Thank you for your interest in the ArbCom case involving my person. Alas, have you checked the discussions on Proposed talk, or Workshop - both quite alive? There are various question by parties left unanswered there, as well as rather significant and mostly united critique of current solutions plus some proposals - again, all of which seem to be completely invisible to the ArbCom. Particularly as you initiated the motion to close, I'd like to add that - based on my reading of the discussion between parties - while we are far from consensus on many things, we mostly agree that current findings and remedies are quite useless, and we are quite disappointed that our month-long queries and suggestions are left completely ignored. PS. You also wrote "At present it would not appear that any of the ban or parole remedies will pass". While I agree with that, I'd like to note that it is primarily because only one has so far been proposed, and that one (a ban) has been condemned by all the parties as too strong (another rare example of consensus there). But several editors have asked for paroles to be used, and I do hope we will see some comments on those motions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, could you speak for yourself? Sometimes an open discussion in Wikipedia space is more beneficial to the participants than that conducted between the members of one group on Chatzilla, Gadu-Gadu, and other such services. I don't think our time has been wasted. At least we have our grievances assembled in one place. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have reviewed both pages. Please be aware that in general, I do not support the use of "parole" as an arbcom remedy except in rare cases. More broadly, I do not usually support special rules for particular editors or particular groups of articles. In that light, if you have any more specific questions for me, I will do my best to address them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here are a few questions: 1) since you support the amnesty and the reminder, what do you think will they achieve - considering that various disputed activity has been going without any break till this very day? I just don't see how passing such "toothless" notions will change the existing situation, obviously unsatisfactory to all involved parties. 2) from my perspective, I (and several other editors) have been and are facing a torrent of personal attacks, bad faith and similar violations of WP:CIV. If this torrent is not stopped, our satisfaction from editing will be eroded and many will leave the projects (as several editors I know have done). In other words, I don't believe that certain editors follow the principles outlined in "Courtesy" principles of this ArbCom. How can we ensure that they change their behavior? Or is creating such a change not a goal of this proceeding? If so, what is?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that we are well-served by trying to mete out individual remedies in cases concerning the behavior of a large group of people. Bring us a case regarding an individual whose behavior remains egregious after the amnesty. Keep the case simple and show us that your own behavior didn't contribute to the problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Good point, insofar as this ArbCom has went on a long detour of greviances since it was filed in April by M.K. (who has not been a very active participant anyway). I may indeed file such an ArbCom in the future, as I believe it is unlikely behavior of any editor will change if this ArbCom ends with the remedies as currently proposed. Nonetheless as the very name suggest this ArbCom is a list of greviances against my person, supported by several editors. Is there a chance of seeing a finding along the lines of this one, proposed by Fred some time ago? As I said, I am subject to various accusations on a daily basis (greatly raising my wikistress) and this ArbCom was started at least partially to find out if I am guilty of them or not. If I am guilty, I'd like to know what I did wrong so I can improve my behavior; if I am not; I'd like to have something I can show to editors who repeat the accusations and say "Stop it". I am seriously considering filling an ArbCom against myself just to get the clear answer. As you can see on proposed talk, both Lysy and Balcer share my sentiment and would like to know if their they are rightly accused of various things or not. And since the ArbCom was opened to look at all the involved parties, it would be nice to learn if evidence we have presented regarding other editors has any merit. Of course, as you can see, this leads us back to the 'many editors' issue - but at least, please consider whether "The editing and other actions of Piotrus fall within an acceptable range" or whether "Piotrus is guilty of violating BLP, V and RS, intimidation and threatening, mocking, baiting, stalking, disruptive editing, rudely presenting misleading evidence, wheel-warring, canvassing, forum and block shopping, blocking his opponents, black books composing and leading a cabal" (ufff... and I skipped a few things, believe it or not :D). But seriously, after months of being told by certain editors I am a menace and danger to this project, and after years of contributions (from 20 FAs through WP:RW to [1]), I'd like to think I (and others) at least deserve a clear ruling on whether I am am doing good or bad here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, exaggerations are not helpful, really. I'm not aware of an editor who seriously regards you as "a menace and danger" to the entire project, as you put it. If I recall correctly, the ArbCom set out to examine the behaviour of all involved parties. The title of the case is arbitrary and is not expected to accurately reflect its scope. I don't see why we should single out any particular editor in this far-flung case in order to commend or condemn his behaviour. This will have the effect of giving him a carte blanche for self-indulgence in editing techniques that by no means should be encouraged.

