| Revision as of 12:39, 9 April 2012 editIgnocrates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 edits →Explanation of request for administrative review: explanation← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:01, 15 July 2020 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers380,442 edits →Precious anniversary: 7 | ||
| (627 intermediate revisions by 53 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired|date=January 26, 2015}} | |||
| == Archives == | |||
| == Arbitration clarification request closed == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi Ignocrates, just letting you know that I've ] in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 10:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == Post-AE block future plans == | |||
| ] | |||
| @{{u|Chillum}}, please restore my deleted user page but leave me blocked for now. I'm having a hard time getting past what {{u|HJ_Mitchell|Harry}} did to me, so I'm not ready to return to editing. I'm taking a year off, and I will decide sometime next year to either return to editing on some different categories or just say the hell with it. See you in 2016. ] (]) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :Okay, done. ] 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| :I also put a clarification in your block log to make it more clear that the arbcom block is expired and the current block is voluntary. I neglected to make that clear in the previous block log. ] 16:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Name change == | |||
| ::Thanks for clarifying in the log that the indef block is voluntary. ] (]) 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I liked your old name. Where do we stand with the Ebionites? If you have the time, please critically evaluate the sources on my user page. - ] (]) 11:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's great to see you back. I thought you had retired from Misplaced Pages. Sorry, but I'm not the right person to ask about the Ebionites article. I have abandoned that article permanently to the idiots and trolls that dominate this encyclopedia. Best. ] (]) 15:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is a shame. -- cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 16:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| As part of the "new me", I'm going to be a lot harder on uninformed, yet relentless, editors, who confidently edit on subjects they know nothing about. The problem is not my lack of good faith; it is their lack of competence. And ] on Misplaced Pages if we are going to prevent this encyclopedia from regressing to the mean or worse. ] (]) 13:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Seven}} --] (]) 06:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Marcch 2012 == | |||
| You have recently received warnings at ] and ] regarding possible violations of ] and ]. Please consider this your final warning regarding such conduct. ] (]) 20:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe you should learn how to spell before you go around handing out warnings, and you have been repeatedly warned to stay off my talk page. ] (]) 20:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Polite Warning== | |||
| I want to make it absolutely clear that, however much you try to brush it off, I regard your recent conduct towards John Carter as unacceptable. If you continue to be rude, dismissive and make allegations with very little supporting evidence I will block you to stop you. You are way out of line. --] ] 06:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :BozMo's correct. You need to stop this. ] (]) 06:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no axe to grind against you guys whatever, but we all must do what we think is best for the encyclopedia. Regards. ] (]) 13:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Doug, if you have something to say then say it. Stop following me around and commenting on my edits. ] (]) 15:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you mean my edit at James Tabor's talk page, I'm hardly following you around there, as I was the first editor at his talk page and it's on my watch list. ] (]) 16:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I do mean that edit. If you have anything more to add, get it off your chest. ] (]) 16:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Then it's obvious I'm not following you around as I was there first. But since you ask, I've noticed one other thing - using the word 'stalking' is deprecated for good reasons, see ]. ] (]) 05:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agreed. Thanks for the advice. ] (]) 14:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==August 2010 incident== | |||
| Ok, I promised I would get back to you on this and I did. It turns out there were two disputes, one of which went to AN/I, and I had them conflated. This is the example I was looking for , , - the blanket deletion of all references to the book of James Tabor ''The Jesus Dynasty'' (2006) from the article. The larger point, argued on the article talk page ], is that John Carter contended this wasn't a content dispute and he was exercising his powers as an admin to enforce Wiki policy. Therefore, he claimed that my reversion of the disputed content was vandalism. That led to a request by him to have the article locked. By contrast, my counter-argument was that the dispute over Tabor as a source was part of a larger dispute over content that was being discussed in an ongoing mediation. I claimed at the time, and still believe, that what he did was an admin abuse of power. , , , , I apologize for not getting my facts right the first time. Let me know if you need anything more. ] (]) 14:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I can't see any examples there where he's used his tools - I see he asked for page protection, which anyone can do, but he didn't use his tools to protect it, did he? ] (]) 15:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Doug, you are right about that. This disagreement comes down to a definition of what it means to be an admin. One could define the