Statement by Hahc21[edit]

My final statement follows. I will not be adding a long list of diffs, since they were already provided by the two main parties. I will, however, add links were needed.

Although I had a hard time trying to gather the locus of this dispute, it is based on the interactions between John Carter (talk · contribs), Ignocrates (talk · contribs) and Michael C Price (talk · contribs), mostly. Ret.Prof (talk · contribs) and In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) have also been involved, but not as much as the first two. It all revolves around the Gospel of the Ebionites and similar articles, such as Ebionites. What I could grasp is that this begun when John Carter started to keep an eye on Ignocrates (then called Ovadyah), a user who appeared to be very closely related to the Ebionites Community (EC),^([1]) which had almost no presence in reliable sources and not covered substantially. This was a red herring to Carter, who started questioning Ignocrates' use of sources to back up information posted in both the Ebionites articles.

John Carter, from what I could see, was frustrated by the use of unreliable, nor-peer reviewed sources as statements of fact rather than speculations. He was also frustrated at the misuse of sources to tweak claims, which were also noted by other users, giving undue weigh to the information. Also, there is some sort of fringe stuff involved in here and, like noted by Ekwos (talk · contribs) here, some sort of self-promotion, which could be or not be related to Ignocrates. This led to several lengthy discussions on the Ebionites and Gospel talk pages, started by Carter, about the reliability and use of sources. This increased when Ignocrates publicly aknowledged that he has been keeping communication^([2]) with Shemayah Phillips, a prominent member of the Ebionites^(?) regarding the development of the Ebionites article, which Carter considers a transparent bias⁽¹⁾ towards the topic. This is an interesting read about that.

Why Arbitration

Because from what I was able to see, both parties don't like each other, and they won't agree or collaborate to create, by themselves, a binding and reasonable result that could satisfy them. This dispute has been here for years and now it's the time to close it. This dispute, in and of itself, is contentious like most religious disputes we've had in the past (although this does not involve a large number of editors due to the limited scope of the Ebionites topic). Nobody but ArbCom would be willing to put their hands in such a dispute to try and find a solution now that a third opinion by Keliana has practically been unsuccessful, and I am confident that ANI and an RfC would be of no use. Also, since both parties are claiming for ArbCom, this will end up here again in the future if the request is declined now.

Things to evaluate

1. Ignocrates' behaviour. I see a problem with both his editing style and his iteraction with other users, most prominently John Carter. One example of the latter is the Ebionite Jewish Community third AfD. Also, although it is out of the committee's remit at first, I think that evaluating Ignocrates' contributions to assess if he has violated WP:FRINGE (like the Argentine History case).
2. John Carter's behaviour. John Carter also has a share of the blame. As an administrator, he has not behaved to the highest standards of conduct, but I have yet to find a diff of uncivil comments done by him. There are a lot of instances where he has used the words "outright dishonesty" and "arrogance," for example, to characterize Ignocrates' behaviour and comments.
3. Ignocrates' use of sources that could be qualified as fringe.

Proposed outcome

If this case is taken, this is what I think ArbCom could take a look at:

1. Ignocrates topic-banned from Gospel of the Ebionites, and all related articles. I am considering that this is seriously needed, for a period of six months. Although he has done a good work on this topic area, the Gospel of the Ebionites area needs uninvolved eyes to check it, and if Ignocrates is still editing it, this would be hard to achieve.
2. Mutual interaction ban between John Carter and Ignocrates. Per all the evidence provided by the two main parties, as well as the scarce links I gave, and their own comments in this and other pages, a mutual, two-way interaction ban is needed. If these two stop talking to each other, most of this problem will be squashed.
3. Maybe a reminder to John Carter, and an admonishment to Ignocrates. I don't think that stronger sanctions are needed for this, but the committee can assess if more is needed. Apart from being prohibited to talk to each other, they need to be reminded about keeping discussions civil and avoid personalisation.
4. Discretionary sanctions for Gospel of the Ebionites topic area. Mostly to avoid this dispute to happen again.
5. A clarification of WP:FRINGE may also do good. I know that ArbCom is not here to make policy but a formal comment regarding the use of sources that do not belong to the mainstream view, and how they may be used, is very welcome.

