Arbitration matters

Active?

*takes his old Clerk hat out of storage* Should you be moved back to active on any or all pending cases? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have done it myself. But yes. :-)

James F. (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG

Hi James. I am asking you to reconsider your judgements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision. It has just been made clear that a large part of the accusations made against me were based on a false claim being made by Elonka and Arangar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [1]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, embedded responses [2]). I am asking you to think twice before believing the accusations of such editors. Regards PHG (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please view Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision for a update of these issues. PHG (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will follow-up there.

James F. (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James, hi, I had a question about the amendment that's currently being discussed, regarding PHG.[3] Would "everything, not just articles" mean mainly that he should stay off user subpages, or would this be restricting him from history article talkpages as well? Or are you talking a site-wide "all page" ban? Thanks, --El on ka 03:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification in IRC case

I have requested clarification in the IRC arbitration case here and am notifying you as a recused arbitrator who was involved with the case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have posted there.

James F. (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Edit

I know arbing matters are above my head, but did you mean to replace all of Kirill's comments here [4]? MBisanz ^talk 09:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted below; merging. James F. (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)][reply]

You replaced all of Kirill's votes with your own, just so you know. Bellwether ^B _C 11:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that as well. He probably edited an old version of the page by accident. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone boldly fix it, or does it have to be an arb? Bellwether ^B _C 11:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new version of remedy 1.1 needs to be restored also, along with some copyedits I made. If James or Kirill doesn't pick this up, someone post a note on AC/CN. I'd fix it myself but I'm travelling today with limited access. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Have now fixed.

(Darn, now it's rather more obvious that I work on cases for hours at a time and come back to them before saving - not sure why this didn't just edit-conflict.)

James F. (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

Hi James. You seem to be arguing on Arbcom for my User Subpages to be included in my restrictions from editing Ancient History or Medieval History articles. Please note that I manage vast quantities of images from museums around the world (such as User:PHG/Metropolitan Museum of Art), which indeed could be interpretated as "related to ancient history". I have however been "encouraged" by the commity to keep contributing such images, as well as material for Talk page discussions and suggestions, and User Subpages are an essential means of achieving this. Could you kindly reconsider? Regards; PHG (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in answering.

I understand your concerns, but I hope you can see why we feel the need to impose a further clarification of the retrictions. I'm not sure that such image categorisation shouldn't take place on Commons, anyway.

James F. (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone closing of ArbCom case?

Dear Jdforrester/Arbitration Archive 4,

I saw that now 4 arbitrators have already moved to close. If I understand correctly, the case will be closed at 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)?

I love Wikipedia's concept: The sum of human knowledge is just that: the sum, not the subtraction. I believe we wikipedians of all colours are going to be able to differ violently in opinion and at the same time work together in an atmosphere of camaraderie nevertheless and respect one another. These conflicts are burning editors out, myself not the least. We need help to find the way back to the core policies of wikipedia, which are there to prevent these conflicts and to warrent the creation of high-quality, neutral articles by due process.

It was not I who invited the ArbCom to this matter, but now that we're there, I would welcome a solution to the ongoing conflicts. I believe my proposed principles are in line with Wikipedia Purpose and Policy: Would you be inclined to continue on the case and see whether you can rule on some of the Proposals I and other editors have made? Perhaps the ArbCom would be willing to consider my Proposed principals 3-11? The most simple one, and quite important, would be nr. 3:

(POV tags are not there to point to dissensus amongst reliable sources, but dissensus among wikipedia editors.)

Would the ArbCom be able to rule on this? Reminding the other editors (4 of which are valued admins) that this is how wikipedia works might be of help in resolving the conflicts and informing our readers about the status of the article.

PS See also this, at the bottom.

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Decision

In the Tango case, most of the parts have a majority vote, but there are a few parts that will need voting from other arbitrators who have not gotten involved in the case (yet). If you will be voting on the case, I'd like to make a request for your vote on the parts that do not have a majority: principle 4.1 or 4, principle 5, and principle 9.1 or 9 (or if you'd like to make a proposal, then that). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]

Homeopathy case

Would request you check the "Motions and requests" section in the workshop for this case - I would particularly like some clarification from all ArbCom members on the 2nd request by me - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests page

Particularly from clarifications, amendments & appeals, the requests page has been clogged up recently. I'm going to remind you (or inform you) of some cases that may need your attention, views and reasons, or further discussion to try to fix this problem. Once the page is less clogged up, then that's that :) You may find the links to the cases mentioned at {{RfarOpenTasks}} - created by one of the clerks, AGK.

