This is an archive of my Arbitration-specific talk page, the current version of which is located here.

Arbitration matters

Appeal of VeryVerily

Dear Arbitrator,

I noticed your vote on the Proposed decision to maintain the restriction on me. I urge you to reconsider.

I spent hours preparing a very specific explanation of everything the AC complained about a year ago. If the restriction on me holds, it will be for nothing. I once made hundreds of edits a week, but have stopped editing for over a year. I could not, and can not, edit under these conditions, knowing I can be blocked at any time under some expanded definition of "revert", if I continue to make thousands of edits. I did a huge amount of productive work here, including much anti-vandalism, and every time I read Wikipedia see how much more I could do to help.

Where is the justification for this restriction? The finding of facts? The response to the specific evidence I presented? I explained what happened in those cases, why I didn't think a talk page "discussion" was needed (e.g., I was being stalked). The restriction is quite onerous for someone who edits at the rate that I did.

Though controversial, I believe I have always been a conscientious editor, and will be in the future if allowed to be. The restrictions on me are senseless and were never justified, but now even after a whole year?

Please don't do this.

Very Verily 18:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... whut? I voted in favour of removing most of the restrictions on you.

James F. (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You voted to get rid of one of the two restrictions, the one that was by far the less important one. That one makes it impossible for me to edit, as the block I noted in my defense made clear. Now with some expanded definition of "revert", I could get blocked constantly because I didn't check the page history to see if the edit I made wasn't made once before. With the 3RR one must at least do a bunch of back-and-forth edits in rapid succession to even qualify, but here just one edit can (and did) get me blocked.

I used to do lots of counter-vandalism, RC patrol, and even just warding off stalkers. That will be impossible with this restriction. I used to defend pages from the likes of Ruy Lopez, who would go in "rampages" of making the same bogus edit to twenty pages. And I just make lots of key improvements on batches of pages, such as recategorizing. I might be able to function with the 1RR restriction, but not this one (but neither is justified!). I will not just be a second-class user, which I absolutely don't deserve, I will be hugely disabled.

I have made nearly 12,000 edits here! I was a major contributor, and now you've driven me off for a year, and are now about to do it forever. And for what? I exhausted myself explaining in detail every decision I made and why I made it. What the hell have I done wrong? And why is just walking away for over a year not enough?

If there's more you want from me, tell me. But don't just go along with the crowd with what amounts to a permanent ban.

Very Verily 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The number of your edits is immaterial. Are you seriously claiming that being required to say "I have reverted [this edit] because I believe it to be vandalism; if I am mistaken, please de-revert and alert me to my mistake" on the talk page if you go to the extreme step of removing someone's well-intentioned change - remember Assume Good Faith, after all. If you are unable or unwilling to work within the wholly sensible rule that we made explicit for you, then of what benefit to Wikipedia are your contributions, and how can we as Arbitrators in all good conscience remove such a restriction on you?

James F. (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of what value are my contributions? I contributed to a large information resource with my knowledge, experience, and effort. That's the point of my edit count. I have worked a lot for this encyclopedia. How can that not matter? Do you realize how nonsensical and cruel a thing this is to say?

That's what edit summaries are for, frivolous cases like this. And anyway I'm supposed to find "mutually acceptable compromises", including with vandals, remember? Yes, this is quite inconvenient, which is why rollback was created. Do you edit under this "sensible" restriction? And I never know when something is considered a "revert", as I made clear.

Why can't you assume good faith of me. My vast work here is testament to my dedication. Look at my contributions, not the small number of conflicts which have been pulled out of context and thrust to the fore. And don't treat me like I don't matter. Think of the effect what you're saying has on others.

And again, what have I done to deserve this meat grinder?