I apologize if I touched this topic very briefly, but this is a bit complicate to explain.
If the arbs want further clarification on any aspect of the dispute, or anything... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ultraexactzz[edit]

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 uninvolved Ks0stm[edit]

I have no comment about the conduct of either party, but this may be one of the relatively few case requests that would be better handled by motion, perhaps in a style similar to the Durova/Shoemaker's Holiday motion but adapted for the current request. I don't really see that a case over just the two parties would be necessary at this stage, but they seem to indicate the desire for some sort of arbitration committee involvement, and a motion seems to be the best route here to me. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by In ictu oculi[edit]

I don't have a great deal to add. I am laterally involved in that at one point Ovadyah/Ignocrates was, it appeared, enabling UserRetProf to recreate re-sow "Authentic Matthew" (ie lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew theory) round various articles. But Ignocrates later backed off and later became helpful in keeping the worst of the WP:FRINGE out of the articles. I'm a little bit concerned about earlier statements of association/identification with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination), and share John Carter's concern as to how that would impact editing articles about what is an important text to the group (if "group" is the right word, for what appears to be 2 or 3 people loosely linked in cyberspace). As regards behaviour John Carter's behaviour has always seemed to me to be impeccable even under provocation, wheras Ignocrates has lurched from also being impeccable, to occasional upset. But then who doesn't get upset. The main issue really is that we don't have enough qualified editors to monitor Fringe on Christianity/Judaism (and particularly Jewish-Christianity intersects). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz[edit]

I think this dispute has to be seen in light of the two previous ARBCOM requests (Ebionites, Ebionites2) which have been filed between these two claimants over the past 5 or 6 years. What might not be apparent is that both Ignocrates and John Carter (along with others) have participated in multiple RfCs and gone to WP:RSN (at Ignocrates' initiation) and although the discussion always appeared to resolve the situation, it keeps getting reignited. I participated as an uninvolved Editor because I have no investment in the articles under dispute and have not contributed to them. I found Ignocrates willing to discuss differences while John Carter assumes bad faith on the part of Ignocrates as can be seen by the fact that he continues to call Ignocrates by a former username despite a legitimate name change (like I, myself, have done!).

The questions about what is or is not a reliable source was settled by thorough discussions on RSN and can be addressed there. I think many of those who oppose Ignocrates are mired in disagreements from years ago and can't move on to focus on creating good articles now and instead focus on their opinion of his character. It also bothers me that because Ignocrates had a past association with a person who has an opinion of a particular article, he is continually tarred with the COI brush (which seems like a label with no expiration date, once a COI, always a COI?). Wikipedia states that individuals can not be dismissed based on associations like religion without more demonstrable proof that there is a problem with NPOV.

From what I have witnessed over the past three months, Ignocrates continues to work on creating good article while John Carter continues to raise objections to his work but does not contribute himself to the articles. When there are questions about sources or the way a claim is phrased in the text, Ignocrates goes to the article Talk Page or the correct noticeboard to resolve the issue. John Carter might have some valid points to make about the articles but it seems like he wants to have veto power over Ignocrates' work and went so far as to request a review of a FA which Ignocrates had achieved six weeks after it acquired FA status when it is suggested that a review occur at a minimum of six months after an article becomes an FA.

It's a situation of oil and water not mixing. I see both Editors making worthwhile contributions to make to Wikipedia but they do not work well together. I think an Interaction ban is called for because this is a conduct issue, not a content issue. You could send this problem to AN or AN/I but considering how this dispute has lingered over the years, I think a more thorough investigation and ruling is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth I didn't mention the two previous requests for arbitration (Ebionites (2007), Ebionites2 (2011)) as well as the relevant Talk Page and RSN discussions, DR and RfCs because I think arbitrators should weigh in on the content issues that were at the heart of them. I only brought them up to show the duration of this interpersonal conflict, and especially point out the avenues that have been attempted in the recent past (this summer) to unsuccessfully resolve this ongoing dispute between these two Editors.

I wasn't active on Wikipedia during the original Ebionites requests, so I have no knowledge of how this conflict begam or about the participants conduct in 2007-2011 beyond what is in those documents. I'm simply claiming that whatever problems existed in the past that made John Carter suspicious over Ignocrates' work no longer appear to be relevant but he seems unwilling to return to AGF regarding Ignocrates. You can read up on all of the past attempts to resolve disputes between these two Editors but I think that lack of GF is the crux of the matter.

