| Revision as of 17:26, 12 December 2014 editJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →John Carter and Kww: expanded and clarified← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:08, 12 December 2014 edit undoIgnocrates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,170 edits →John Carter and Kww: explanation of the two waysNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| ::::::The link I left above is worth reading in the context of this case. It's essentially about two groups (tribes) talking past each other as though one group (the out-group) is made of dark matter. ] (]) 15:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ::::::The link I left above is worth reading in the context of this case. It's essentially about two groups (tribes) talking past each other as though one group (the out-group) is made of dark matter. ] (]) 15:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Actually, from what I read, the section about "dark matter" was about the speculation that there was a huge degree of "dark matter" which was somehow seen by some as being potentially as, if not more, important than visible matter. Now, dark matter itself is right now a rather dubious concept on its own. The way I interpreted it, admittedly perhaps prejudicially, was that there seems to be some sort of insistence that we give some form of equal or at least significant representation to opinions which some of us might assume exist, or might perhaps ourselves hold, but for which we have no clear and obvious evidence, or in our context independent reliable sources. Or, perhaps, that there is such sourcing, but that those sources are considered proponents of minority or fringe communities. In the case of the latter, we are obliged to follow our rules regarding minority or fringe opinions. The sort of thinking involved, that we need to include everything whether we can source it adequately or not, is actually more or less directly in conflict with our policies regarding weight and sources. I acknowledge that there are numerous belief systems which are not necessarily sufficiently discussed in independent reliable sources to merit inclusion as per WEIGHT here. Honestly, I regret that. As some others know, I've created and worked on articles myself on belief groups whose reliable sourcing is somewhat open to question, including ], about whom I could only find two paragraphs in one reference book, although thankfully others have found more subsequently, and the ], based on the name being included in one list in one reference source. We can't include everything, and we are obliged to structure what we do include according to policies and guidelines. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have as many articles as individuals want on various topics, we should. But we have to follow policies and guidelines in doing so. ] (]) 16:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | :::::::Actually, from what I read, the section about "dark matter" was about the speculation that there was a huge degree of "dark matter" which was somehow seen by some as being potentially as, if not more, important than visible matter. Now, dark matter itself is right now a rather dubious concept on its own. The way I interpreted it, admittedly perhaps prejudicially, was that there seems to be some sort of insistence that we give some form of equal or at least significant representation to opinions which some of us might assume exist, or might perhaps ourselves hold, but for which we have no clear and obvious evidence, or in our context independent reliable sources. Or, perhaps, that there is such sourcing, but that those sources are considered proponents of minority or fringe communities. In the case of the latter, we are obliged to follow our rules regarding minority or fringe opinions. The sort of thinking involved, that we need to include everything whether we can source it adequately or not, is actually more or less directly in conflict with our policies regarding weight and sources. I acknowledge that there are numerous belief systems which are not necessarily sufficiently discussed in independent reliable sources to merit inclusion as per WEIGHT here. Honestly, I regret that. As some others know, I've created and worked on articles myself on belief groups whose reliable sourcing is somewhat open to question, including ], about whom I could only find two paragraphs in one reference book, although thankfully others have found more subsequently, and the ], based on the name being included in one list in one reference source. We can't include everything, and we are obliged to structure what we do include according to policies and guidelines. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have as many articles as individuals want on various topics, we should. But we have to follow policies and guidelines in doing so. ] (]) 16:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::The idea of the article is that people self-assort into groups, and classify others as members of out-groups. In this case, the author self-identifies as being a member of the "Blue Tribe", and they inhabit the "light-matter universe" (read: those who dwell in the light). People who have different ideas, or oppose them, are classified (by them) as belonging to the "Red Tribe" (read: conservatives) and they, of course, inhabit the "dark matter universe". The two tribes occupy the same space, but never interact and have no real idea of what the members of the other group are like or what they value because they don't ask. Everything they think they know is based on stereotypical assumptions, usually negative assumptions that reinforce their own group identity. Do you see how this analogy applies here? ] (]) 19:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:08, 12 December 2014
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 |
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. 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 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 . Now, apparently, it is Kww.
- 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 , 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)
- Please tone things down guys, I do apologize for the late PD, my back refuses to cooperate, and I think I missed a couple key aspects when crafting remedies first go round. Hopefully no more than a dayish more wait. NativeForeigner 11:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and sorry to hear about your back problems. Btw, this is as good an explanation as any I have seen for the difficulties here: dark matter. Ignocrates (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I had back problems for about two months which made me walk at the breathtaking speed of one mile per hour at best. Again, take as long as you like, and we all hope for the best there.
- There is a not unreasonable point that not everything that exists can necessrily be reliably sourced. Having said that, there are also policies here regarding reliable sources. As I think both Ignocrates and I know, there are a number of groups which do not meet our notability standards. This includes I think about half of the roughly 20,000 current separate Christian denominations worldwide (yes, really), said to exist in one reference source. And I know of more than a few distinct religious groups in the US which don't even meet the low standards of two congregations not both in the same metropolitan area which is the standard for inclusion in one of the reference books. I think at least a few of us honestly regret that fact, but at the same point I'm not sure that there is a hell of a lot we can do about covering things that may not now or ever meet our really low standards for inclusion. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the proposed decision in this arbitration?- John Carter: Let me try to rephrase, in the interests of toning things down.