There is no need to adopt an overly legalistic view of the situation. We both know certain patterns of behaviour that, while being consistent with our policies, are not constructive either and are instrumental in escalating the conflicts by involving a number of new participants to divert the attention of one's opponents from productive mainspace editing. It is not reasonable to expect the ArbCom ruling on such exceptional cases as this one in that it will set an unwelcome precedent for future arbitrations. In the absence of a ruling to the contrary, the presumption of innocence will apply to every involved editor. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or clerks. Thatcher131 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Isn't it premature to move to close Pigsonthewing when nothing has been voted on yet, much less passed? Newyorkbrad 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was to speed the process along by avoiding a need to revisit the page. It is a simple case and I trust my colleagues not to actually close it until there are sufficient votes. Do you believe that poses a problem? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate exactly what you are trying to do, i.e., to avoid having excessive time spent on what you believe to be a very straightforward case. As long as your proposals remain the only ones on the page, what you've done makes perfect sense. Things would get more complicated if other arbitrators make different proposals and nuances develop. On a formal level, if three other arbitrators were to vote for your proposals and then vote to close, the clerks would be instructed to close the case (four net votes suffice for closing) and nothing would pass since a majority on this case is greater. Of course, in that instance, the clerks would show common sense and wait. Thus, as a practical matter, the issue I raise is not crucial, but it's the sort of thing that your clerks get paid the big bucks to worry about. In the meantime, obviously I've moved the case in the pending cases template to "voting" rather than "motion to close." Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that's the right thing to do. I'll retract my vote if the case should become complex. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering if you might elaborate on your motion to dismiss. If you think evidence provided is sparse, plenty more can be given. The VT case is important enough that a significant number of concerned editors have raised their voices. If the case were dismissed I believe it would be brushing a problem under the carpet for wikipedia, as well as driving away good editors whose contributions are useful. -- infinity0 15:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any clear evidence of a problem that would not be better handled at WP:AN/I or through the assistance of individual administrators. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is a series of individual episodes each of which are not significant to be dealt with (in a way that prevents future episodes) by "individual administrators" but stacked as a whole, is very degrading to editors who wish to contribute to wikipedia... could you please give examples of why the evidence is not clear, so that I might have a chance to make it clearer? -- infinity0 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First let me say that this is my first involvement in arbitration. I read the instructions but apparently I still goofed it up somehow. 74s181 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting on your talk page in response to your recent 'decline' on the First Vision arbitration matter. I agree with the comments of the other two arbitrators that the arbitration committee should focus on user conduct in this matter, and should not attempt to arbitrate content. Yes, the problem is the conduct of user:John Foxe; his expressed refusal to understand and comply with the foundational Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV, as well as his habit of reverting most edits that attempt to convert statements to NPOV per WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. 74s181 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that your vote to 'decline' indicates that I and the others who have commented on his behavior failed to make it clear that we aren't resisting the facts and opinions that he wants to include in the article, we are only insisting that they be presented in a WP:NPOV manner. 74s181 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The request for arbitration hasn't failed yet, but I'm guessing that it is probably going to fail. My questions are:

1. What should we have done differently? 74s181 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What, if anything can we do to clarify this in the current arbitration request? Is it ok for me to edit my statement? If so, what recommendations would you make? 74s181 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. What should we do if arbitration fails? One editor has suggest that John Foxe is just a troll, we should ignore his comments and revert his reverts as many times as necessary. I'm not as experienced but I'm not really comfortable with that approach. Any suggestions? 74s181 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your time and any suggestions you can offer. 74s181 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experience has shown that there are certain kinds of disputes that the committee is reasonably effective at dealing with, and other kinds where a decree just doesn't help much. In general, the further we look into the content of edits -- their tone, their neutrality -- the less effective we are. We also are relatively less effective in dealing with casual editors than those who are more heavily involved in the project.

A case that is fundamentally about a casual user doing too many reverts and failing to adhere to NPOV is one that we can't address effectively. The best way to deal with that is to involve other editors.

On the other hand, a case about an established user removing well-sourced material, adding unsourced or weakly sourced material, ignoring talk page consensus about edits to an article, being uncivil despite being treated with proper Wikiquette by other editors, and almost but not quite violating the 3RR is something we can address. But it's unclear if that's happened here. If it has, and you can make that sort of a case, we're more likely to be able to do something with it.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I think John Foxe's behavior meets most but not all of the criteria you mentioned.

