User talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Arbitration matters

Add new item

[edit] Netoholic's ban

As a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2, Netoholic was banned from both the Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces for one year. During Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole, you proposed that the ban be reinstated "in modified form" for another year, but you left out the Wikipedia: namespace. Was this intentional? He's trying to resurrect Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, the rejected "policy" page he created that all of his disruptions revolve around. — Omegatron 07:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with elsewhere at the time.
James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you deal with this?

This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I've managed to locate the post which I put in the wrong place... and seeing as you moving it here indicates that you have read it, I hope you don't mind me repeating what I said to Charles Matthews, "I realise I can't expect the arbitrators (or anyone) to respond immediately, or drop what they are doing to deal with one case among many, but I'm left wondering exactly what level of response I should expect to a question like this ("can you deal with this?")?" I also asked if there was any off-wiki discussion going on about this case (just a brief note to this effect would greatly reassure me). Carcharoth 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Dealt with elsewhere at the time.
James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion in "Giano" case

You were (presumably) recused in the Giano case. I don't know whether you considered that in deciding to vote on the pending motion. I understand the pending issue is removed from your own involvement in the prior situation (which I always thought was a trifle overblown), but I am sure the question of your current participation in the case may be raised, so I am flagging it here for your consideration. Newyorkbrad 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not actually formally (or even informally) recused; I was on a leave of absense from the wiki entirely, per the request of some uninvolved (but no doubt 'interested') parties. I would not personally have seen the need to recuse from the majority of the case - I was not involved in the main substance of it in any way; a note about a single comment of mine was tacked on to the end of the case, from which I would obviously have abstained, but the items were seperate in my mind.
In this case, nothing related to my making a comment using sarcasm is relevent to the motion, and I decided that I did not need to recuse, and did not feel moved so to do, either. Thank for flagging it, though; always good to know that people are looking at what I'm doing and aren't too bored/shy/apathetic to mention concerns to me. :-)
James F. (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

James, while I agree with the proposed remedy, shouldn't you recurse yourself as an involved party? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. I don't believe I am in any conflict of interest (I fail to see that I am an involved party), but I do make mistakes, so please do inform me if you disagree with my judgement.
James F. (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Have replied on your talk page. I'm no great fan of splitting a conversation into too many obscure places. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

James, in response to User_talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration, I disagree with your judgement. You are heavily involved, and the right thing for you to do would be to recurse yourself. It is not to your credit that you have to be asked to do this. Further, while it is your right to move these questions I put to you, I find it discourteous that you did so without leaving any indication of where you moved it to. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your disagreement. I am not "heavily involved"; in my opinion, I am not involved at all. Obviously, were I to feel that I was involved in such a way as to influence my judgement, I would recuse; it would be deeply dishonourable to suggest otherwise.
I have now recused, however, in large part because you (and apparently others) for some reason consider me "involved". It really does perplex me. I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me as to how it is that I am "involved".
I am not being "discourteous" when I move a talk page message to the place where to they are directed by the very page; the use of "Arbitration matters", "IRC matters", "Other matters" as section headings, and messages of "Do not post Arbitration or IRC matters here. Put them on the Arbitration-specific sub-page." are intended to be helpful. :-)
James F. (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks James. All the best. Ben Aveling 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I imagine you are considered "involved" partly because of Giano II's claims of misconduct, including but not limited to the snippet of (what he claims to be) IRC channel logs that he posted on 29 December. I'm not going to comment on the validity of those claims or the content of that post, nor am I saying that this is a good reason to consider you involved; merely that it appears to have had that effect – Gurch 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, James F has identified or been identified as either "owner" or "proprietor" or "operator" of the en.admins IRC channel. Since Giano is at least perceived as being a pointman in the disquiet with that channel's existence, it would seem that the involvement, at whatever level, above the ordinary with that channel would lend a conflict of interest in ruling on whether a person's challenges to the channel are "incivil." This is in addition to Giano's alledged incivility being licensed by comments made by James F on that IRC channel, alledgedly. Since these -- both whether the comments were legitimate responses and whether there were incendiary or inappropriate comments about Giano made on that IRC channel -- are parts of the issue under consideration, that would put James F as either a confirmed or suspected party of the dispute. At least that's why I argued for recusal. Additionally, I felt that the agreement to the motion was alarmingly quick -- so quick and unusual as to suggest undocumented rallying around a single issue or single personality. That, to me, suggests that those agreeing to the motion do not perceive how involved in the issue they are. Geogre 03:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I would point out that the owner of a bar is not a party in a criminal case where some of his patrons have a fight therein. :-)
Also, I find it odd that someone would find it surprising that Arbitrators discuss items on our mailing list before posting things publically. It's what we've been doing for years.
James F. (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sathya Sai Baba arbcom case 2: banning of Andries for one year

I was very surprized that Fred Bauder (talk • contribs) supported UninvitedCompany (talk • contribs)'s motion to have me banned from the Sathya Sai Baba related articles for one year. I thought that I had received a complete amnesty for my possibly bad edits in Sathya Sai Baba and related articles in the first arbitration case. Banned for what? I would be surprized if anybody can find just one single edit that seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first arbitration case. And I would very surprized if somebody was able to find that I repeatedly seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first abritration case. Andries 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

