This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Carter (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 19 September 2013 (→Evidence presented by John Carter: added a little). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:09, 19 September 2013 by John Carter (talk | contribs) (→Evidence presented by John Carter: added a little)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
 | Please note the following for this case:
|
| If you wish to submit evidence, please do so in a new section (or in your own section, if you have already created one). Do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the prescribed limits. If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page. Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning. |
Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Misplaced Pages in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.
You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.
The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Ignocrates
Current word length: 1269 (limit: 1000); diff count: 41. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.
Gaming Misplaced Pages by initiating a pre-planned edit conflict to support new Religion MoS guidelines and discretionary sanctions by ArbCom
Principal
Per WP:GAME: “Gaming the system means deliberately using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Misplaced Pages. Gaming the system may represent an abuse of process, disruptive editing, or otherwise evading the spirit of community consensus. Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view.
Argument
The edit conflict on the Gospel of the Ebionites article (hereinafter “GEbi”) was deliberately started by John Carter to create support for drafting new Religion Manual of Style guidelines (hereinafter “RMoS”) for religious articles, see Current discussions.
Evidence
The time-stamps of the diffs from the “Current discussions” subsection of the guidelines proposal and the beginning of the edit war on the “GEbi” talk page are almost identical. diff1, diff2
Argument
Along with the proposed "RMoS" guidelines, John Carter proposed to ask ArbCom to impose discretionary sanctions on topic areas mentioned in “Current discussions”, including articles on early Christianity.
Evidence
John Carter’s statements that filing a case with ArbCom is the best chance to obtain the ability to impose discretionary sanctions: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6
Comment
A similar article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (hereinafter “ABD”) on the “GEbi” was used to create a straw-man dispute over content; however, the dispute is about demonstrating my lack of fitness as an editor to the participants in the “RMoS” discussion and the ArbCom, predicated on an assumption of intrinsic bias based on my presumed personal religious beliefs and group affiliations. diff1, diff2
Alleging a conspiracy among editors and with an outside religious group to push a POV
Principal
WP:BATTLEGROUND states that “Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.”
Per Poisoning the well: “An assumption or accusation that another editor (or the subject of an article) is involved in a real or imagined conspiracy poisons the well so thoroughly — and involves so serious and complex assumptions of bad faith and beliefs in a conflict of interest — as to disqualify the editor holding such beliefs from editing articles related to the subject and/or editing in the proximity of the editor so accused.”
Argument
John Carter has demonstrated a battleground mentality by making unsupported accusations of biased editing based on an assumed religious affiliation. He has made unsubstantiated claims of collusion with other editors as well as a religious group and the group’s leader, including an attempt to "out" my personal religious beliefs.
Evidence
John Carter's accusation of my collusion with a religious group and the group's leader. diff, and his accusation of collusion with other editors to push a religious POV. diff
However, John Carter admitted during the request phase of arbitration that the problem was not my editing, per se ("... honestly, the problem with Ignocrates is not necessarily his editing per se, but his problematic conduct."). diff
Abuse of process by prematurely filing for a Feature Article Review
Principal
Abuse of process involves knowingly trying to use the communally agreed and sanctioned processes described by some policies, to advance a purpose for which they are clearly not intended. Abuse of process is disruptive, and depending on circumstances may be also described as gaming the system, personal attack, or disruption to make a point. Communally agreed processes are intended to be used in good faith.
Argument
John Carter filed for FAR prematurely, arguing on the talk page that the article was far below even GA quality and needed a total rewrite.
Evidence
Promotion of the "GEbi" to Featured Article. diff
Deliberate premature filing for Feature Article Review. diff1, diff2, diff3
Comment
The Feature Article Review was subsequently closed with a result of “Kept”. diff
Refusal to participate in the dispute resolution process in good faith
Principal
Per WP:AGF: “Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith.”
Argument
John Carter continued to insist that the “ABD” be included as a source in the "GEbi" article even after it was added to the article with clear notifications in edit summaries and on the talk page (compare date stamps).
Evidence
Addition of the "ABD" as a source and content deriving from the "ABD" to the article. diff
Continuing to insist the "ABD" be used as a source long after it had been added to the article. diff
Argument
John Carter refused to consider the merits of good faith attempts to address his criticisms on the talk page by making improvements to the article or respond to questions about how to make further improvements to the article.
