more or less political, and at least one long-standing editor here on wikipedia who, based on prior experience of that person, seems to be trying to be some sort of evangelist for atheism. I don't mean Nishidani there, btw.

The quality of a lot of the content here regarding religion can be said to be among the worst we have, and several of the editors around here, not just me, have remarked upon that. Is the situation presented above going to make that any easier? Hell, no. Are we doing anything to change the situation? Not so far as I can see.

I did propose guidelines recently for religion, for a second time. Ignocrates of course focused on his mis-characterization of what I said about how reference sources are our best indicators for content. I will however admit that I have said, and still believe, that I personally think it would probably make sense for our own main articles on any religious topic to probably not include any material not in at least one such reference overview, in reference books or academic works or other, similar, overviews. Other material might be best in one or more child articles or in other material at WikiSource or WikiVersity or somewhere, where all the various views on the topics can be put forward or soapboxed. Tabor and Ignocrates' own beloved EJC don't apparently meet WEIGHT requirements for our comparatively short articles here, and that is the primary reason I think he opposed the ideas. Had he bothered to actually read the proposal through, by the way, he might also have seen that I specifically mentioned content relating to the “history of study” of most faith traditions is something that is covered in reference books, and should be covered here, and Tabor and associates would almost certainly qualify for inclusion in content on that subtopic, if it is specifically notable in this instance. But, apparently, he didn't.

I say all this because, basically, it is the problem which I do not see being addressed here, which basically makes trying to work to develop content related to that subject pretty much useless. There are lots of other ways to spend time, probably better ways than going out of your way to metaphorically bang your head against the wall in trying to get some form of quality and consistency on a site that doesn't apparently want that in a topic like this one. And I personally will pretty much exclusively spend such time as I spend online in such matters in other, more productive, ways. Good luck to those of you who might try to develop such material here in the future – I very much think you're going to need all the luck you can get. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's discouraging to see this case coming to a close and see that you still seem to think this feud is all about what is a reliable source and about reference guides. It's not. What people have been saying to you for a while, John, (and it is echoed by the arbitrators in their decision) is that the problem was that you and Ignocrates couldn't work together, that there was no mutual respect and every word you said about him--even today, on the verge of an interaction ban--attacks him and is belittling. It's not about proper sourcing and referencing, it's about common courtesy and the inability to be civil to a fellow Editor which we are all called to do, despite the differences of opinion we might have with each other. Contrary to your statement above, this arbitration would never have happened if you could have simply ignored Ignocrates and the few articles he works on. Why you couldn't do this, well, only you can answer.


 * Given your statement, it looks like you haven't learned a great deal from this whole, long painful process and you will just continue, working as you did before, only on another Wiki site. Good luck to you in your pursuits at WikiSource. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Liz, while noting you continue in your apparent habit of trying to act like everyone's mommy, I also note that you once again seem to ignore the facts in favor of your own pre-emptive, judgmental, minimalizations of the concerns of others. There are several points made above, and refusal to even acknowledge them while once acting assuming the unearned role of an "elder" is amusing in the extreme. Good luck maybe learning how to treat others like adults yourself. John Carter (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have collapsed the above sub-thread. Kindly do not try to resurrect it; and Liz, I am actually very disappointed by your comment. AGK [•] 13:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, AGK . I can delete my remarks.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Case closing
I've asked the clerks to close the case since the motion to close is at net-four. In addition to the usual case closing, I am asking both parties to the case to clear their userspace of evidence pages relating to the case, and to blank collections of diffs. I have prepared a list and will leaves details here once I have finished with that. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: as the parties have started this disengagement process themselves, I've directed Ignocrates here on what I think needs blanking from his userspace. As John Carter has put up a retired notice on his user talk page, I will respect that and not post there (though the final notices relating to this case will still be posted there). I will blank the subpage User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. Hopefully that will be enough to bring things to a settled conclusion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Ignocrates (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is also an attack page here. Ignocrates (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That has now been redacted (by John Carter). Given that you have made the redactions I requested, I think we really are done here now. I will add my vote to those to close the case. The clerks will deal with the rest of the details of closing the case. Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

May want to tie this loose end
It's not totally important but it may be used as something else in a future case. This has been modified post-voting and not all those who have voted on it has clearly denoted it they accept the change. Again, small potatoes but who knows who will try to make something of it. 129.9.104.12 (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)