Currently, there are 2 requests which require arbitrator attention, one involving IRC voting, while the other involves "Episodes and characters". Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction of a charge against Dana Ullman (the homeopathy case)

Thank you for participating in the Arb case on homeopathy, even though you have voted for banning me for a year.

Sam Blacketer also voted for this one-year ban, and in doing so, he noted serious problems from one of my seemingly erroneous edit summaries.[5] However, FT2 alerted him that my edit summaries were accurate,[6], and Sam retracted his statement. Further, PhilKnight showed good faith in retracting these same charges that he had on the Evidence page. However, because Sam felt strongly enough about the seemingly erroneous edit summary that he made a comment about them, I asked Phil if he would contact the Arb committee members who have voted in case this (false) charge influenced your opinion. [7] Instead, he has suggested that I do so. [8] If, by chance, you too were influenced by the charge of bad faith summary edits, please note that this has been proven to be inaccurate.

Finally, although I have made some errors on wikipedia, I do not feel that they are serious enough to warrant the proposed one-year ban. Due to limited space, I am unable to reply to the many other erroneous charges against me, and I therefore ask if Arb committee members have any specific questions or concerns about my participation here for which they want my reply, I urge you to simply pose these questions or concerns before placing your final vote. DanaUllman^Talk 16:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the case, but I'm afraid that the correction notwithstanding, my opinion holds. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal - PLEASE HELP

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to you as Arbcom member to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter.

This is a massive injustice, and only allows others to continue to assert factually incorrect, malicious, offensive and POV items about my country.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.246.83 (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still banned. I am not really the best person to ask to have it over-turned; the Committee has decided as a whole that we do not think it would benefit the project to release the ban, and I agree with my colleagues in this matter. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy

Though you appear to mean well, this is a spectacularly dumb idea. The Cla68 case is about C's pursuit of Slim Virgin and others s/he perceives as abusive, among other marginally related crap. That JzG also happens to fall into Cla68's peculiar crosshairs should not mean that the totality of Viridae's concerns (and, more importantly, the concerns of the 76 who endorsed Kirill's RfC statement) can or should be subsumed by the Cla68 mess.

I should note that I have no strong opinion on the merits of Viridae's request. I personally find JzG a largely uncooperative, incurably foul-tempered and occasionally helpful bully (who has even helped me on occasion); I don't specifically wish to see him sanctioned--I merely wish to convince you that combining the two cases would be needlessly messy and does nothing to address the community's genuine concerns about this admin.

The JzG problem should be dealt with separately or (more likely, knowing the way things work around here) not dealt with at at all. By the way, if you need a replacement for Newyorkbrad, you know where to find me. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the toss can be argued both ways; however, I see the root cause as something with which we should deal in a holistic fashion.

James F. (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica Linking

Could you please clarify the statement you made here? Are you saying that you agree with the general sentiment expressed by FT2, but agree with Krill that the issue should be left to community discretion? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification:

The Arbitration Committee does not, and should not, decide content.
Per Kirill, "we stated fairly clearly at the time that our prohibition on linking to ED was contingent on there not being a legitimate article on the site".
Per Kirill, "the existence of such an article was a matter for the community to decide".
Per FT2, the community's decision such as it is - that no such link should exist - should stand, though this conflicts with our general policy of neutrality.

Sorry that this wasn't clear.

James F. (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up for us. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision - CAMERA LOBBYING

Ready to close - 2 votes made already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, yes. There really isn't a need to spam my talk page with the news - especially the wrong one. :-)

James F. (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this - seems like I wrote that a long time ago. I think I'd wanted to give a quick nudge in case you miss(ed) the update, and so you could submit your vote to close (or not) sooner. Sorry about that...but I'm not sure what you mean by the wrong one? While I'm here, I'll also remind you (or inform you in case you didn't know yet) that some closing votes have been cast for Footnoted quotes - hopefully the case is closed soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I created Template:ArbComOpenTasks merely so that I could use this to keep up with cases easily, so... ;-)

I paginate my talk page; you left the comment initially on the non-Arbitration, non-IRC talk page. No worries, though. :-)

The Footnoted quotes case is subject of quite a lot of private discussion (and both public and private representations, indeed), hence my holding off, but yes.

