User talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration Archive 3

= Arbitration matters =

Cold Fusion Decision
The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error.

I have decided to give up on Wikipedia. PCarbon seems to me to have the patience of a saint. PCarbon has told me that he is also quitting Wikipedia. I will admit that cold fusion is a complex and unique issue. I think that most people who do not have at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical sciences or engineering would have a hard time grasping it. However there are many notable exceptions to this rule.

Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights. Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments. Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not active.

Even while this political assault was under way, Nature refused to publish a positive result on the grounds that the issue was already decided. Melvin Miles had an initial negative result which he reported to the DOE committee. The DOE committee told the world about this negative result. When Melvin Miles later reported a positive result to the DOE committee, the DOE committee reported the result to no one.

This is how the “consensus” and de facto censorship came about. Cold fusion was done in by the political method, not by the scientific method.

The experiments have gone on for 18 years. Something like 3500 scientific papers by hundreds of scientists with PhDs in physics and chemistry have been written. Since 1992 nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been found. These nuclear transmutations are proof that nuclear reactions are occurring. More heat, tritium, He3, and He4 has been found. Some x-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles have been found. Reproducibility has improved.

Now some comments about Wikipedia. When working on the cold fusion article I have merely tried to include the experimenters’ point of view. I have not tried to censor or delete the skeptics’ point of view. I have tried to create a NPOV article.

I have a problem with some of Wikipedia’s rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Wikipedia has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. The scientific method is that experiment is the reality check of science. The only logical proof against experiment is experimental error. Consensus, existing the theory, and expertise can cast doubt on an experiment, but they are not a logical proof that negates experimental evidence. To imply other wise is a use of the political method. Your “undue” weight rule is seriously flawed. It seems to favor consensus over truth and does not give experimental evidence its proper weight. The principal of “information suppression” is well described in the NPOV Tutorial. Wikipedia does nothing to stop “information suppression.” Wikipedia claims that NPOV is its highest principal, but it does not enforce it. Apparently consensus is its highest principal. Truth and facts do not make the list. I do not see how content dispute is not a NPOV dispute. I do not see why “information suppression” is allowed under content dispute. “Content dispute” just seems to be a buzz word for doing nothing. I was told by one of your admins that if Wikipedia had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label.

You seem to be overrun with censors who like to throw around words like pseudoscience, pathological science, proto science, and fringe science. These are nonsense words. There only purpose they serve is political name calling. It is not all that complicated. If you are following the scientific method you are practicing science. If you are not following the scientific method you are not practicing science. If you make mistakes while following the scientific method, you are still practicing science.

There are ways that Wikipedia can improve their product. Wikipedia could change its rules to incorporate a sense of the scientific method and give experiment its proper weight They could stop using old censorship to justify new censorship. They could bring their nest of scientific censors under control. They could stop publishing articles on controversial science or new science since they cannot do it competently. They could issue warning labels. They could stop “information suppression”. They could enforce NPOV. They could resolve disputes with people who are scientifically knowledgeable and do not have a censorship passion or axe to grind. However Wikipedia does not seem to be interested in reform. Ron Marshall (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Netoholic's ban
As a result of Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2, Netoholic was banned from both the Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces for one year. During 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 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)

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)

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)

Sathya Sai Baba arbcom case 2: banning of Andries for one year
I was very surprized that supported '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)

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 banning policy to reflect your reasoning. Andries 19:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision, 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. 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.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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)

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)

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 and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee.". 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 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  Analysis of situation  Suspicion of sockpuppet account  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) 

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. 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" but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 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)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 . Thatcher131 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on same user Talk page Thank you. avyakt7 21:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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: 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)
 * 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?


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

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


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

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)

GordonWatts RFAR
Hey -- could I suggest that you add this rejected ArbCom request to the list of rejected requests? The diff is here: ; 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. Mango juice talk 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)

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)

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)

Starwood arbitration
Since this case looks finished, please vote to close. The case is three months old and I'd like to close it tonight or tomorrow morning. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Jdforrester,
 * Thanks for your involvement in this case. I hope my comment here is not inappropriate, but I'm a nervous person by nature, so I hope you'll forgive me. All the points of this arbitration have come in with a 4 to 0 majority, but the case can't be closed without 4 votes, and there are only 3 to close. If this is just an oversight, I hope you can visit the case once more and add your vote to close at the bottom of the Proposed Decision page. Thanks again, Rosencomet 18:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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. 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)


 * Thank you for you inputs; as the case is now closed, I'm not sure I can usefully reply.
 * James F. (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Return to active
I think the clerks will probably leave you listed as inactive on all the currently open cases unless you indicate otherwise. If you intend to vote on some or all of the current cases, drop a note at WP:AC/CN or on the talk:Proposed decision page of each case. Or, if you just cast a vote, we will get the hint. Thatcher131 14:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ta. Will-do. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

E104421-Tajik
cross-posted to talk pages, copied to the case's decision talk page

Please note that I'm already under revert parole. In addition, my block log is just reflecting the articles i had factual disagrements with Tajik. (P/s: I posted this message to your talk page cause i'm not sure where to post for the arbitration case) Regards. E104421 12:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know; this was meant more as a codification of said community revert parole into a Committee-enforced parole, to avoid confusion (which has happeend before). However, I was unsure that it's needed, but thought that I should offer it to the Committee; I have accordingly changed my vote on these items to better reflect this.
 * James F. (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BDJ evidence
elements cross-posted

Hey,

I think it would be better if you didn't paste in copies of deleted articles, just linked to the appropriate Special:Undelete page if you feel it's necessary - they were deleted for a reason, and I'd really rather not see an edit war break out on an Arbitration case (yet again).