Evidence
Ignoring good faith attempts to address general criticisms with specific solutions. diff
Refusal to provide any specific suggestions for improvements when asked. diff
Argument
John Carter refused to participate in dispute resolution at WP:DRN, even though he challenged the neutrality of the article content by applying a NPOV tag.
Evidence
Stating that the problem is that I am unqualified to edit because I am an SPA. diff
Comment by the noticeboard when the filing was closed for non-participation. diff
Argument
John Carter refused to acknowledge a good-faith attempt to address his concerns about scope of the Gospel of the Hebrews article (hereinafter "GHeb") based on content from the "ABD".
Evidence
An attempt to resolve the dispute over scope by linking to the "ABD" content in a companion article was rejected. John Carter tagged the article despite an ongoing RfC to resolve the scope issue. diff
John Carter requested comment regarding the scope at Wikiproject Christianity Discussion (WT:X); diff however, he refused to participate in a subsequent community-wide RfC on the article talk page, diff arguing, contrary to AGF, that it was not a legitimate RfC. diff1, diff2, diff3
Comment
John Carter migrated the dispute to a new article, the Gospel of the Hebrews ("GHeb"), to argue the scope of the article should be changed to conform to the “ABD”, again using an article from the "ABD" to create a dispute over content. diff
Disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point by tagging articles when reviews were already in process
Principal
Per WP:POINT: “Misplaced Pages should not be disrupted to illustrate a point.”
Argument
John Carter applied a NPOV tag to the "GEbi" article to dispute article content after a Featured Article Review he initiated was in process to influence the prospect of it failing in FAR.
Evidence
Filing for FAR: diff Placing the NPOV tag on the article: diff
Argument
John Carter tagged the Gospel of the Hebrews article (hereinafter "GHeb") during a GA-review and attempted to disrupt the review process.
Evidence
Initiation of the GA review by Pyrotec. diff
John Carter tagged the article with an "unbalanced" tag using a similar approach as the "GEbi" article. diff1, diff2
Pyrotec's comments about the article being tagged. diff1, diff2, diff3
Promotion of the article to GA despite the tag remaining. diff
Comment
John Carter migrated the dispute to a new article, the Gospel of the Hebrews ("GHeb"), interrupting a GA-review in-progress to argue the scope and layout of the article should be changed to conform to the “ABD”. diff1, diff2
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by John Carter
Current word length: 152; diff count: 1.
Dubiously rational threats from Ignocrates
This threat to take In ictu oculi to ANI for disagreeing with him.
Claims of collusion argument by Ignocrates
Ignocrates argument regarding "unsubstantiated claims of collusion" are rather clearly and obviously misrepresented by ], in which he was one of the two parties in the mediation (the only other being me) who indicates that creating an article which clearly did not meet notability guidelines, and thus apparently had no reason to be created, was created by consensus in mediation, and I believe rather honestly that raising this issue is a possible violation of the arguments going back one year stipulation. I would welcome input from the arbitrators regarding this matter.
Violations of talk page guidelines by Ignocrates
Ignocrates violates multiple conduct guidelines, including making irrational, dubiously founded judgments regarding the motivations of others, and explicitly refusing to address matters of substance raised, in the section Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#Unbalanced tag. It should be noted that earlier in the page several recent sources were presented, presenting material not contained in the article directly relating to the article, which was the reason the tag was added, and that there is in the history of the talk page little if any evidence of Ignocrates actually addressing those matters.
Regular incivility of Ignocrates
Ignocrates regularly impugns the conduct of others with such words as stalking, harassing, etc., without any clear evidence that the term is used correctly. Simply reviewing the conduct of others who have demonstrated their own problematic conduct is not grounds for accusing them of being motivated by other than acceptable reasons.
Ignocrates' allegations of overriding motive
As per Ignocrates' own comment above "Per Poisoning the well: “An assumption or accusation that another editor (or the subject of an article) is involved in a real or imagined conspiracy poisons the well so thoroughly — and involves so serious and complex assumptions of bad faith and beliefs in a conflict of interest — as to disqualify the editor holding such beliefs from editing articles related to the subject and/or editing in the proximity of the editor so accused.”" It should be noted that one of Ignocrates' principle claims above about m regarding my (alleged) overwhelming passionate obsession with providing clear cut guidelines, and his allegations that this is the driving force in my own actions, seems to fairly clear violate this guideline as well, and can just as reasonably apply to him and his accusations. ===c
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.