role of an admin in a narrow sense of the use, or misuse, of admin tools. I was defining the term more broadly as using the authority of an admin to enforce, or misrepresent, Wiki policy. Arguing that the book ''The Jesus Dynasty'' failed to meet basic ] requirements and having the article locked by request on that basis was an abuse of power. As the subsequent ] by Slim Virgin in that link makes clear, that position was far from obvious, and Jayjg, who had been acting as mediator, left a similar comment on my talk page . That is why we went back for a second mediation, where Tabor's book was subsequently found to ] of ]. ] (]) 16:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Even if all this were true, one might reasonably ask, why bring it up now? After all, this incident happened in August 2010 and it's ancient history. The reason is that history is about to repeat itself. Compare this from August 2010 with a recent post on the article talk page ]. The latest line of argumentation is even more tenuous in that it relies on ], which is used on scientific articles and requires the application of an objective standard. However, the basic approach is the same as last time - to misrepresent a disagreement over content as the enforcement of Wiki policy. ] (]) 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Explanation of request for administrative review == | |||
| The following three incidents are the crux of my complaint; all the rest is just noise: | |||
| Incident #1: Contacting ] about reopening arbitration . ] put this case to rest nine months ago. It seems to me that this is an attempt to ] this dormant dispute with a more sympathetic administrator who actively patrols on Christian articles. Doug hasn't responded one way or another to his credit. | |||
| Incident #2: Contacting ] about assisting in preparing John Carter's case for arbitration . The is a case of ]ing at minimum. In ictu oculi has indicated support on his talk page for reopening arbitration. Therefore, combining their efforts to forward John Carter's case would be a form of ]ing. | |||
| Incident #3: This talk page notice ] of an attempt to revive the dormant dispute on the ] article as an enforcement of Wiki policy rather than a content dispute. This directly relates to the above section from the ]. Accusing ] of having a religious bias ] is related to this incident as well. | |||
| The question comes down to a definition of conduct as an administrator. Should this be interpreted narrowly as the misuse of admin tools, as BozMo and Dougweller have done, or more broadly as misusing admin authority to push an agenda in a content dispute? ] (]) 20:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Um, I hope you mean 'no misuse of admin tools'. I replied to John by email, as I think you know. ] (]) 20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was referring to "misuse of admin tools" as one possible definition of admin misconduct. John Carter did not misuse his admin tools, as he requested the Ebionites article be locked by another admin. Thanks for raising the question though. ] (]) 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Comment''' (1) I don't see how "Incident #2" can be a problem, I have a lot of respect for User:John Carter both as an editor and in the unrelated areas where I've seem his exercising Admin functions. I have in the past ''invited'' John to contact me re reoccurences of ] in the "Jewish-Christianity"/"early Christian"/"Christian origins"/etc. article space, and glad he did. (2) And as far as I know In ictu oculi has not indicated support on his talk page for reopening arbitration as far as I'm aware, as I know In ictu oculi believes that there is still a substantial amount of leftover ] and attracting more mainstream editors into "Jewish-Christianity"/"early Christian"/"Christian origins"/etc. article space is the best way to improve the articles --- I haven't seen that "arbitration" (for who/what?) is needed or will acheive anything more than normal editing. 13:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC) ] (]) 23:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for your comment In ictu oculi (the edit log shows it's you). I have no problem with any of this as long as it's kept at the level of a disagreement over article content. Please sign your posts in the future. I see Doug alerted you to this page to comment, which is fine with me. ] (]) 16:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I see no abuse of administrator tools here, or specific actions which would warrant an administrative review. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You've had the response from Jayjg that you asked for, although I doubt that it's what you wanted. Time to step back from this Ignocrates. ] (]) 07:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It seems to me that the next move is John Carter's not mine. My interest is to get back to focusing on article content. ] (]) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:01, 15 July 2020
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages as of January 26, 2015.Arbitration clarification request closed
Hi Ignocrates, just letting you know that I've archived an arbitration clarification request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Post-AE block future plans
@Chillum, please restore my deleted user page but leave me blocked for now. I'm having a hard time getting past what Harry did to me, so I'm not ready to return to editing. I'm taking a year off, and I will decide sometime next year to either return to editing on some different categories or just say the hell with it. See you in 2016. Ignocrates (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, done. Chillum 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I also put a clarification in your block log to make it more clear that the arbcom block is expired and the current block is voluntary. I neglected to make that clear in the previous block log. Chillum 16:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying in the log that the indef block is voluntary. Ignocrates (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|