James, I sent you an e-mail. You supported Fred's motion that I edited the article Sathya Sai Baba responsibly, but you also supported Fred's motion to ban me indefinitely from Sathya Sai Baba related articles. I consider this contradictory. But may be I miss something. An explanation would be appreciated. Andries 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] While you are here

May be you could explain why you support banning an editor from an article whose edits on that article you describe as responsible. How will banning a responsible editor help the encyclopedia? Andries 18:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Editors with significant conflicts of interest having a major part to play in the shaping of any of our articles does unacceptable damage to the project. I would have thought that obvious.
James F. (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
How do I have a conflict of interest? Having a COI implies that I will edit differently after I disaffiliate from exbaba.com . I can assure you that that will not be the case. Andries 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute FoF 2? If not, I fail to see your line of questioning.
James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I confirm that I am affiliated with exbaba.com and I edit under my real name. I regret that I have always been honest in that respect, because clearly honesty is used against editors. Affiliation with exbaba is a consequence of my POV that was shaped by my experience. Disaffiliation will not change my POV or anything in my behavior in Wikipedia. How then do I have a conflict of interest when my interest does not change when I disaffiliate from exbaba ? It is like banning somebody from the article Christianity because s/he is a member of the local Anglican congregation. Andries 18:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I updated the Wikipedia:banning policy to reflect your reasoning. [1]Andries 19:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence question

Hello, I had a question about the current Naming Conventions case. I was in the process of supplying evidence a couple weeks ago, when my wiki-time was interrupted by the holidays (and the fact that I got stuck in the New Mexico snowstorm for a few days). Upon my return to Wikipedia, I see that the voting phase on the case has already started, before I was able to finish supplying evidence, and before some of the other involved editors had returned from their own holiday break.  :/ May I continue with supplying the rest of my evidence? Or would it be too late at this point? I'd posted alerts about my upcoming absence and return on the ArbCom talk pages, such as at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Christmas and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision#Additional evidence, but I'm not sure if anyone saw them. Thanks for your time, Elonka 19:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, my section is now completed. Please accept my profuse apologies for the multiple delays! It's a been a really tough winter so far, with many power outages[2]. I'm getting caught up now though, and have been able to finish presenting my own evidence, as well as a few extra proposed principles and findings of fact on the Workshop page. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could review them. If not though, I understand. To be honest, I feel better just knowing that I was able to complete my section, since its half-finished status was on my mind during the last couple weeks.
For what it's worth, I have no intention of challenging the final ArbCom decision, whichever way it goes. I see ArbCom as a useful part of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process. And just as with an AfD or DRV discussion, I may not always agree with the decision of the closing admin, but I will respect it.  :)
Despite some of the other comments that have been made about my behavior throughout this process, it is my hope that ultimately it will be clear that I am a longtime hardworking Wikipedian, that I believe strongly in the project, and that in general I'm not groundzero for various disputes. In this one particular case though, I felt strongly that I had an obligation to speak up. But I will be glad when the matter is finally resolved, as I am very much looking forward to getting back to writing articles! :) Elonka 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that a significant part of Elonka's evidence is either misleading or downright false, as noted here. >Radiant< 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Dealt with at the time.
James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to Close (Naming Conventions ArbCom Case)

I noticed the motion to close for this ArbCom case. I hope i'm not too late in asking the ArbCom members actively voting in this case to take a look at this request and consider it before closing the case? Thank you. --`/aksha 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with at the time.
James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guidance

Re: Starwood Arb

I implore the arbitrators who have not recused themselves in this case to please give some direction in the Starwood Arb, or at least a timeline of when they will be able to deliberate. It quite literally has devolved into a Lord of the Flies scenario on the evidence and workshop pages, and the wikilawyering, off-topic diatribes and verbosity are making it difficult to make heads or tails of what is going on. I am not trying to impose upon the process, I am just asking for some feedback & order. - WeniWidiWiki 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have improved itself somewhat; will take a further, deeper look.
James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear ArbComm Member of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University;

This note is to bring to your attention two issues which are creating upheaval in the article located here [3]and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee."[4]. This request is based on enforcement or remedies stated in the arbitration process and failure to follow up on it.

1) An article-banned user [5] orchestrated a come back through proxy IPs from Japan and then through an account "Some people" which has been blocked twice. The problem with this is that this user had modified the entire article in less than 12 hours on January 28 2007. This user partner, TalkAbout; acted in synchrony with 244 on that night and made some changes as well using "Some people" new version. User Andries had a minor edit of that version as well.