That said, I think both Editors have much to contribute to WP and I would hate to see either one of them blocked from editing excepting limited topic bans or interaction bans. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

This promises to be a fuck-up all round, unless very great care is exercised to keep a steady eye on what both protagonists can do for wikipedia. In ictu oculi said, and I agree, that 'The main issue really is that we don't have enough qualified editors to monitor Fringe on Christianity/Judaism (and particularly Jewish-Christianity intersects).' It's more general than that. Nearly all of those articles on Christianity/Judaism are indigestible dumps of clichés, or point-scoring because those who edit are driven by either political readings of the past, or by fideistic difensiveness. Ignocrates had a powerful personal interest in the idea that the Judaic element underlying Christian origins (it was, by general consent, a variation on a not yet canonical Judaism) had been overwritten by de-hebraizing gentile Christianity, and the Ebionim (the poor sect) were the residue of the 'real' message of the Jewish reformer Jesus. John read this as, tendentially, a slow POV assault on the foundations of Christianity, understood as the new faith detached from its Jewish roots. It didn't help that Ovadyah/Ignocrates, in the pursuit of what was, in his case, an intense intellectual quest for the 'true' origins of Christianity in Judaism, was tempted to overvalue ideas that are considered fringe, and, more importantly, ended up with alliances by bad POV pushers, with an execrable insouciance to the methods of wikipedia and scholarship, few felt comfortable with (Michael Price and to a lesser extent, Ret.Prof). This was true of the state of affairs about two years ago. Recently Ovadyah/Ignocrates began to produce work of very high quality, source wise, formatting, templates, which shows an exceptional dedication to, well, retaining his intellectual fascination with these obscure sects, while accepting all of the wikipedia, in their strictest reading, required for FA quality articles. He has set a very good benchmark for quality in an area vagrantly edited by many who work articles on 1-2 CE Christianity and Judaism. I have been on amicable terms with him from the outset, despite strong differences. John, I think, keeps thinking that this substantial upgrading of the quality of sourcing by Ignocrates hasn't changed the partisan point of view he detected in the original Ignocrates. He indeed shows exasperation at the new work, as if somehow, Ignocrates has, by taking on board all of the extremely demanding rigours of high quality sourcing once asked of him, devised a way to turn his personal reading of early Christian sects into a shape endorsed by the best modern scholarship. John may have a point in this intuition, but, I think, he is mistaken. Even were that true, it does not matter. For Ignocrates's thorough use of contemporary scholarly sources is such that the articles he creates are not only of much higher quality than most other articles we have, but by the very methods they use, allow all accomplished editors who disagree with him to edit, readjust, review, contest and remodulate whatever in them might appear to be a POV-tinged reading of the relevant literature. John, whom I count a friend, has recently allowed exasperation over this to get the better of the solid good sense he has often displayed outside this small zone of work. I would suggest that, actually, there is a solution which allows us to retain and employ the talents and capacities of both, with little if any harm to either. Something like a IBAN. John's range of interests in early Christianity are extremely broad, of encyclopedic dimensions: he is committed to uploading and getting into wikipedia large encyclopedic sources that cover virtually the whole field of religion. Ignocrates is methodically concentrating, as far as I see, on a restricted field of articles in the fringe area of the taboo zone of pristine Judaeochristianity. The answer is to ask John to waive his rights to superintend a dozen or so of the articles Ignocrates is working to bring up to GA or FA level. Ignocrates is not working that area alone. Several of us keep an eye on them. In brief, John's original worries were well founded, but Ignocrates has demonstrated a dedication to quality control that renders them superannuated. This is rather personal. I can see that, interacting in a shoot-out, both risk serious damage, and I would be disappointed to see this happen, for the encyclopedia would not be a beneficiary. Discretion is required to devise a way in which interactions are kept to a minimum, without punitive sanctions.