From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Arbitration matters 1.1 Active? 1.2 PHG 1.3 Request for clarification in IRC case 1.4 Weird Edit 1.5 User Page 1.6 Postpone closing of ArbCom case? 1.7 Proposed Decision 1.8 Homeopathy case 1.9 Requests page 1.10 Retraction of a charge against Dana Ullman (the homeopathy case) 1.11 Appeal - PLEASE HELP 1.12 Guy 1.13 Encyclopedia Dramatica Linking 1.14 Proposed decision - CAMERA LOBBYING

[edit] Arbitration matters

Add new item

[edit] 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)

Have done it myself. But yes. :-)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

Will follow-up there.

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

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, --Elonka 03:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Have posted there.

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

[edit] 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)

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

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

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)

• Can anyone boldly fix it, or does it have to be an arb? Bellwether ^B_C 11:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Postpone closing of ArbCom case?

Dear Jdforrester/Arbitration,

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)

[edit] 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)Y Done

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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

[edit] Proposed decision - CAMERA LOBBYING

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

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)