James F. (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies :X and cheers. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

urging

You are marked as active on the case list. Although I don't see any contribs by you over the weekend, or even very recently... I urge you to get active. I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks, discussions of names of users, and the like should be, in my view, left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. I posted this first at FT2's page and FT2 indicated he is waiting on responses... the longer this festers the worse it is for everyone... ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)

I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have given some feedback on the page you've suggested, though it saddens me that we don't get asked these questions more frequently - it shouldn't take on-wiki drama for people to feel the ability to query our methods.

James F. (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July arb stuff

Thank you for taking the time to vote on the 2 requests that have been on the Rfar page for sometime.

The majority for the Giovanni33 case is 5 - 6 arbitrators have voted now. Perhaps it is ready for a support (vote) for motion to close?

Cheers again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to the first, just doing my job. For the Giovanni33 case, I'd rather let my fellow Arbitrators come to some agreement over R2 before forcing them to an up-down vote on the whole case.

James F. (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say something along the lines of 'thanks for being prompt' as there's been some concern that certain arbitrators have not been lately, even when considering the complexity or simplicity of certain cases. But I agree. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have checked this first, or got you to do it, but I think it was obvious. But to let you know anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. Sorry for the thought-o.

James F. (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case

I don't doubt that you've seen it, but I'd like to formally point you towards [9] motion on the C68-FM-SV case. The continuing delay, resulting from refusal to arbitrate, of this case is getting beyond a joke and I personally find it unacceptable. Many in the community are as a result of this delay calling Arbcom's very existence into question. The refusal to come to a conclusion, echoing the MM case amongst others, demonstrates that Arbcom is no longer willing to deal with long-term problematic behaviour and is giving a free pass to those involved. What is worse is that even the vote to dismiss is being delayed. Please vote there as soon as possible, because the community needs some kind of closure and to prolong the case further is a disservice to the many editors who have spent time preparing the case. I'm posting this to your talk page as you are a sitting arbitrator, and I will be doing similar on the others'. Thank you, --78.145.83.124 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, but yes, I had seen.

James F. (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where I am concerned, [10] please do not have any thoughts whatsoever. Thank you. Giano (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my duty is to consider everything, even items unpalletable to some or even most of the community.

James F. (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser oversight

Well, you have three en.wiki checkusers petitioning that you review the use of checkuser. While not a formal case per se, it is one in which you'll be expected to make a public pronouncement at the end of formal deliberations. Call it what you like and handle it however you see fit. In my experience a simple note to arbcom-l does not carry the necessary leverage. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. My primary concern is that people will gather expectations from the terminology and macroscopic process (i.e., like an Arbitration case) that we are not going to follow (as it's not appropriate/helpful), and that this will disappoint them; it's more that it's unfair to the community than that I'm overly attached to a particular process. :-)

James F. (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

use of talk pages in Iranian ethnic conflict

Dear Jdforrester,

I'd just like to point out that part of the problem which brought me to arbitration was the lack of use of talk page and 'shoot first, ask questions later' reverts. if you would look at the history of the relevant talk pages, you would see that despite being solicited, no talking was done and any of my edits were reverted within matter of seconds. As it is right now, i can't even tag problems in articles without being reverted nearly automatically. You would also be prudent to note that the existance of the arbitration request introduced a change to the editing behaviour of some editors, although it remains to be seen whether it will revert back to earlier pattern if the request is rejected. MiS-Saath (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

latest case

You mention in the edit summary that the remedies do not go far enough, why not propose stronger remidies. It would be nice to know at least who are still supporting the abusive admins. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to come to a decision as to what I think would be a better set of remedies.

