Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
John Carter		3 September 2013	{{{votes}}}
Hagelin		3 September 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

John Carter

Initiated by Ignocrates (talk) at 23:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ignocrates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff1
• diff2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• GEbi talk page #1
• mediation
• GEbi talk page #2
• DRN
• ANI
• NPOVN

Statement by Ignocrates

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. He has also made renewed calls for discretionary sanctions by ArbCom. diff

---

• @Hahc21, this is not a simple two-person dispute as you make it sound. The same hostile behaviors have been directed toward other editors such as Ret.Prof and Pass a Method. 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)

• @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 was 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)

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)

Statement by Hahc21

I will leave detailed comment about this case request and what is what should be resolved here by Thursday (to satisfy Kirill's request). Until then, I will make several fast notes to clarify a bit what this is all about, now that I have had the chance to read many evidence of this dispute. Also, this case request should be called Ignocrates, not John Carter. Or at least Ignocrates — John Carter, since this is a two-sided dispute that involves two main users, and several other users that are tangencially involved. As it is, the case request's name implies that the problem is with John Carter alone, which is incorrect.

This dispute has its roots way back. From what I could read thanks to detailed information provided to me by John, Ignocrates is a returning user who previously edited under the username Ovadyah, and who, according to what I could check, has a somewhat intense point of view regarding Ebionite matters. Although this generated mostly as a content issue, which is not of the committee's interest, Ignocrate's bias towards this topic of interest has moved into conduct disputes with John Carter, who has expressed strong opposition against Ignocrate's attemps to push his POV on Wikipedia.

These conduct disputes include personal attacks, harrassment, stalking, among others. This dispute also has a fair share of problems related to the use of fringe sources on articles, which can also be looked at by the committee (much like the Argentine History case). It's worth noting that this dispute was previously brought to ArbCom in March 2011 under the name of Ebionites 2. At that time, the committee accepted; however, it was put on hold because of an ongoing mediation which was later unsuccessful, with most of the problems still taking place. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Ignocrates: What I said is that both of you are the main parties of this case. I did not say that this was a two-person dispute, but that it was centered on both of you. Also, I am not acting as an agent for John in any way. I just helped him with general questions about this dispute. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Arbs: Given the complexity of this dispute, I may take a bit longer to craft a complete and comprehensive statement. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves

This is an apparent attempt to lock in Ignocrates preferred version on an article (and even a set of articles with which they have a non-NPOV). From what I can see, no other avenues of resolution have been attempted - in part because Ignocrates refuses to budge from their position. In my mind, we should actually take him up on his "last-minute offer" and topic ban them from ANY and ALL articles related to Ebionite matters ES&L 11:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ultraexactzz

I don't think Arbcom is here to sort the content dispute - and, looking at the previous dispute resolution, I don't think this is ripe for arbitration either. The mediation is really just a request for a third opinion by User:Keilana - and that (very good and well considered) opinion (here) focuses on sources, not on the conduct at issue. The ANI thread was closed rapidly, as it was not a request for help sorting the dispute but rather a request to take a side in it by refactoring talk page comments and the like. The DRN posting was closed with no discussion and no action. At this point, I think the best of all options would be an interaction ban between these two editors and a possible topic ban to make it stick - since there is no way for them both to edit in this area without friction. But that's not an arbitration function, as such. An interaction ban alone would just leave these articles to whoever calls dibs first - not a good option either.

Statement by John Carter

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)

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)

@ 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)

Clerk notes

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)

John Carter: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/1/2>

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)
• Recuse SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• Waiting a couple of days for Hahc21's statement and any other input before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hagelin

Initiated by IRWolfie- (talk) at 22:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• IRWolfie- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Littleolive_oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. [1]
• Diff. [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

IRWolfie-

As ArbCom is aware, there are unusual circumstances surrounding the Transcendental meditation set of articles, one which the community has failed to deal with and can only be adequately dealt with through arbitration. This arbitration is limited in scope and can be treated in a way that is fairly self contained. In John Hagelin, the article was edited and achieved GA through the editing of, amongst others, Little olive. This article at the time of its promotion was skewed, see [3] and thus was delisted as having been inadequately reviewed (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1 for more details). Since that time I have been trying to bring the article up to the WP:FRINGE standards as well as WP:RS, WP:OR etc, as I have with other articles such as the Maharishi Effect and Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health.