- My reading of your comment is that you are talking about the notion that a large number of religious denominations can't be included in WP, because they don't meet WP's notability standards, not having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Is this substantially correct?
- My initial reaction to your comment was to try to figure out what it has to do with this arbitration, and why it is on the talk page for the proposed decision. On both points, I was, and still am, mystified.
- Could you explain, please? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC) (edited 06:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC))
- Fear, in all honesty, can you give me a reason why I would be want to "explain" anything to someone who has repeatedly, and rather insultingly, said they want nothing to do with me, has rather regularly asked inherently prejudicial questions, and in general has seemed to display as well, particularly in this case, no effort to follow the previous discussion? If you, as you have so repeatedly said, want nothing to do with me, can you provide any rational reason why you so clearly and repeatedly insist on having questions which you could easily find the answers to yourself if you made the effort to attempt to follow the conversation explained to you by me? John Carter (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- The link I left above is worth reading in the context of this case. It's essentially about two groups (tribes) talking past each other as though one group (the out-group) is made of dark matter. Ignocrates (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, from what I read, the section about "dark matter" was about the speculation that there was a huge degree of "dark matter" which was somehow seen by some as being potentially as, if not more, important than visible matter. Now, dark matter itself is right now a rather dubious concept on its own. The way I interpreted it, admittedly perhaps prejudicially, was that there seems to be some sort of insistence that we give some form of equal or at least significant representation to opinions which some of us might assume exist, or might perhaps ourselves hold, but for which we have no clear and obvious evidence, or in our context independent reliable sources. Or, perhaps, that there is such sourcing, but that those sources are considered proponents of minority or fringe communities. In the case of the latter, we are obliged to follow our rules regarding minority or fringe opinions. The sort of thinking involved, that we need to include everything whether we can source it adequately or not, is actually more or less directly in conflict with our policies regarding weight and sources. I acknowledge that there are numerous belief systems which are not necessarily sufficiently discussed in independent reliable sources to merit inclusion as per WEIGHT here. Honestly, I regret that. As some others know, I've created and worked on articles myself on belief groups whose reliable sourcing is somewhat open to question, including Church of Daniel's Band, about whom I could only find two paragraphs in one reference book, although thankfully others have found more subsequently, and the Ebionite Jewish Community, based on the name being included in one list in one reference source. We can't include everything, and we are obliged to structure what we do include according to policies and guidelines. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have as many articles as individuals want on various topics, we should. But we have to follow policies and guidelines in doing so. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- The idea of the article is that people self-assort into groups, and classify others as members of out-groups. In this case, the author self-identifies as being a member of the "Blue Tribe", and they inhabit the "light-matter universe" (read: those who dwell in the light). People who have different ideas, or oppose them, are classified (by them) as belonging to the "Red Tribe" (read: conservatives) and they, of course, inhabit the "dark matter universe". The two tribes occupy the same space, but never interact and have no real idea of what the members of the other group are like or what they value because they don't ask. Everything they think they know is based on stereotypical assumptions, usually negative assumptions that reinforce their own group identity. Do you see how this analogy applies here? Ignocrates (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, from what I read, the section about "dark matter" was about the speculation that there was a huge degree of "dark matter" which was somehow seen by some as being potentially as, if not more, important than visible matter. Now, dark matter itself is right now a rather dubious concept on its own. The way I interpreted it, admittedly perhaps prejudicially, was that there seems to be some sort of insistence that we give some form of equal or at least significant representation to opinions which some of us might assume exist, or might perhaps ourselves hold, but for which we have no clear and obvious evidence, or in our context independent reliable sources. Or, perhaps, that there is such sourcing, but that those sources are considered proponents of minority or fringe communities. In the case of the latter, we are obliged to follow our rules regarding minority or fringe opinions. The sort of thinking involved, that we need to include everything whether we can source it adequately or not, is actually more or less directly in conflict with our policies regarding weight and sources. I acknowledge that there are numerous belief systems which are not necessarily sufficiently discussed in independent reliable sources to merit inclusion as per WEIGHT here. Honestly, I regret that. As some others know, I've created and worked on articles myself on belief groups whose reliable sourcing is somewhat open to question, including Church of Daniel's Band, about whom I could only find two paragraphs in one reference book, although thankfully others have found more subsequently, and the Ebionite Jewish Community, based on the name being included in one list in one reference source. We can't include everything, and we are obliged to structure what we do include according to policies and guidelines. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to have as many articles as individuals want on various topics, we should. But we have to follow policies and guidelines in doing so. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- The link I left above is worth reading in the context of this case. It's essentially about two groups (tribes) talking past each other as though one group (the out-group) is made of dark matter. Ignocrates (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fear, in all honesty, can you give me a reason why I would be want to "explain" anything to someone who has repeatedly, and rather insultingly, said they want nothing to do with me, has rather regularly asked inherently prejudicial questions, and in general has seemed to display as well, particularly in this case, no effort to follow the previous discussion? If you, as you have so repeatedly said, want nothing to do with me, can you provide any rational reason why you so clearly and repeatedly insist on having questions which you could easily find the answers to yourself if you made the effort to attempt to follow the conversation explained to you by me? John Carter (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and sorry to hear about your back problems. Btw, this is as good an explanation as any I have seen for the difficulties here: dark matter. Ignocrates (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)