James F. (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

James, I'm afraid to ask whether you are indeed endorsing findings to state which of the involved editors you believe are valued and which you do not. Is this right? I find it hard to believe you would consider that appropriate, but I'm not sure how else to read it. Some clarification might be helpful. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also just dropped by to ask why you do not consider Cla and Viridae to be valued members of the community, and yet are willing to support statements that FM, SV, et al, are. naerii 14:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asked on the Proposed Decision page as well for this weird disconnect that appears to be an error, one would hope.[11]. rootology (C)(T) 14:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you signed off on the finding that the community has been demoralized by "perceived double standards", why are you taking actions on the other findings that make it likely that you will be perceived to be having a double standard on the issue of which findings are "subjective" or "objective" based on which user they're about? *Dan T.* (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply there.

James F. (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less substantively, I think you inadvertently failed to vote on proposed finding 6(B). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks.

James F. (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C68-SV-FM Arb Case

Hi. I would be interested in hearing a reply from you to my comment on the talk page of the proposed decision, here. It concerns the notion that it would be beneficial to Wikipedia if administrators had a stronger feeling than they currently do that clear abuse of the admin tools would lead to the loss of possession of those tools. I'm referring specifically to my evidence concerning one editor. Thanks for your work on this case. FNMF (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied there. Sorry for the delay.

James F. (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. And I've now replied there to you. And apologies for initially posting the above comment on your regular talk page rather than here. FNMF (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email req

cross-posted

Have you had a chance to review my email request? MBisanz ^talk 11:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, only just now. If you want faster responses on matters like this, you should ask me directly by e-mail as a GC (which I review every day), as opposed to as an Arbitrator (once a week when things are very busy, as I need a few hours' concentration). :-(

Yes, I'm happy to release you from the convention for this matter, if you think it necessary. It will be considered whether or not you post it publicly.

James F. (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the CLA68/SV/FM/JzG/V arb

You don't know me. I'm a fairly bitter ex-wikipedian, I came back out of boredom and a sort of distorted sense of wry ironic humor. I come back to find the release of a monumental finding of fact and decision on an ArbCom case of massive importance.

I'm here to speak on behalf of the people that have been driven away from this project, be it by CLA, or by SV, or by any other way.

I respect ArbCom for it's putting up with having to shoulder the communities burden, but I despise it for taking the easy way out. I understand that there are issues involved in any sort of decision that are hard to understand, and that the concept of a group warning may seem better than the outright war you would have if you desysopped and banned the lot of them.

But until ArbCom is truly willing to make the cruel decisions, decisions that in the short term may hurt the Wiki, no one is going to believe in your ability to act in a truly fair manner. Unlike many,I can understand your qualification of which editors you could agree to find as a fact of their contribution. I think that makes you honest and human, instead of lying and fake, to undertake that sort of act. I'm not going to comment on its "rightness" or "wrongness". But if you want to fix the community, to restore trust, to make people understand that even the mightiest and most influential people in WP simply can't do some things, you need to take a strong action.

Lack of a strong action will only show that , in reality, ArbCom is a kind of meta-RfC where if you don't fit into the crowd you lose and if you're in with the arbs you win. I would hate for people to take that view of ArbCom, but that's where it would lead to if the decision was to slap people on the wrist.

I'm not going to suggest that Cla is the villian, or SV, or any of the rest. That's beyond my ability or desire. I will recommend that you simply think about how communities will look at your discussion.

Thanks for your time. --Logical Premise (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective Votes (in the C68-FM-SV case)

The C68-FM-SV case is about to close, so this might be too little, too late, but I had noticed the discussion on the Proposed Decision talk page about how you voted on the x.A Proposed Findings of Fact in the case which all dealt with similar statements of "x is a longstanding and valued contributor..." I was, in fact, a bit disquieted by your votes until I saw your explanation. The more I think about your explanation, however, I just cannot see how it might be hypocritical to change your stance for editors you've previously supported in such subjective votes before. But still...that's my personal understanding, and not what's at issue.

I would like to suggest this: would you consider change your x.A votes on any "x is a longstanding and valued contributor..." type findings to Abstain? I think the minor controversy was simply that you'd chosen supports or opposes under your own reasons which simply were readily apparent to others. I think abstaining would be a better way to reflect your reasons, without the appearance of bias for or against any editors, and without affecting the outcome of the case.