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John. The link is neither here nor there. James Tabor is RS for his fringe theory (it's easy to pull it apart: he takes the genealogies, and the parental myth of linkage between John the Baptist and Jesus at their word. They are known to be late mythic constructions, created to respond to criticisms by other Jews that the Nazarene man was born in the wrong town (not in Bethlehem) to qualify as the predicted Davidic messiah). Tabor is a qualified biblicist. I think his work is mostly sheer unverifiable speculation. But in the new articles, Ignocrates is, party as a consequence of our extensive arguments in the past, partly because of the sophistication of his reading in strong sources, no longer availing himself of such material for these articles, therefore all such evidene is 'stale'. I also think, as an irreducible pagan with however strong affective liens to people in both the Judaic and Christian traditions, that this whole era's reportage is contaminated by traditional mutual enmities and wariness (antisemitism) and politics (Israel). Scholarship has for the last 30 years dragged itself out of this sectarian quagmire. Most wikipedian articles are sunk in the clichés of an earlier era. Ignocrates is the only editor I know of who is using contemporary scholarship to get rid of this dialectical face-off. From a 'Jewish' communitarian perspective, his approach would lend itself to severe criticism. From an orthodox Christian perspective, he would be seen as 'getting at' the distinctiveness of (Pauline) Christianity. I really don't care what drives Ignocrates. In 4 years, he has absorbed much of the critical admonitions people like myself, yourself and in ictu oculi have raised, and the result is generally excellent. The right perspective is to compare what he is doing to what you get in articles like Antisemitism in early Christianity, Antisemitism and the New Testament,Christianity and antisemitism Christianity and Judaism and Origins of Christianity, Historical background of the New Testament, Paul the Apostle and Judaism, Split of early Christianity and Judaism, and the like (speciously coherent mishmashes of good, bad, and irrelevant sourcing) to see that.Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sorry John, but the second diff is not only 'stale', you misread it. Ovadyah used the Christian term 'penance' not the Jewish term 'teshuva', which is quite a distinct practice. If anything, the embedded metaphor was ecumenical, and hardly evidence of a subterranean anti-Christian bias. Come now, let's settle this amicably. No one is completely right in conflicts like this. Given that this religious metaphor has been raised, I'd like to see this end by a symbolic gesture from both before arbitration goes ahead. I think it's in the Berakoth Tractate where mercy must dominate anger so that literal justice need not take place. John, you should take the lead. Luke 6:27 'diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos,' which in layman's terms advises that one 'bury the hatchet', or, as my father, a veteren of savage conflicts used to say to us, 'If you have had a bitter argument with someone, never let the sun go down without extending a handshake to the person, whatever the wrongs or rights'. There's time for us to all just walk away from this.(My apologies to the arbitrators for this unusual plea).Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@And it is none of our business to inquire into private beliefs. Wiki is run according to wiki rules, which are utterly mad(dening), but functional to its aim of communal encyclopedia-writing. I think you should step out of the framework and consider this from the obvious perspective. You both have an intense interest in religions, and esp. early Christianity, and Judaism. Stop thinking of wiki results, and reflect on the best in either system. In this case, a rabbi and a monk of long experience would advise detachment, reflection, and a gesture towards reconciliation. Both religions were attempts to overcome the tribalism of honour codes, public face and vendettas. Anyone who practices them learns that. To see a scholarly dispute poison the very values both faiths espouse is one of the deepest ironies. But, perhaps you are right. My ideal world is one before religion became a public issue, i.e. pagan Greece. I'll desist, somewhat sorrowfully. I'm not prescient, but I know exactly what will happen with logical exactitude, when all it needed to avoid walking blindly into a pit was a sense of gentlemanly courage. Good luck, John. And my apologies to admins for abusing this board with unwikipedian considerations. Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will go to my grave shaking my doddering poll at the incommunicability of simple dialogue, having been distorted by an early exposure to Plato, that dialogue was rational.