This request for arbitration centers around the six threaded posts on the page where I have been subject to many accusations and emotive commentary from the very start by Olive, where Olive has also been engaged in POV pushing.

An example of (not quite civil) POV pushing is the defence of an award viewed negatively by the reliably sources by proposing that we use the awards own website to offset any negative commentary about the award from the secondary sources, and framing it as though we are POV for not including positive primary sourced material: "While I am willing to include both pejorative and more positive content showing different views and satisfying NPOV you and Wolfie are not. Why is that?" [4]

Some individual comments throughout the six threads:

"Your ownership, tone and arguments for deleting content on this article are not acceptable per Wikipedia."

"You are dealing this way with a BLP and another human being's life and do so to satisfy some notion you have of what fringe means"

"This is not a game Wolfie, this is a man's life. If you had concerns discuss them, collaborate, but leaching out content based on false premises is unconscionable"

I reverted an edit, and posted a comment about the specifics [5] of some of the content. olive replied to this with: "Wolfie: That you think you have the right or expertise to determine what qualifies as a physicists work and what doesn't, that you unilaterally edit based on this determination, that you would deep revert another editor's painstaking work, unilaterally, based on some notion you have about what a scientists work is, and that you would then threaten editors on this page should they disagree with you is ownership and beyond the pale. You are skating on the thinnest of ice."

Later: "No editor has the right to determine a scientist's work does not qualify as his work. While you can determine that the sources are critical of the work dismissing the research out of hand as not part of a life's work in not your or our business as editors. Further most scientists I know would never take that step, critical of the work sure, but not the next step which you take here by excluding the research from the research section in this article based o n your personal opinion of what is research and what isn't. Such a move clearly illustrates a POV. Further you reverted an editor who has been uninvolved in these discussion after he spent a fair amount of time working on the article. Ownership."

I am asking ArbCom to intervene and consider looking at the specifics of this article, specifically those six talk page threads which mostly involve what occurred between me, Olive and MastCell, before the atmosphere becomes any more hostile. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I also have on-wiki evidence of a conflict of interest that does not involve outing, but I will withhold it save to show ArbCom privately only if requested as I am unsure of how to proceed with that considering the ambiguity set out by ArbCom, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Arbs. There are discretionary sanctions in this topic area? or do you mean the pseudoscience/fringe science discretionary sanctions? If there are I can move this over without waiting for the other arbs. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Clerks, This request can be archived since I've moved the request over to the correct venue, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Littleolive_oil. Many thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

I have nothing to defend myself against here. This is a content dispute which I had removed myself from noting as I did so novel interpretation of policy and that there was no progress. I have grave concerns about Wolfie posting during a content dispute especially as he had been reprimanded by a uninvolved editor for a deep revert of the editor's stylistic changes, and I have concerns about IRWolfie's behaviour across Wikipedia. I see now he has moved the case to AE. (olive (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC))

• I have no idea what I am supposed to do here on the AE page [6] where a six month sanction is being talked as needed more than ever now because I added a comment by an editor mistakenly saying he was an admin. Clearly this was a mistake since on the next line I use the word editor. I am also being sanctioned apparently because I said something about content. I have no idea what is going on. Can someone advise me: do I just let the sanction come in and got to a clarification, or do I go to ANI (olive (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Clerk notes

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

Hagelin: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0/1>

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

• Hello IRWolfie, this sounds like a situation that can be handled at arbitration enforcement. I'd be very hesitant to open a new case here. Risker (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per Risker; I see no reason why the existing discretionary sanctions authorized for this topic area cannot be used to address whatever issues affect this particular article. Kirill ^[talk] 01:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per Risker,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Decline. For IRWolfie's information, the discretionary sanctions in question are here. AGK [•] 13:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Decline and refer to AE. The transcendental meditation DS should handle this adequately. Courcelles 14:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Decline at this time per above. If AE does not satisfactorily address the situation, an updated request can be filed, but hopefully things will work out before that point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)