My fear is that the discussion on your reasons might be lost to time, and your choices here might misinterpreted again later. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. I do all that typing, then look back again and realize you hadn't voted "oppose" on anyone, just "yes" or "abstain." Still, in all I think it would be fair to abstain even for those you've supported on such subjective findings in the past. An abstain is not a withdrawl of support, simply declining to answer the question. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered this, but had rejected it (as explained). However, on (even) further reflection, I agree to some extent with your argument. At this late stage, though, I don't really see the utility in changing my votes (it will make no difference to the case's result, as I had known it would at the start). But thank you for your thoughts; I appreciate your input.

James F. (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October Arb Stuff

It seems that a backlog may be developing in clarifications and other requests. This one is the oldest (almost 2 weeks old) but still does not have any arbitrator views, and I presume that's why the clerks have not archived it. Things are obviously beginning to queue up this month, but I think an update on the status is needed from an arb. (eg; if it's going to be/still being discussed on the mailing list or if it is dismissed and can be archived or...etc.) If you can make a note there within the next day or so, that would be great. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision - Abtract-Collectonian

This case is going to be 2 weeks old in another couple of days. Evidence/workshop is complete, and all proposals made on the pd page have been supported by 4 arbitrators. If you could kindly hop on over to this page to vote, that'd be great. Hopefully this case will be ready to close by 29 Oct. :) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded debates and discussions

Candidates and the community,

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.

01:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiVoices

Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review}

RFArb page - Motion: Tobias case

Would like to request that you change your vote so this may be archived sooner, before the RFArb page gets too much longer. I make this request given that the active current case (Kuban) has similar proposals - I expect they can be tweaked in such a way that it will eliminate the need for amending the Tobias case, while providing any necessary clarification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify ...

cross-posted to James F.'s page, Angusmclellan's

...a comment in the Piotrus 2 case? In the "Piotrus mentored" remedy, you opposed the proposal and said: "Though I should note that this stronger line will lead to the eventual departure of many of our community." What is this stronger line and why should it lead to anyone departing who wouldn't have left anyway? Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a comment in response to Sam's:

I'm afraid I see this as a ludicrous remedy. Piotrus has been a Wikipedian since April 2004 and an administrator since January 2005. If his understanding is such that he still needs a "mentor to assist him in understanding policy" now, then he is never going to understand it. Better to give firm instruction as to future conduct.

My point was about the Committee's and community's appetite to engage with and attempt to reform long-standing users, and how Sam's comment would suggest a strengthening of our will.

Sorry this wasn't clearer.

James F. (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you James, that makes perfect sense. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus case

Piotrus case - questions

Few questions/comments: 1) About greg getting banned, have you seen those new facts? 2) Another question: you wrote about Matthead: would support with "previously" inserted before "edit-warred" Wouldn't the same qualifier apply to Molobo? 3) Could you explain in your own words your objection to 25.6? For the record, I have asked both Brad and Flo if they have reviewed this, and they both have not gotten to me back with their final reply yet. I do consider this point a very important one for me. 4) 4 arbcom members agree in findings that Stor stark7 was disruptive, but they don't support his ban; I agree with that reasoning but shouldn't he get some restriction? He is currently the only editor with findings against him and no remedy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Molobo, please see [12] and [13] and [14] and [15].

And regarding the proposed FoF on me, please, please see [16]--Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for your replies. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made mistakes, I recognize them, pledge not to so again and I am ready to work with arbcoms regarding appopriate restrictions/mentorship that would allow me to continue to productively contribute to non-controversial aspects of this project. greg park avenue (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus Arb 2 additional evidence

Directly overwhelmingly supporting the findings against Tymek. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus and BLP violations--what the evidence shows

Please refer here. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

We can't get consensus. We try. We have tried for years. We can't. We need help. Is there no help? -- Evertype·✆ 19:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the request, there had been a steady-state for four years, and suddenly it was changed, and then reverted, over only the past few months. That sounds more like consensus than many editing arguments around Wikipedia.