(a) you seem to assume that Ignocrates' religious practices are necessarily Jewish.'

Meaning I am making an assumption (I wasn't but) about Ignocrates'd private beliefs. I replied

(b)And it is none of our business to inquire into private beliefs.</blockquote>

Meaning, '(of course John, you are right) And inquiring into I's religious practices is not our remit.

(c)Honestly, I very very much regret the obvious jump to conclusions in your last comment below. I did not at any time indicate that I was asking about private beliefs,

I.e. I agreed with you that inferences about I's religious beliefs would be improper, and you read this as suggesting I insinuating that you were inquiring about his private beliefs. It's precisely because I see an awful amount of this, even among friends, that I don't really want to edit wikipedia, or rather, I make a reflexive mental sign of the cross (any ritual will do) and a deep breath, when I edit wikipedia each day. Come to think of it. I much prefer talking back to books. I may misread them. They rarely misread me. Anyway, just to clarify, for what it's worth. Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just in reply to Carcaroth's query, I think an editor called User:Astynax used to edit and comment a couple of years ago. I only remembered that name because it is, minus a dropped vowel, classical Greek. Sorry I can't be more helpful.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Late Comment by Llywrch[edit]

(Despite trying to watch for this, I only discovered this RfA a few minutes ago.) I've been an unwilling witness of this interaction for a few years. Around the time that Ebionites 2 was heard by ArbCom, Ignocrates was inadvertently pushing a specific POV; he has since understood what he was doing was wrong & changed his ways. When I helped Ignocrates to improve Gospel of the Ebionites, I found him very easy to work with, & very receptive to my concerns about Fringe Theories, identifying speculations as such (even from reliable sources), & that the article accurately reflected academic consensus. (Our discussion about improving this article can be read at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gospel of the Ebionites/archive1.) Although John Carter is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, & is someone for whom I have much respect, I must say that he has a blind spot in this case: John Carter still thinks the Ignocrates of Ebionites 2 is the same Ignocrates of today. Instead of responding to the reasoning, he is responding to the person. John Carter responds to much of what Ignocrates contributes with a higher level of skepticism than one usually applies to new material--which is not constructive. (And that should force all of us to acknowledge how established Wikipedians often evaluate contributions based on the person making the changes instead of based on the material itself.) The best solution for this instance, IMHO, would be for the two to simply avoid any further interactions: John Carter works on his articles, Ignocrates works on his, & neither looks at what the other has done. Any other solution would likely lead to the loss of at least one valuable contributor. my previous statement on this dispute

@ John, if you have instances of Ignocrates taunting you, please share them. I have not seen anything of the sort, but I haven't gone looking for them either. And the spelling of my username is close enough; I think everyone knows whom you mean. :-)

@ Carcharoth, there might be some other people who could comment but I don't know how valuable their opinions would be, or how relevant. For example, the problem with seeking out Jayjg's input is that he left Wikipedia under controversial conditions. (I don't remember all of the details, & I'm equivocating because I don't want to say something wrong about the man if his case was, indeed, different from what I remember.) There is Ret.Prof who seems to have suffered collateral damage in this feud, but his story may be relevant only in that John carter's suspicion of all things Jewish Christian drove him away from Wikipedia, & not about the behavior of the principals. And some of the people involved in Gospel of the Ebionites ArbCom case (I'm thinking of the banned Lung salad) shouldn't be brought in at all, because they contributed to the atmosphere of mistrust that led to this feud. (I spent a few hours today pouring over various talk pages, & this whole matter has been depressing; I'm amazed more people haven't left Wikipedia because of this feud.)

Initiated by Ignocrates (talk) at 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Ebionites 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 1 - Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ignocrates (initiator)
• John Carter

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• John Carter

Information about amendment request

• Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban
• (a) remove Ignocrates from the two-way ban and change the scope to a one-way interaction ban, or alternatively,
• (b) change conditions of the two-way ban from "interacting with each other" to "commenting on each other as persons"

Statement by Ignocrates[edit]

I am appealing my interaction ban resulting from the Ebionites 3 case. I believe I showed that I can engage in constructive commentary on John Carter's proposals and ideas during the recent Historicity of Jesus case. In particular, I requested by email that ArbCom temporarily relax the ban restrictions for both parties within the case to permit a discussion of proposals and ideas put forward by the parties. I believe I demonstrated on the workshop and proposed decision talk pages that a constructive exchange was possible. Here are some representative examples from the HJ case: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7

