Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:08, 13 October 2013

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Template

Callanecc, I think the Proposal template wasn't copied before the last posted was used (with Proposed Remedy sections and others). Can this be reproduced again on the page? Liz 23:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, by more or less adding a blank template to the bottom of my own section, which I assume can probably be justified as still editing only my section. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, John Carter. Much appreciated. Liz 02:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Contact away from these pages

Just think it is perhaps worth the attention of the arbitrators to note the recent exchanges between My very best wishes here, and Ignocrates here, including comments which have been subsequently deleted, and perhaps note yet again that the involvement of the former has been, apparently from the beginning of his adding opinions against the rules placed at the top of the page, along with several dubious comments made since then, been rather unusual and perhaps problematic. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware of that. Recent editing by both parties will be taken into account if need be. I am currently working on the questions, and should have those up later tonight (UTC). I also intend to ask the case clerk to extend the workshop phase up to next weekend, when I plan to post a draft set of proposals on the workshop page, followed by the proposed decision on around 15 October as scheduled. I'll post an update if that schedule slips. Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Workshop date extended until 13 October. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, no apologies, Carcharoth

Sir, I know how difficult some of these arbs can be. Roger in one of the Scientology arbs said the printout of evidence was about 700 (or was it 7000? I forget) pages long. Trying to not only read all the material presented, but also paying attention to all the details, ramifications, and on, and on, and on, is an incredible effort in and of itself. I am grateful that you have given it all the attention, and used as much of your life, as you already have. We can all wait a few more hours, although I hope everyone realizes that my own responses probably won't be until later in the week in any event, so, if you need more time than till tomorrow, I at least have no reservations about giving you even longer if required. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing beginning or ending of the 13th?

Feel free to rip into me as much as you want here, but if at all possible I would welcome the opportunity to be able to respond and present additional evidence based on the additional evidence provided through the 13th. Unfortunately, while I can and will be able to do a lot today and I hope tomorrow, I am somewhat less certain about Saturday, but do know that I will have time on Sunday. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It will be the end of the 13th. Depending on how things go this weekend, I still hope to float a proposed decision for comments on the workshop page on the 14th, and then put a proposed decision up for voting after modifying it based on feedback received (that may be after the 15th, no need to rush that stage). Carcharoth (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions for parties

Just for everybody's benefit, it would really help if there were some sort of indication exactly where the parties should respond to the questions. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding below the questions on the workshop page itself will be fine. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal to fairly clear personal attack in Ignocrates' response

I am more than somewhat disgusted by Ignocrates' rather transparent attempt to use his response to a question to indulge in personal attacks. The specific point in question is, and I quote " John Carter's allegation that Justin Martyr was some sort of crypto Jewish Christian is laughable. This is pure propaganda." First, as is rather usual, he produces no evidence. Also, as can be seen elsewhere, Justin was a very early Christian thinker, and, according to most of the reference sources I've seen, not currently considered a particularly skilled philosopher. I also note that he is one of the early Christians held in high regard by other non-trinitarian groups, like Jehovah's Witnesses, whose beliefs are consistent, so far as I can tell, with those of the EJC and Ignocrates. The fact that he continues to indulge in these unsupported, and I believe unsupportable, rephrasings of the comments of others, even here, is a serious question. Also, regarding his response regarding his status as an SPA, I think this is a case when the duck test can reasonably be applied. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Emails

I can't help but note the ironic contrast between the outrage John Carter expressed over an email I publicly stated I sent to Ret.Prof regarding his preferences for contributing to Evidence diff vs. his silence over the threatening emails he sent to me. Given John Carter's statement in support of full disclosure of relevant emails to ArbCom, perhaps he would be willing to share those emails with the Committee. Ignocrates (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

While I congratulate you on the self-awareness implicit in your statement about how you cannot help yourself to make dubious comparison, my response would be that I am more than willing to share the content of the e-mail from you to the committee, and have actually (I think) indicated a willingness to do so from the very beginning. While I thank you for once again showing with the above comment how you yourself are unwilling to let go of old grudges, and how you seem to once again be perhaps indulging in generation of dubiously relevant commentary for perhaps the purpose of distraction. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is this: are you willing to share the content of the e-mails from you with the Committee that you sent in 2012? I doubt that they care about e-mails you have been saving since 2007. Ignocrates (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the point you are refusing to answer is whether you are willing to do the same. I indicated already that I was willing to share your own, or whether this insistence on your part to beat a dead horse is just another one of your regularly-indulged in attempts at distraction from real issues regarding your conduct and history which you refuse to deal with directly, favoring instead raising such basically irrelevant matters as this one. Your obvious refusal or inability as an individual to ever show any ability to move beyond those matters is I believe at this point almost as obvious as other of your shortcomings, and that is clearly something the arbitrators should take into account, and your continuing obsession with it, such that you still at this point clearly place such priority on it, cannot help but I believe reflect negatively on you. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, imo the Committee should have access to all the e-mails from 2012 because they are relevant to the current arbitration, in particular, the final e-mail from you in that 2012 exchange which contains an explicit threat. Ignocrates (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A threat from me in May 2012 regarding taking you to a noticeboard or ArbCom for the site ban which I believe I said I thought you richly deserved, which is from a time beyond the scope of this arbitration, which has never actually been acted upon, which they would have to take into account. Actually, the fact that I made that comment to you under your earlier identity is one of the significant reasons I hadn't acted upon it earlier, because of the possible assumption of vindictiveness that others involved might make. And please remember the incendiary, frankly pathological, nature of the e-mail from you which prompted that response. That is, of course, if they want it. Really, Ignocrates, the only thing this shows is your own refusal to let go of the past, and your obsession with it. I have more than once acknowledged losing my temper after what I regarded and continue to regard as the frankly insane nature of the commentary in your response. I realize from even your responses to the question from Carcharoth that you seem to continue to have problems dealing with apparent reality, as opposed to your dubiously supported views of reality, and, frankly, believe that the comments in your e-mail will probably be more damaging to you than the statement I made, but have never actually acted upon, in mine. Now, if you can let go of the matter, maybe stop the endless obsession with it and give Carcharoth a chance to respond before you continue your apparently obsessive compulsion regarding that matter. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you both really want to bring these e-mails between you both into the scope of this arbitration, you can both do that, but from the sound of it it may reflect badly on both of you. The bickering on these case pages certainly doesn't give me any confidence that this dispute can be resolved short of rather draconian measures for both of you. You both need to dial it down several notches, and concentrate on presenting clear-cut evidence (not evidence based largely on opinion and speculation), and to concentrate on producing workable proposals on the workshop pages. I am going to spend the next few hours going through and commenting on various matters relating to this case. At some point, the two of you need to stop adding more material, and allow time for consideration of what has been presented already. Carcharoth (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt it would. I added the information from the last e-mail, with which Ignocrates seems to have, based on his editing since he took that name, been rather fixated on. I am more than willing to face whatever censure is called for based on having lost my temper at him at that time. But, at least for me, it does feel good to have that one mistake, made in haste after his own really duibious assertions, lifted from my head. And, for what its worth, the reason for my presenting my opinions is more or less to allow you and the rest of the arbitrators to judge them as well, as well as my actions made on the basis of them, so that you can factor them in, for better or worse, in your decision. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you mentioned bickering between us, but this is the first time I have responded directly to John Carter in either Evidence or Workshop. On the contrary, I have deliberately refrained from doing that. Ignocrates (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)