Very Verily 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... You do remember the Arbitration case involving you, don't you? That is what requires the Committee not to assume blindly good faith on your part (of course, it doesn't mean that we would assume ill faith, either). The more you go on about your twelve thousand edits, your large edit count, and your being a "major contributor" having done "vast work", the more you convince me that you still fail to see the woods for the trees (oh, and have you heard of editcountitis?). Your past contributions do not matter to the Committee; it is the quality of any edits that you would likely make in future, ofset by any hardships that others in the Wikipedia community will feel by your presence, contribution, and comments. This is because the job of the Committee is to make Wikipedia better. It is explicitly not to be "fair", for whatever meaning you attach to that word. We don't often take significant account of someone having contributed significantly precisely because it is our job not to do so.

We are all but extremely small cogs in the great machine that is Wikipedia, and are, must be, replaceable. If you want to be part of a project where your accomplishments mean that any flaws are ignored and brushed under the carpet, to be dealt with by someone perhaps less fêted, well, perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you.

Sorry.

James F. (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and do you remember my appeal, which responded in excurciating detail to the six articles the ArbComm had "found" my behavior inappropriate on? Where I rebutted every allegation that I was not discussing adequately, the purported (and only logical) justification for this restriction on me? Have I not made clear that the claim I don't responsibly use discussion is a falsehood?

Obviously, the quality and quantity of my past edits is testament to the likely quality and quantity of future edits. Duh. This is not editcountitis but common sense.

And I don't agree; if a community of editors is to be built on trust and mutual respect (see User:Jimbo Wales#Statement of Principles), it is imperative that basic principles of fairness be observed. I'm not asking for my "flaws" to be overlooked; I'm asking that they be accurately assessed and put in perspective.

It may be naive of me to think you'd change the vote you've so invested in defending, but bear in mind that the right thing to do may not always be the first thing you do. Very Verily 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Civility

Wikipedia:Civility is an official Wikipedia:Policy. Do you think when someone goes to all the work of posting a sincere request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Time magazine thumbnail deletions that your telling that person "Don't be ridiculous" is Civilty and in particular an example of the kind of conduct expected of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee member? As "Ta bu" also deleted my Time cover image and listed another for deletion without explanation, it seems to me that an Abritration Committee member would have:

ensured "Jmbos" e-mail text was posted to the appropriate policy page
and politely placed a link to such an Offical Policy statement.

Thank you. Ted Wilkes 18:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't be ridiculous" is a restatement of "use common sense". If one were to have to ask why it would apply in this case, then one probably wouldn't be able to meaningfully or helpfully contribute to Wikipedia in net terms.

And please stop linking to pages when they provide no relevent context beyond assumed knowledge. You could, I dunno, spend the time checking spelling (or, hey, contributing to Wikipedia - gosh, what a thought).

James F. (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if as you say at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Time magazine thumbnail deletions: "Wikipedia is not a copyright violation repository" then why is "Time magazine cover" part of the Upload file process? - Ted Wilkes 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: because of people being wholly and utterly mis-guided.

James F. (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is not intentional. - Ted Wilkes 22:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not some mythical "fair" game. We do things because they work. We stop them because they don't. Whether or not people intend to put Wikipedia in jeopardy, if they do so then it is our responsibility to stop them.

James F. (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes has violated his probation

User: Ted Wilkes has violated his probation, as he is continuing edit warring and has removed content from the Nick Adams page which deals with Adams's supposed homosexuality. See, for instance, [1], [2], [3], [4]. Wilkes also included some additional passages in the Boze Hadleigh article which try to denigrate this author who has written on the homosexuality of celebrity stars. See [5]. The arbcom clearly said that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality..." and that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." See [6] and [7]. Wilkes also removed an external link to a Crime Magazine website which includes the best account of Nick Adams's life, presumably because this webpage makes mention of Adams's supposed homosexuality. See [8]. Onefortyone 03:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FPO

As far as I can tell the material in question is factual and sourced thus I don't see how your comment about "slander and libel" relates to the situation. Just because someone claims they are being slandered doesn't mean they have been. Homey 03:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely. But it is our duty to the potential recipients of Wikipedia in a hundred years that the Foundation is not sued out of existance in this one, and so we should be extremely careful at all times. Erring on the side of caution may not be as romantic a view, but it certainly is more prudent.

