| Revision as of 00:40, 7 December 2014 editEvensteven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,240 edits →John Carter and Kww← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:55, 7 December 2014 edit undoCinteotl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,603 edits →John Carter and KwwNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| 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. ] (]) 00:40, 7 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:55, 7 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)