Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Getting it right next time

No matter how this case ends up, I think it would be helpful to have ArbCom's guidance on how to create a disambiguation article and handle the dispute resolution questions I asked here. Keep in mind that Wdford was trying to find a global solution to the problem of extensive duplication. Ignocrates (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Error on Proposed Decision Page

There is an error message for an unexpected mod operator on the Proposed Decision page concerning the number of arbitrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Revised PD Delivery

Due to an unexpected medical issue, as well as being generally busy, the PD will be posted by the night of the sixth, at the latest. I hope to maintain the fourth, but it may be a bit of a stretch. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Medical issues of any sort take extremely clear priority over this decision. Take as long as required. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Evensteven (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

John Carter and Kww

I'm requesting that the interactions between John Carter and Kww be vetted in a separate case. They seem to have a history of bad blood and poor interactions of which the Historicity of Jesus is just the latest episode. This is in contrast to the other parties who don't seem to have a contentious history of interactions prior to this dispute. It will make the resolution of this case cleaner, and the two of them can work it out mano-a-mano (or not) in a separate case. The fact that the workshop has no principles or findings of fact concerning the interactions between them and is only focused on remedies says a lot. Ignocrates (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think the arbitrators may well know that Kww has had a lot of poor interactions with several people, admins and others, over the years. If that fact itself were not so visible, I would not have requested his being listed as a party, or proposed any decisions regarding him. The apparent rush to judgment regarding how I structured my comments above and on the page in question also I think directly indicates why the comment was made in the way it was. The fact that individuals seem to my eyes, basically, ignore much of the substance and content of the original statement posted in the proposed decision says a lot as well. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

When I asked that my I-ban restrictions be temporarily loosened for this case, I said I would restrict my comments to proposals and ideas and avoid comments on persons. I intend to abide by the spirit of those modified restrictions even if I'm doing it by myself. Ignocrates (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though I have interacted with Kww only on Historicity of Jesus, I have found John Carter's assessments to be pertinent and worth considering. I see no reason why a separate case is required if there is enough reason here to establish findings. Evensteven (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen, John Carter has a continuing pattern of developing contentious obsessions with other editors. At one point it was Ignocrates (they are subject to an IBAN now.) Then, it was me [1]. Now, apparently, it is Kww.[2]

This, combined with John Carter's difficulties with expressing himself clearly in the English language (ibid.) have lead to a lot of disruption to the project. Carter was desysopped in the past.

Based on a rather unpleasant interaction with him this morning [3], I've made it clear to John Carter that I have no desire to have any further interactions with him, except what is necessary for this arbitration. I would be pleased if ArbCom would issue a mutual IBAN between us, but otherwise, I'll just do my best to stay away from him. In any event, I would suggest removing John Carter from this arbitration, as all he's doing is creating a sideshow. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, I would really appreciate it if at some point you could make comments which don't show your regularly demonstrated attempts at misrepresentation. I was de-sysop'ed by myself, as the arbs know. And the frankly amusing self-righteousness and inability to believe you could personally ever be wrong on anything which you have regularly displayed, even when there has been little if any evidence to support same, is also something that I believe will be taken into account by the arbitrators. And I believe it extremely relevant that the above comment seems to be very possibly raised by another editor at this time, and that an editor whose grasp of policies and guidelines, as per certain comments at the Ebionites 3 arbitration, is itself very much open to extremely serious question. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a relief to find that I'm not alone - John Carter clearly has made a hobby of creating sideshows at Arbitration cases and attacking editors with whom he's developed an obsession. He's doing a similar thing at the Landmark Worldwide case, and I've been on the receiving end of a disgusting smear campaign from him and others both there and on the Landmark talk page, on the basis on no valid evidence whatsoever. DaveApter (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

DaveApter, as the arbs will know, the "disgusting smear campaign" you are talking about is at least in part due to your own refusal to directly respond to a question regarding your own possible COI, which has been raised several times. And, regarding Fearofreprisal, I can honestly say I have never to my knowledge seen that individual before, and the nature of his own comments, here and elsewhere, do I believe raise questions regarding possible extreme self-dramahtization in numerous ways, and such overreaction from self-dramatizing individuals and individuals who refuse to adhere to WP:IDHT by directly answering relevant questions asked of them should also be taken into account, as well as this perhaps interesting attempt at what might be not unreasonably be considered a WP:STALK violation. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on my recent exchange of information with John Carter on the workshop talk page and John's clarification of what he sees as fundamental problems with Kww's conduct, I'm more convinced than ever this belongs in a separate case. John has raised some important issues that go beyond the Historicity of Jesus article, including off-line actions that are hard to discuss here without the possibility of spilling confidential information. Ignocrates (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)