Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop

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 Read! Talk! 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  Read! Talk! 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, shortly after your retirement as Ovadyah, my first e-mail to you, and your inflammatory response to it, 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)
 * See the comment here at 01:52, October 11 which rather proves that comment to be false. And I also believe it might be worthwhile noting that some comments I have made may not be subject to spin control, and that there is rather a history of WP:IDHT regarding such comments from him. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I changed my user name from Ovadyah to Ignocrates on September 21, 2011. diff Hopefully, this clarification will put to rest any tendentious claims made to the contrary. Ignocrates (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. I forgot that detail myself, but it is specifically addressed by me in the e-mails, all of which have now been forwarded to ArbCOm - the first from me, your response, and my third comment. John Carter (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Intimidation
Attempts to intimidate uninvolved parties commenting on this Workshop need to be taken seriously. diff1, diff2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignocrates (talk • contribs) 22:25, 13 October 2013‎ (UTC)
 * And attempts to continue to misrepresent the comments of others in the above fashion also have to be taken seriously. It is probably worth reviewing the whole thread linked to, not just the edits Ignocrates links to, to see if what he in his prejudicial opinions calls "intimidation" really is. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies
Since I am on good terms (I hope) with both disputants, and had provided a general impressionistic overview very early on, I had no intention of intervening here. I did so today only when noting my remarks had been mentioned. On posting them I see that I am a day late. They say nothing new, from what I remarked elsewhere, but I would like to apologize for posting evidence after the expiry date. I was in Germany from the 11th to the 13th and only got back home this evening. Sorry for the oversight. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed decision delayed
The proposed decision has been delayed and will not be posted tomorrow - apologies for that. I hope to have it ready for the end of the coming weekend, and will post parts of it for review on the workshop pages. For now, there is more than enough material to review, so can all case participants please refrain from adding more and take a break until I start adding proposed principles and findings to the workshop. I will leave it to the case clerk to update the date for the proposed decision. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, Carcharoth. Compared to a other cases (like the Manning one), this dispute is m more limited. But there are still a lot of diffs to check out, archived talk pages to read. I look forward to reading what the Arbitration Committee comes up with. Liz  Read! Talk!</b> 01:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Carcharoth, the case now says that the "Workshop closes 19 October 2013". But is it correct to assume that you don't want the parties to add any additional material? Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Within reason. Remember that if lots is added, it may not get read (by me at least) until I've finished working through the other material. Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't expect much to be added. I think everyone involved is worn out by the process. But I struck out one of my statements because of comments made to me later. It's good to know whether I can make small deletions or additions over the next four days. They would probably be missed by the Arbitrators who have more direct evidence to consider but I just thought I'd ask. Thanks for the prompt reply. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the Workshop period has been extended to Oct 19th, I'm going to respond to Smeat75's proposals. I'm embarrassed to say I forgot to do it earlier. However, I shall be brief and to the point. Sorry for the oversight. Ignocrates (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Brief additions will be fine. I expect to post some draft principles and background findings tomorrow for workshopping by case participants. Carcharoth (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