Request to investigate user Some people [6] Analysis of situation [7] Suspicion of sockpuppet account [8] Blocks to user Some people for "a reincarnation of the editor who formerly posted from the IP address 195.82.106.244"( As admin Thatcher put it) [9]

2) The only admin we've dealing with is Thatcher131. I would like to bring to your attention what I consider to be "lack of neutrality" and fairness from his/her part. Even though, user "Some people" was blocked by Thatcher131 under a strong suspicion of him being user 244 (banned by the ArbComm for a year) Thatcher131 supported the new version of the page which are the versions of a banned user.[10] A request for enforcement of arbitration has been submitted long time ago before user 195.82.106.244 (aka 244) made several changes through his sockpuppet account "Some people" [11] but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 [12] and then User TalkAbout added some content and at that point, that was considered the new "good version" of the article.

I would like to request the following: 1) the article to be reverted to a state before "Some people" took over. 2) To change the "admin in charge", Thatcher131 to someone who is not emotionally involved in this issue (Thatcher131 was the clerk in the arbitration case and helped user 195.82.106.244 to file the case and presented some evidence against me but not against 244[13])and that could enforce normal wikipedia procedures are taking place. I appreciate your time and prompt consideration on this.

Truly Yours, avyakt7 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Fred Bauder [14]. Thatcher131 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Replied on same user Talk page [15] Thank you. avyakt7 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock closing

The "Husnock" case is ready to close today (4-0 to close), but you added a new finding proposal yesterday which is still being voted on. Any objection to the Clerks closing this case now or would you prefer the closure wait until this finding is voted? I think the plan is to go ahead with the closing unless you or one of the other arbitrators would prefer not, so please advise. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 16:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. :-) Oh well.
James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revoking remedy by the Kosovo arbcom

Hi, on 21 October 2006 the Kosovo arbcom found that I had been given 96 hours probation for edit warring on the Srebrenica massacre article and based on this (presumably) gave me one years probation and revert parole. I have raised some questions regarding this remedy (see below), and Fred Bauder has now initiated a motion to revoke these remedies. As you are an active member of the arbitration committee I respectfully ask you to consider my case. The questions I raised regarding the decision of the Kosovo arbcom were:

  • why did the Kosovo arbcom consider my misconduct on the Srebrenica massacre article? Nowehere is the Srebrenica massacre article names as a 'related article'. Nowhere is the reasoning for linking the two articles given.
  • it seems a rather harsh remedy to give me one years probation and revert parole for a 'crime' which I had already served time for (so to say).
  • is it possible to appeal the Kosovo arbcom's decision?

Dmcdevit, the administrator on the Kosovo arbitration committee who initiated the remedies against me has chosen to vote against revoking these. I have, in turn, replied to his argumentation here. Sincere regards Osli73 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Will deal with there.
James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on Arbitration Case

There is some confusion with regard to an Arbitration Case you handled. Would you please comment. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarification on Parole violations Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, going there now.
James F. (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your motion (not) to close

Hello there, I noticed this edit of yours opposing the motion to close the SSB2 arbcom case. I would agree with you in the matter of a solution for User:Kkrystian and would like to bring to your attention the fact that several Arbitrator votes were cast when there was little or no evidence presented about the user. This changed significantly a while ago (Evidence: one, two. Workshop: one) with diffs provided for recent violations/bad edits but doesn't appear to have come to the notice of Arbitrators. Perhaps you may like to review these links and perhaps inform the other arbitrators too. Thanks and kind regards, Ekantik talk 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Now voted to close, given altered quoracy.
James F. (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GordonWatts RFAR

Hey -- could I suggest that you add this rejected ArbCom request to the list of rejected requests? The diff is here: [16]; it might be useful to keep track of it, because it shows that the community ban there was upheld by ArbCom's rejection of the case. Mangojuicetalk 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't normally list rejected cases, but there's nothing stopping people doing it themselves.
James F. (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osli73

jdforrester, in the Kosovo arbitration case, you voted to put Osli73 on revert parole. I wish to bring to your attention that he has been violating his parole with impunity for some time now. On February 24, this behavior was brought to the attention of the arb enforcement board (see link below), but there has not been any action or comment since. Meanwhile, edit warring is heating up again at the Srebrenica article. If those who have been put on parole can violate the limits put upon them with little or no consequence, it puts us at risk of the article falling back into a free-for-all. Could you either respond to this or contact the appropriate administrator? Thank you. Fairview360 01:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#.5B.5BUser:Osli73.5D.5D

The proper place for this is WP:AN/I, I believe. Have prodded people on IRC, though.
James F. (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy edits

In your recent edits to AC policy you indicated cases are accepted on 4 votes, however the RFAR/Header still indicates 4 net votes. I know this has been discussed extensively on talk:RFAR and I don't have a strong opinion either way but the two pages should probably agree. Thatcher131 14:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, whoops. Yes, should be gross, not net. Thanks for the spot.
James F. (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Starwood RfAr case

User:Kathryn NicDhàna has given another statement (I think it's semi-evidence, but it's placed on the main case page) at here. Please advise action. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I noticed that Penwhale posted a link to a statement that Kathryn made about this case that did not include my response. I hope you will consider it as well. [17] Rosencomet 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Rosencomet has written a rebuttal at Kathryn's comment. Here's the original, which I've subsequently moved it back into his/her section here. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/d/f/User_talk%7EJdforrester_Arbitration_52e2.html"