James F. (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Hi, I have newly signed to Wikipedia. I have been reading wiki since long. I want to know if you are an administrator, or if you are not then tell me who is ? I am browsing through the Metal pages and I see this guy User:Leyasu either putting merge notices or deletion notices everywhere and sometimes even deleting useful contributions. Thankfully, he hasn't removed any of my contributions, though I havent contributed much through my username. I've been contributing through various IPs. Coming back to the issue, I saw that this Leyasu has removed some stuff from Gothic Metal, which is already under arbitration and he has now put deletion notices over tradtional metal too. And he tends to call other people's contributions POV and nonsense or vandalism. Surely, this isn't great for wikipedia since new users like me have to think twice whether we should contribute in wikipedia or not and whether users like leyasu will delete the contributions. Also, he signs his name as Ley Shade and I guess, he has started another username as User:marnues. Please bring the vandals like Leyasu to book

Red Hot Sheena|talkFile:Hot chilli.jpg 13:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of probation

User:Ted Wilkes has again violated his probation, although he had been blocked for doing so yesterday. He is still calling me a liar. This is certainly a personal attack. He has deleted some passages concerning Nick Adams's supposed homosexuality and an external link from the Nick Adams page, although he is banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality. See [9] and [10]. See also his aggressive behavior on the Talk:Nick Adams page. This is unacceptable. Onefortyone 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have two things to say.

While I agree User:Ted Wilkes has violated his ban, Onefortyone is also violating his probation with all these dubious edits to the sexuality section of the article. I humbly suggest that both be given clear warnings to cease and desist from any sort of editing in the article for now and that neither be blocked unless it becomes necessary as a preventative step to enforce the existing ruling (which I strongly disagree with but respect in terms of process).

I think the RfAr should be re-opened, there is much to discuss and resolve. The last RfAr has not worked. Wyss 19:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal rule

(copied from User talk:TenOfAllTrades) Why did you add back in the annoying horizontal rule part of the Arbitration request template after I again removed it?

James F. (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that it had been deliberately removed. I thought that someone had inadvertently lost it when creating an arb case.

I added it in the first place following a request by Oleg Alexandrov at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Section headings. He noted, and I agreed, that it was often difficult to see where one case ended and another began on RFArb; I thought that the horizontal rule solved the problem neatly, and I didn't realize that anyone found it 'annoying'. (There weren't any objections on Talk, either.)

If you've got a preferred method to clearly demarcate requests, that would be fine too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. Didn't see the talk page comment. Have followed up to there.

James F. (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero is edit warring.....Again

Zero is edit warring again. This is what one editor had to say about the propeganda sources he is using:

[11]

ArbCom should have acted in a more equal way and you can still fix it before closing the arbitration. Zeq 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR - "non encyclopedic"

Hi, in response to Fred Bauder's proposal "non-encyclopedic material may be removed" you voted "oppose".

Could you confirm that this was your intention, rather than voting "abstain", since at present it would appear to suggest that you believe

"non-encyclopedic material may not be removed",

which seems somewhat odd. --Victim of signature fascism 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is nothing like that I said. Read my comment again. ;-)

In future, it greatly helps if you mention /which/ of the 20 or so Arbitration cases you're referring to at any one time. For interested others, it's KJV. :-)

James F. (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision enforcement

Hey, you responded positively to the idea of a separate page for users to ask for enforcement [12]. I've setup a prototype and I'm seeking comment User:SchmuckyTheCat/UREA proto. SchmuckyTheCat 01:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied over there.

James F. (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I am sort of new to Wikipedia. I noticed that you just voted no on a request for arbitration because of the danger of getting dragged into a content decision. Is the Arbitration Committee, then, an inappropriate forum for content disputes? Does it only rule on behavioral/misconduct issues? Thanks. --Hyphen5 13:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is indeed correct. Often we find that, in the pursuit of content warring, people violate the rules on behaviour, but it is (and has always been) our decision to avoid making decisions on content grounds, on the bases of a lack of perfect knowledge and of inappropriateness for any one small group to set such things and trump the editorial decisions of the entire community.