James F. (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom ignoring myself

On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys at Piotrus arbcom

At the Piotrus ARBCOM, you have opposed or abstained on a finding that Biophys has engaged in unhelpful speculation and fear-mongering (I call it nuttery). It has also been mentioned that he has said he will not do it again. If you refer to User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_19#Inappropriate_use_of_account.3F, it is plain to see that he has gone against this, and had openly accused myself of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. This accusation was raised after he and User:Grey_Fox-9589 gamed the system, and reported me for violating WP:3RR. Whilst I admitted that I breached 3RR, I also raised further information at the [3RR report, in particular that I would not sit by and allow BLP information to be introduced into the article; note it is Biophys who has accused me of doing so (it is a laughable claim); additionally he somehow managed to worm his way out of getting a block also for breaching 3RR, something that I quite clearly pointed out to the THREE admins. Due these repeated accusations on Tiptoey's talk page, whilst I was blocked (how convenient for Biophys that I couldn't respond), I demanded that a check user be done in order to stop these outrageous accusations. It was confirmed that I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet (for the second time mind you), and as you can see from that link, even afterwards Biophys continued to harrass and engage in speculative nuttery; it was even mentioned by 2 other editors. I have written to the Arbcom privately on 8 November with information pertaining to myself, and how such accusations can be possibly damaging, but I didn't get a response to that one either.

Also possibly not looked at on the Piotrus arbcom is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Russavia. In particular the BLP violations committed by Biophys. I addressed this at the 3RR report, in which THREE admins saw what I posted, but refused to do anything about.

Is this Arbcom responsible for this particular case?

Why after pointing this out on several occasions has not a single word about BLP been said to Biophys?

Or is it acceptable to have:

In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile.[44] He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,[45].

in articles, which are sourced to Chechen terrorist websites?

Would it be acceptable to have a similar sourced claim about Gandhi in an article? Or what if it were on the Jimbo Wales article?

Compare that to the NPOV version which I inserted into the article:

In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile,[49] and compared Putin to Andrei Chikatilo.[50] Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia.[50] The claims have been called "wild",[51] and "sensational and unsubstantiated"[52] in the British media. Litvinenko made the allegation after Putin kissed a boy on his belly whilst stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds on 28 June 2006.[52] The incident was recalled in a webcast organised by the BBC and Yandex, in which over 11,000 people asked Putin to explain the act, to which he responded, "He seemed very independent and serious... I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice...There is nothing behind it."[53] It has been suggested that the incident was a "clumsy attempt" to soften Putin's image in the lead-up the 32nd G8 Summit which was held in Saint Petersburg in July 2006.[52]

Which was removed several times by Biophys and replaced with the statement of fact that Putin is a paedophile.

Why has this not been addressed by the Arbcom, after being presented into evidence? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pester power :-)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions - come on chaps, bums off hands please. It's not acceptable to leave this hanging, and you have a duty to make your position known. It's causing drama, and undue stress in all directions. Socks up please. Privatemusings (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RFAR#Motions_2

Could you please vote or abstain on Motion 1.3 in the Matthew Hoffman appeal? It currently has 5 supports out of ten, but the new Arbcom is going to come in in two weeks, and then everything will be thrown into chaos. It has been up for three and a bit weeks, the appeal itself is a month old. It would be nice to be able to get this over with and move on, instead of leaving it to the new Arbcom to sort out.

Thank you,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding alternative remedy for greg

In light of votes to close and this passing, may I ask if you have seen this alternate proposal? If you have seen it, could you post your vote there, with a rationale? Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting

On your reply to User_talk:Jdforrester#Piotrus_case_-_questions point #3, which I consider still very important. You may also want to read this. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD RFAR

When I initiated the Peter Damian RFAR on the 5th December I was rather hoping it would be a quick motion to clarify his unblock terms, to prevent further disruptive blocks and unblocks. It's been nearly a fortnight now, might I just ask what your concerns are, or when you think you might be in a position to offer an opinion? Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you James. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland article names: Request for Remedy 2

The case was closed on 2009-01-04. Attempts to achieve consensus regarding Remedy 1 began shortly thereafter. It is now 2009-01-18, and no consensus has been achieved. Will the ArbCom now proceed with Remedy 2, please? -- Evertype·✆ 10:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I'm no longer a serving Arbitrator, and unable to help with your request. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]