1) casual user doing too many reverts and failing to adhere to NPOV

Take a look at his contributions [2]. John Foxe is not a casual user. Prior to the editing cease-fire he made multiple edits on the First Vision on a daily basis over a long period of time.

2) established user

John Foxe has been editing since April 2006.

3) removing well-sourced material

Yes, whenever someone attempts to add interpretations from secondary sources he will frequently revert or bury them in the footnotes. He is more likely to do this when these interpretations support his position, that is, a critic drawing a critical conclusion, but this fits his agenda. I can provide several examples.

4) adding unsourced or weakly sourced material

Not exactly. He prefers primary source citations, but positions the facts to lead the reader to a particular conclusion without stating the conclusion. He reverts any attempt to explicitly state, attribute and balance these implied conclusions via secondary sources, frequently saying something like "these are just facts, they need no interpretation", or "don't lead the reader". The only time he likes secondary sources is when he is quoting a criticism from someone on the believing side.

5) ignoring talk page consensus about edits to an article

John Foxe frequently ignores talk page discussion prior to edits, reverts edits, then starts a new discussion, saying something like "we need to discuss these changes sentence by sentence". These discussions go on and on until the other editor gets tired. He rejects any attempt at closure such as a straw poll. Many long-time editors have walked away from this article as a result of these tactics. If he is boxed into a corner, he will remove the offending statement rather than allow it to be reframed according to WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. He has said that he ignores all talk page references to Wikipedia policies, here's one example:

Frankly, Les, every time you start citing Wikipedia rules, I tune them out as Mormon smokescreen.--John Foxe 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

6) being uncivil

Yes and no. Other than his frequent reverts, John Foxe is extremely civil in an Eddie Haskell sort of way.

7) almost but not quite violating the 3RR

Frequently, although he rarely does a full revert anymore, unless we're in a full out edit war. More often he will attempt to disguise his reversions via multiple incremental edits.

Thank you again for your time. 74s181 13:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi! My name is Ral315, and I'm the editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost, a weekly newspaper on the English Wikipedia. I'm sending out an optional questionnaire that I hope you'll respond to. These questions will be published in next week's issue, and hopefully translated into many languages and copied to the Meta-Wiki prior to the election. (So, if you speak multiple languages, it'd be fantastic, though certainly not required, if you'd be willing to translate your answers into any languages you speak fluently.)

There's no word limit on any of these questions, but I suggest that brevity (maybe about 300-400 words per answer) is best. If at all possible, answers should be submitted by 16:00 UTC on Monday, June 25 (though late responses will also be accepted).

I'm posting these to your talk pages because they don't really fit well on question pages (since many will repeat questions you've already answered). You can reply to me by e-mail, or at my English Wikipedia, English Wikinews or Meta talk pages.

Thanks again for answering these, and good luck in the elections.

Sincerely, Ral315

---

1. Do you have any other usernames or pseudonyms?

1. What current or former user rights or positions do you have, and on which projects? (i.e. administrator, bureaucrat, arbitrator, developer, steward, board member, etc.)

1. Outside of Wikipedia, what do you do for a living?

1. What languages do you speak?

1. Why do you want to join the Board? What qualities do you feel you can bring to the Board?

1. About how much time do you think you'll put into the role?

1. Ideally, where do you see the Wikimedia Foundation in 5 years?

1. As a board member, how will you ensure a balance between openness and necessary privacy in board matters?

1. Recent discussion has centered around the Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. How do you feel the Wikimedia brands should be used, or changed?

1. Wikimedia projects in developing nations are growing in popularity, but still lag far behind the more popular projects. What steps would you suggest to improve the quality, readership, and number of editors on smaller wikis?

1. What do you feel should be done to increase participation on non-Wikipedia projects?

1. As a board member, what strategies would you consider to raise money for the Foundation?

1. What else do you want to say to voters? (This is a good place to answer a question specific to your candidacy that you think should be answered)

Bogus sig to force archiving 18:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently readded some controversial but (relatively) well-sourced content to this article. Since then it's been repeatedly removed by anon users and User:Tonybrummel. Since you've dealt with this article in the past I'm curious what your opinion is on the current content, whether you think there's anything that actually should be removed, etc. I'm also wondering what should be done about that username. Understandably the whole situation makes me somewhat nervous. Thx.--P4k 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

At around 23:30, 16 October 2006, you deleted an article that I had wrote on Gilles Duguay. The note in the deletion log justifies this action because the article was an "unsourced disaster" and you were getting complaints from Gilles himself. At the time, there were few sources that I could use to back up what I had written, minus the Canadian Who's Who website (a directory of prominent Canadians), which is located here: http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/cw2w3.cgi?p=duceppe&t=55642&d=1527. However, Gilles is now running for Parliament, and there are websites abound with bios and sources that could back up the accuracy of the article I had written. I'd like to see if its possible to get that article back up and running, and this time with proper sources. Is there any way to retrieve the text?