James F. (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any forum that mediates or arbitrates content disputes? In my opinion, there are serious problems with several articles that not a few editors' ideologies are blinding them to. I consistently and repeatedly make arguments based on Wikipedia policy, and then they obfuscate, obstruct, and vote against my proposals. I really don't know what else to do. There has been no misconduct, but I know that Wikipedia policies support my position. If this is how it is, I may give up on Wikipedia! --Hyphen5 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a proper "process" for this; I would recommend a Request for Comment if you think "external" input would help (and it often does), which is about as much of a process as content disputes have. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has Stranger been so uncivil?

I noticed your support of the sanctions proposed against me, and was hoping to know your reasoning. I have concerns that the proposals have bypassed the /Workshop page, and are very misleadingly worded.

Thanks in advance,

StrangerInParadise 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision pages: majority count

A few months ago, the proposed decision page format was modified to include "...so x out of x arbitrators are available..." Please do not take out this clause the next time you update a majority count. --69.117.7.63 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template disagrees with you.

James F. (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Acharya S and my arbitratoion.

2 qurasitons.

1: How long is the barrign me from editign her page for?

2:Can I challenge the verdict?

3: You do relaise you have just been played, right? I didnt threaten to post Liable, I threatened to post an artilce I had written. I also didnt post the material several times, and had not tlake don it for months.

James list of evidence was itsslf ridiculous as most of it was not relaly aimed at the point of arbitration, and one can just as eaisly come up wiht a long list of evidence agsint him.

The bit abotu her son, and how low I was to brign him into it, is also ridiculous. I posted that her son had been kidnapped, and returned to her. This was after she posted a news article on it on her own website. ( And is thus not liable and was verifiable.)

Look at the below. Tell me htis is not Bias, and not vandalism.

How am I disruptive in revertign it?

At least one critic and various detractors from the apologetic camp have claimed her work is based on poor scholarship, with little primary research and heavy reliance on outdated or fringe sources, and shows ignorance of the topics on which she writes, in particular of the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Nevertheless, there is much original research in her work, especially in "Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled," her follow-up to "The Christ Conspiracy."

The Bold sections are Biased. Saying that she has only oen Critic and several detractors fromt he apologist Camp is Biased. Calling her critics detractods is biased. Saying that she "NEvertheless has origional research" is bais. It is nto WIkipeidas palce to determine if her owrk is origional or not. Her critics say it is not. (Critics, not detractors.)

Sayin that it is as a point-of-fact is a bais.

Acharya S has been described, by her own books, and website, as well as the Paranoia Magazine website, as a historian, mythologist, religious scholar, linguist(she speaks, reads and writes several ancient and modern languages), and archeologist with moderate undergraduate experience in Archeology. Internet essayist John Kaminski describes her as "the ranking religious philosopher of our era".

The Kamanski quote exists only to further boost her image. The statement baotu spekaign more thna one language is not rlelay relevant, and the Omisison of the reason WHY she is claimed ot be " A Historian, Religiosu Shclar, Archeologist, and Lingust" is not preasent. ( Ys you say she speaks multiple languages. But no other explanaiton rellay eixts.)

It is entrley promotional.

The ommission of the fac thtat she hodls no trianign in any of these fields, and is only these thigns "By DIcitonary definition", the argument her supporters made her to forc the ridiculosu list in the encyclopidia int he firts place, is biased. Youd o nto want hte reader to know she hodls no degree and try to sway the readers opinion.

She has received rave reviews from readers across the spectrum, from those on the edge of doubt about their religons to those having some familiarity with the unhistorical nature of religon generally. Her books have become popular with avid "truth-seekers" from around the world, eliciting interest from the average person to the professional and academically trained thinkers.

THis entire paragrpah is promotional, and thus shoudl not be in the encyclopedia. It exosts only to firther her views.

It is also of import that it claim as a fact that religion is Ahistorical, which is not Wikipeidas palce.

It also seems not to be vrified form any known source, and is just a form of marketing.