E-mail exchange from May 2012

 * Split off to own section. Carcharoth (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the entirety of the e-mail exchange in question has now been forwarded to ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. It's best to have all of this out in the open. The Committee should understand the context that I was recently retired at the point in time this email exchange took place with the intention of walking away permanently. diff1, diff2 Ignocrates (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, you could have done the same thing yourself, and the fact that you apparently didn't, given the three days I was unable to work, if you didn't have them yourself, is perhaps worth considering. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually request that you forward the e-mails to ArbCom, only that if you both really wanted to forward them to us, then you could both do so. Still, you have sent them now. What we still need is the corresponding copies from Ignocrates, or permission from John Carter to forward the copies he sent us, so Ignocrates can confirm they are genuine. I have asked my colleagues to review them, and in the meantime I will carry on with drafting the case. Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Permission granted. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I deleted my personal copies in May 2012, a few days after that exchange, and moved on. Therefore, I would need copies from ArbCom to verify them. I can also explain my email to the Arbs if asked. Ignocrates (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ignocrates, as you don't have e-mail enabled (as far as I can tell - the link does not appear when I go to your user page), we would need you to contact us at the main mailing list address given at Arbitration Committee. But I need to be clear from both you and John Carter why you want ArbCom to review that e-mail exchange - what does it provide evidence of (please be brief)? I am already aware of this. We would also need to know who e-mailed each other first and how contact was made - was it through the 'E-mail this user' function on Wikipedia? Was there contact prior to and/or after that e-mail exchange? Did either of you make a complaint at the time? Those are the sort of questions that tend to be asked when this sort of thing comes up (which is rarely). One final point: ArbCom rarely looks at evidence like this, and it is entirely possible the entire set of e-mails may be rejected as out of scope. You both need to make clear why you want us to consider now (rather than raising objections to it at the time) what was a private exchange of e-mails between the two of you 17 months ago. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * , there is no need to send me the emails. I only asked for them to meet your request for verification. I have had my email switched off for several years, and I don't want to change the settings. Therefore, I will stipulate that the emails John Carter sent to you are accurate. Hopefully, that will take care of the problem. John Carter sent the first email to me two or three days after I announced my retirement on May 4, 2012. My email settings were turned off at the time, so he apparently still had access to my email address from an email I had sent him in 2007. There were three emails in total in that 2012 exchange. He sent me an email, I responded, and he sent a follow-up email. That was the sequence. I sent him an email (or possibly two) in an exchange in 2007. Those are the only emails exchanged between us. Ignocrates (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I support John Carter's sending of the emails in the interest of transparency. Now the Arbs can make an informed decision based on complete information. They should be used as background information, along with the publicly available information that is more than a year old, to summarize the history of the conflict. That information provides some context about the ongoing nature of the conflict and the reasons for the editing environment within the past year. I don't support introducing the emails as evidence. Let's stick to the scope that was established at the beginning of arbitration. Ignocrates (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments
I was wondering whether User talk:Ignocrates would qualify as perhaps being material related to this arbitration, as it seems to me to be a collection of discussions in which I was previously involved regarding sanctioning of religious POV pushers on noticeboards. And I do believe it interesting that this section was created on October 18 as per this edit, which would at least to my eyes raise questions whether it is even remotely usable in this context or perhaps an attempt to keep some form of "attack material" available for future use. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This type of behavior is exactly why I recused myself from editing for the duration of this arbitration. As I clearly stated in that section of my talk page, I am compiling some resources to use later to improve the WP:POV railroad essay. It has nothing whatever to do with the Ebionites 3 arbitration. I also note how that explanation was conveniently omitted. Ignocrates (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see, the evidence rather clearly calls into question that, as so far as I can see all the material included relates to me, and it is I believe very, very open to question whether these "attempts to improve an essay" might themselves be, in a sense, an attempt to continue to attempt to harass a single individual with whom you have had disagreements on an essay page. And I don't see any clear "explanation" which was omitted, or how it was "conveniently" done. The comment you made at the end of the thread doesn't really address the fact that all the links provided to date could be seen as being a continuation of your own insistence on impugning people individually, possibly for strictly personal reasons. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably expected protest after the fact of delimiting of the arbitration to one year
I believe Carcharoth has indicated that he has reviewed the prior history of this dispute, much of which is at least indicated at User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. I believe that there is reasonable grounds to protest the outcome of this case if there is no apparent attempt to address some of the long-standing concerns raised there, and I believe I may well find myself forced to perhaps appeal this matter to whatever venue might be appropriate (I have no idea what that might be), if the remedies do not appear to take into account some of the longer-term behavioral problems raised there. John Carter (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This case is still in the workshop phase. I don't believe you can appeal until the decisions is finalized. I wouldn't draw any conclusions until all of the arbitrators sitting in on this case weigh in. After reviewing the evidence, this is one arbitrator's rough draft of some proposals. The other arbitrators may or may not agree with them, in part or all. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm uncertain who one could even appeal to, ARBCOM being the final court. They would be reviewing their own decision and I doubt they would do this except after a period of time (a year or more). L.
 * Appeals are made to Arbcom VIA requests for clarification/amendment. Some are even successful.  There is no standard appeal time but historically if they use an indef they set the first appeal at no earlier than six months. Appeal to Jimbo is technically valid, but he gets more hands off as time goes by so I wouldn't hold my breath.  204.101.237.139 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 204.101.237.139, I did not know that. I stand corrected. I appreciate the information. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is some info on Arbcom appeals, in case User:Liz or anyone else is interested. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 00:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems premature to think about appeals before the arbitrators have weighed in with their views but more information is always welcome, <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b>! I think that link though is for Editors who have been personally banned and appeal it, not those who appeal ARBCOM rulings. I could be wrong though. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just providing general information. Not saying it applies to any particular situation or to anyone in this particular case which, as you have said, is still in process. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 01:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you guys are missing the point. Read the wording carefully; the validity of the process itself is being questioned. Ignocrates (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize that, Ignocrates. I also think the comments might be a reaction to seeing the proposed decisions posted in workshop and being surprised. These are proposals, it remains to be seen how the rest of the arbitrators will view them.
 * It's predictable that someone who is disappointed in the result, questions the process. In fact, looking at other cases, like Infoboxes or Manning, complaints about the decisions arose as soon as the cases were finalized (if not before). It's hard to imagine an ARBCOM case where someone, involved or uninvolved, isn't unhappy with the resulting decisions...I've looked over some past cases and I haven't seen one where everyone was satisfied with the results. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 12:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted
The proposed decision has been posted at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Proposed decision. That decision may still change depending on what other arbitrators propose and how voting proceeds. Discussion by the parties and others should now move from the workshop to the proposed decision talk page. I will also ask the case clerk to carry out the other updates needed. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)