Accordingly, I'm asking that the remedy be modified so that my half of the ban restriction is lifted, or the conditions of the two-way ban are relaxed, to permit me to engage in similar constructive commentary on John Carter's proposals and ideas on Wikipedia in general. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this diff8, where I provided evidence at AE that John Carter did not violate his topic ban. The point of all this evidence is to demonstrate that I can comment on John Carter's proposals and ideas without making it personal. It would be useful to be able to do that at Village Pump and on other community pages without worrying that the mere act of posting there is going to land me at AE. Ignocrates (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Arbs: where's the AGF guys? The best I can do is to take responsibility for my own actions. Ignocrates (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, if the outcome of this request is going to turn on the conversation on WTT's talk page, the subsequent AE filing by John Carter is just as relevant. In contrast to WTT's opinion, AE closed the incident report with no action taken because they were not convinced a violation had taken place. To do otherwise would have established a precedent that simply posting to ANI is a ban violation irrespective of what is actually said. Ignocrates (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to point out the isolated diffs that John Carter is producing and wonder how he could possibly be doing that without systematically trolling through my edit logs. This is what stalking looks like, along with casting aspersions and personal attacks. Ignocrates (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Euryalus, @Thryduulf: I agree with both of you. I was being overly optimistic based on the recent HJ arbitration case. I thought there was a noticable improvement in communication, but I can see now that I was mistaken and this I-ban should remain in place. Please consider my request for a ban modification to be withdrawn. Ignocrates (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter[edit]

I would suggest that the arbitrators review the history of the above editor since the interaction ban was levied here. I believe it show that in the intervening period he has had as one of his few real activities, basically, stalking of me, and attempting to assist individuals who, like User:Fearofreprisal, have been in conflict with me. This can be demonstrated rather obviously by his interjection of himself onto these pages, with which he had had no prior involvement, but which could, not unreasonably, be seen as being clear evidence of stalking as per WP:STALK: here, almost immediately after my comment five minutes earlier, visible in the same page. Other instances would include the recently closed Landmark arbitration case, a topic with which he had never displayed the slightest interest in before, and, basically, pretty much everything in the intervening year other than his interactions with Ret.Prof and development of two articles, both of which are activities he has had no engagement in according to his edito history for the last few months. In fact, a former arbitrator specifically commented on his obvious stalking in this user talk page thread. Based on his recent behavior, I have no reason to think that the lifting of the existing ban would do anything but amplify the amount of stalking I have been subject to from Ignocrates. He has more or less indicated above that he actively seeks to interact with me directly, truly remarkable since he has demonstrated no personal interest in any of the pages I edit beyond interacting with me, and I have to assume that basically demonstrates that his purpose in making this request is to basically continue to engage in stalking of me, rather than doing anything truly productive. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only sanction which has been levied to date in this case was once, against me, when I pointed out the outright dishonesty of one of Ignocrates' statements. I regret to say that the last comment above by him is rather clearly a second lie of his, as he seems to insist that, somehow, after two weeks of inactivity, he "somehow" found one of the ANI threads I was active on completely by accident and made comments to seek action against me. Ignocrates has made a point in the last year of indicating that he is capable of indirectly discussing my activity with others who have been up for sanctions, including Fearofreprisal, who was topic banned, this smart-ass comment relevant to nothing in particular to that user, whom I had previously disagreed with regarding the status of some of Bart Ehrman's comments, this "hello" to BruceGrubb, who had been banned from the historicity of Jesus/Christ myth theory in which I was involved, User:Neuraxis, who was topicbanned as per a discussion I was involved in here and here, and some of his other comments which seem to have been directly leveled at me, often critically, in the Landmark arbitration and elsewhere with other editors. The evidence of STALKing is rather obvious, I'm afraid, and if I am to be again sanctioned for noting Ignocrates' habit for dishonesty, so be it. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that nothing Ignocrates impugns above actually addresses the matters raised. Also, as I think I have said before, I have every page I edit automatically added to my watchlist, so, honestly, every edit he has made to pages I have already edited would appear on my watchlist. And to call review of evidence "trolling" shows, I think, more about the ego of the person making it, and his lack of grasp of policies and guidelines, than anything else. But, repeating the obvious, I watch pages I edit, and when someone who has been banned from interacting with me miraculously appears editing those pages, particularly when they like Ignocrates have had no previous contact with them, that is the much more obvious stalking and trolling. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ebionites 3: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• I haven't read all the links in detail yet, but I'm reluctant to remove an interaction ban when one of the parties is clearly very unhappy with the prospect. Comments from other observers would be welcome too. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The comments on this page clearly show that the interaction ban needs to remain in place. Both parties need to refrain from behaviour that could appear to be stalking, and both parties need to stop accusing each other of such behaviour. Interaction bans are normally left in place until long after the users concerned have lost interest in each other, and that is very far from the case here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• My initial inclination is to agree with Thryduulf here. Courcelles 03:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline as withdrawn. Courcelles 08:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline, largely per the thread from WTT's talkpage, linked by JohnCarter above, which strongly suggests bygones are not yet bygones. Sorry Ignocrates, I appreciate the inconvenience of this I-ban but on present evidence there's not enough to support its removal and a reasonable case that it remains entirely necessary. --Euryalus (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ignocrates, thanks for the additional comment above. At their simplest level I-bans are acknowledgement that two otherwise good-faith editors cannot interact without animosity. There's evidence of that in the WTT thread, and also in the comments from both parties in the evidence section on this page. These alone are sufficient reason to maintain the I-ban. Please note I am not attributing blame or responsibility for poor interactions, simply noting that they continue and that this supports sanction retention. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline I don't see how removing this would help the 'pedia --Guerillero | My Talk 09:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per my colleagues,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Per Euryalus' second comment. The effort is definitely good, but at the end of the day, the iban still serves a purpose. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by John Carter (talk) at 15:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3#Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ignocrates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified here