If you still want to verify the veracity of the fmr. article, you can check out the following pages: http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/84593 http://mattcampbell.ca/node/267 http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/July2007/25/c9355.html http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070724/career_diplomat_070724

--Timkmak 16:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated my e-mail. If you could send me the text, that would be great.

--Timkmak 21:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - haven't heard back from you. I'd really like to get started on that article, so I'd appreciate it if you could send me the text as soon as you get a chance.

--Timkmak 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you voted to reject the RFA involving me. I wanted to let you know that I did in fact raise an RFC regarding the behavior issues. I will be happy to point you to said examples. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello Again UC. Had a question and thought of you. Do you know of a sound file for K448 (see Talk:Sonata for Two Pianos in D major (Mozart))? I looked at the List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart but have not found one. ♫ Cricket02 15:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Are you aware if other arbitrators share your sentiments as you posted here?--MONGO 22:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. There hasn't been any discussion on this among us. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Lancastria has requested that you contact them involving a recent CU User talk:Lancastria. I'm just the messenger trying to remove a {{helpme}} tag. --Mnemnoch 17:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lancastria wants to speak to you, as you are an ombudsman. 77.98.177.54 claims I violated the privacy policy here. That's patently false since the geographical location of an IP is no secret at all. Secondly, the checkuser evidence does confirm the two are the same person. So, there's no real need for you to respond, as all the socks have been blocked. Thanks. --Deskana (banana) 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're still trolling about it on their talk page, I've protected the page until such a time that you decide I need to be repremanded, which I don't see happening. I told them they are still capable of contacting the Ombudsment to make their complaint, or Jimbo Wales. But still, your comments would be appreciated. --Deskana (banana) 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much for your vote in the RFA. I am very much interested to have your views on how can one introduces some balancing edits on the Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi pages, when a group of very committed Nationalist Iranians, who are very apt iin using various Wikipedia procedures resort to edit wars, banning, etc.? Artaxerex 18:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your opinion currently in the "Jebbrady and Armstrong-related articles" proposal is meant for the "Iasson request to lift ban" proposal, given that it refers to Iasson. GRBerry 16:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sometimes our section-editing and auto-merge software do not play well together. Then again, I may have fat-fingered it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for contacting you directly, as I am generally opposed to the parties of the case communicating with the arbitrators directly (by email or even off the case pages as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop#Ethical conduct) but I am just letting you know that I think the last paragraph of my original statement includes the answer to the questions you posted.

As per my statement, the solution I am seeking is "the illegitimate accounts banned, valid disruptive accounts placed on various paroles and Digwuren receiving the punishment called for by the degree of the disruption caused by him.

I outlined in my statement some examples of his behavior. If arbitrators decide that this is not severe enough for an ArbCom, so be it. --Irpen 18:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Here I expressed my thoughts on the insanity of the situation at hand. I'm here to ask where should I take it up and start the discussion on altering 3RR accordingly, because at the heart of problems like this is the 3RR limit per editor that makes numbers matter.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive by now also written a bit longer essay on the subject.--Alexia Death the Grey 17:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You voted not to hear it because there was no RFC. An RFC was opened and it has just been closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson. I hope that this will allow the ArbCom to take this up. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my post this edit had not been made. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:AlexanderPar is involved in this arbcom [3] After a break he returned back and aggresively rv'ing without discussion to meatpuppet user:Hajji Piruz edits : see his contribs [4] - 6 pages he edited - no comments left and all rv's for Hajji Piruz.--Dacy69 15:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi. I am writing to encourage you to take a look at some of the later comments and reconsider your opinion on accepting the Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson case. This issue is creating a massive disruption. You said that you were declining it pending an RFC. There actually have been two. I would strongly suggest Arbcom stepping in and settling this extreme personality conflict. Thank you for your consideration. --B 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]