The Omisison of the link to King David's website was doen soley for the sake of preservign her knoeldgable image. In the exchange, she filed ot rellay defend her views, and so it servs the interests of her legiosn to rmove it.

These are the problems.

As to the version I reverted to, no problems are even listed.

[ unsigned comment by ZAROVE 01:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)]

ArbCom proposed final decision

Hi, regarding your proposal here[13]; I respect whatever decision the committee may hand-out, nevertheless, it hurts me to see after avoiding any further controversial editing, and my compromise with others, that I too may be banned from contributing to the topics which I am familiar with. If you need some evidence that point towards my attempts at compromise with other editors, kindly let me know. It has been weeks since I have reverted Iranian people (I only added some picture lately), or the Persian people articles, and since the suggestions by some admins, which I took to heart, I have not engaged in edit-warring, since early March, and I will not do so anymore. Although, Aucaman was blocked four times in the past month, and to this day continues his disruptive behaviour. I also feel it is appropriate that other users be put on probation, however, I wish that the committee had looked into Zora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)`s contributions as well. At any rate, here are some diffs showing my successful attempts at compromising with various other editors, some whom had engaged in revert wars with others (in some cases, such as the Persian Gulf article the long edit wars ceased after I intervened)[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. I would hope that you re-evaluate my contributions for the past month and a half, and you commute the decision regarding me to a probation, rather than a topical ban. Please let me what you think. Thank youZmmz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments; I'm not yet sure that the case is sufficiently balanced to close, but the decision is in its early days yet. I will take your comments on-board.

James F. (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Zmmz's above comment. You can see here that there are several 3rd party users who believe he should be given a less harsher ruling in this ArbCom (i.e. only be banned from Persian people and Iranian peoples) I have seen this user's reasonable attitude, and he is correct in what he said above, he hasn't gotten into any edit wars in weeks. —Khoikhoi 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've registered my support for article-specific bans.

James F. (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Khoikhoi 14:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman request

Can you please take a look at my request here. Did I do it correctly? --ManiF 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dbachmann_and_clique I don't think I'm allowed to vote or comment so I will msg you who voted. (The talk page of this arb does not have a specific talk for it so this is the best idea I had.) Banning the person is a useless step. They will create more sock puppets. You have to get them to come to terms. DyslexicEditor

Arb Case Mistake

Hi, im confused about something said in a report on the Arbirition case against me.

In this report, it states that i had warred on Gothic Metal, and been placed on Probation. It also says i violated WP:CITE. I want to know how this came about, when both myself and User:Parasti provided diffs to me citing sources. It also says this as a 'finding of fact'. In which case, here is the speficic sections which falsly accuse me of not providing sources, and the evidence that supported this, and the accompnying diffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Leyasu#Failure_to_cite_sources_and_original_research

Finding Of Fact Contrary To Provided Diffs

Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Parasti's Evidence. Diff from Evidence, taken from [Evidence] Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence. Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence taken from Leys Evidence Diff from Evidence, Diff from Evidence, taken from Leys Evidence

I even went as far as to quoting and explaining the sources on the talk page, [21].

I got all these diffs from the archive of the Arbirition case, Here.

I just want to know why all eight claimed i provided no sources, even though another involved party provided diffs of me providing sources, and i repeatedly gave diffs of me supplying sources. Im not having a go, im just confused how 8 Arbirrators managed to claim a 'finding of fact' despite over 10 diffs from two different users =\ Ley Shade 15:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration, Administrative divisions, Tobias Conradi

Pardon me, I'm still learning the resolution process. My understanding was that once RfCs had been processed, and Mediation had been refused, the only recourse is Arbitration. Moreover, that Arbitration is the only binding dispute resolution for which enforcement can be requested.

I'm disappointed that inter-personal behaviours is considered more important than content. Rather the opposite of my experience in legal appellate standards of review.

I have recast as an inter-personal issue. Of course, the disruption of proper content is my primary concern, but there are plenty of ancillary issues. I've just discovered that Conradi has been banned at de. Had my RfC been taken more seriously 4 months ago, this whole problem could have been nipped in the bud.

--William Allen Simpson 15:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]