Statement by John Carter[edit]

Requesting clarification if the existing i-ban prohibits taking the other party involved to ANI for input of the broader community in the event of further obvious stalking which by avoiding explicit mention of me does not necessarily explicitly violate the i-ban, but is clearly of a STALKing nature, and, if it does, amendment to permit it, with of course reasonable consequences to me as the possible filer should the request there be found to be poorly based or otherwise improper. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the entire case were about me casting aspersions, it is unthinkable that Ignocrates would have been subjected to an i-ban as well, although that was specifically included in the remedies. I believe there are reasonable questions raised by comments here regarding the basic honesty of involved individuals, which may well be worth considering. But, to clarify, does the ruling rule out taking obvious stalking as per WP:STALK, which might fall short of being completely clearly an "interaction ban," to ANI? This request was prompted by the existing WP:AE filed regarding this matter, and that, to date, I have felt that I would not be able to do so. Can such requests be made? Also, just for clarification, I understand that if such requests can be made in general, any requests made which are clearly found baseless or poorly justified would still reasoanbly qualify as a violation of the interaction ban. Also, I suppose, if ANI requests are permitted, are there specific limitations to what can and cannot be said in such requests? John Carter (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ignocrates[edit]

I have no idea what the poorly worded statement above based on non-existent evidence even means, so I can't respond to it. This entire case is about John Carter casting aspersions. It's why the Ebionites 3 arbitration case was filed; it's why he was stripped of his tools; it's why we have this I-ban. Despite the restriction, he has used every available opportunity to continue this aggressive behavior at ARCA, AE, and on the talk pages of other editors. He can't seem to stop himself from doing it. Ignocrates (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Carter seems to misremember that I requested a two-way interaction ban. That was the point of filing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information update from NE Ent[edit]

Both those folks were blocked JC, I as a result of AE request by Ignocrates. NE Ent 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Note/clarify: it was not my intent to offer any opinion here, simply to notify the committee that the parties may not currently post here (unless the committee directs some action to enable that). NE Ent 00:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

Ebionites 3: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• In my view wikihounding/wikistalking someone you have an interaction ban with is a violation of that interaction ban. As such if a party to a topic ban has evidence that the other party is hounding/stalking them, they should present that evidence at AE. If you have queries about whether something is or is not covered by an arbitration remedy, ask the arbitration committee on this page (or by email if it is sensitive). A discussion at ANI of the sort that was proposed here would be a breech of the interaction ban in my view.
  The purpose of an interaction ban is to separate people who cannot interact with each other productively and civilly - it means do not interact with the other person, do not follow them around the project, do not comment on what they have to say, stop thinking about them - if you can't do that while working in the same area as them then go and find different corners of this project to edit. Use Special:Random and find a stub to expand for example, improve the encyclopaedia while expanding your own horizons away from the other party and the topic(s) that got you ibanned. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• First, let me say that I hope Ignocrates and John carter both return to editing. But, I cannot fathom how to make it clearer that both need to stay as far away from the other as possible. Courcelles 20:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]