James F. (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the whole point is that they weren't deleted for any valid reason - there isn't a single derogatory or disputed line in that short text. Without quoting the text, that's just my word for it, with quoting the text, it's obvious. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Meet me halfway here. If there was a specific issue that was claimed to violate BLP, I'd happily leave it out, but no one is saying what the problem actually is. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe they "weren't deleted for any valid reason", maybe they were. Given that this class of BLP is under dispute, the appropriate action to take would be to hold off and use your better judgment. Caution is always better than rash action when tempers are heated and concerns strong. Note that when that which is "obvious" to one is not so for other people, it behooves one to taking a moment to reflect as to why that may be so, such as, for example, it not being the case.
 * James F. (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Thank you for the consideration. I wonder if you would say whether you still feel this case is only about Badlydrawnjeff's behaviour, as you said on your acceptance statement? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of Arbitrators' opening comments, such as mine, is to suggest a profitable avenue for the case to explore. If editors wish to explore other areas in the Evidence and Workshop pages, then I will review them (of course), but the opening request provided me with only sufficient impetus to thinkg that BDJ's behaviour was the main concern.
 * James F. (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's all I could ask for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization
FYI, it's Paul August who keeps de-capitalizing (A/a)rbitrator and (C/c)lerk. Thatcher131 22:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. Will have a word with him.
 * James F. (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained source for Arb Policy change
elements cross-posted

This edit implies that you brought Arbitration Policy up to date with something but you didn't state what the sources are. You deleted the last part of a sentence which is in Arbitration rationale, and if people can't be asked for clarification then the meaning of "moved" needs to be defined (who or what is moved and how does one ask for a movement?). If the Rationale is not the basis, what additional sources should be examined for Arbitration Policy? (SEWilco 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I am confused. You seem to be applying our article sourcing policy to the Committee's explanation of how it works; this is an incorrect assumption, and may have led to your query. The Arbitration policy is a primary document, a distillation by the Committee of how it has been operating.
 * The phrase "if so moved" is obviously a cause of confusion for you - it means "if they feel that it is necessary in this context". It is not an invitation for people to petition individual Committee members - indeed, the part of my corrections which you highlight in particular here was an attempt to avoid some of the more spurious requests by denying a "right of reply". I hope to speak for the entire Committee when I say that we would always welcome queries from parties that could let us help them understand better how and why we carry out our duties.
 * Thank you, however, for pointing me to the Rationale, which I had forgotten - I will make sure that it is updated.
 * James F. (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not confused with article space WP:V. Your edit comment "Bring up to date again." implies that you're bringing it up to date with something else, but you did not indicate what was more up to date.  If the Arbs are supposed to arbitrarily decide for themselves whether to explain their actions, different phrasing is needed than "if so moved" due to the multiple meanings of "move" (particularly in a procedural context).   However, I think it is a mistake to not require explanation, as I was dragged through a case where the reason for the case was not defined and such explanations may have helped identify the issues.  Look at the case and you won't find the usual "summary" section (scroll back to the original posting and it makes even less sense); this was pointed out and buried in the Talk page; comments during the case indicate participants had different concepts of the issues in the case.  Some explanation of the reason for voting for the case would have helped.  Was the requirement for vote explanation placed in the policy due to something which happened some time ago, and has now been forgotten?  (SEWilco 23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Transnistria arbitration
I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * dealt with at case

your pro censorship ruling
Is it ok to have in the User:Tobias Conradi page the following

--- The orginal version of this page contained admin right abuse listing and was deleted. The deletion is not shown in the deletion log.

'''This user thinks Wikipedia should be more tranparent with respect to admin actions. All users should be allowed to have annotated listings of admin actions, e.g. listings of admin right abuses.'''

Unfortunatly the ArbCom ruled that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances." and referring here to a simple listing of annotated diffs. User_talk:Tobias Conradi/RfA

Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi/Proposed_decision

So User:Tobias Conradi is denied the right to collect evidences of admin right abuses.

It reminds me on people committing crime and when the victim wants to change things by making the crime public he is additionally abused by being censored.

http://transparency.org --- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how that would benefit the project. We decided that your practice of creating copious lists of actions that you found contentious, rather than seek to resolve such situations at the time, was not productive. The term "censorship" is a perjorative word to use here, and has implicit within it a sense of a "right to edit", when no such thing exists, and so I would suggest that such thinking is unhelpful.
 * James F. (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know why you think censorship is pejorative, but in fact it is what the ArbCom ruling supports (Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.). I am very willing to help to solve problems, but for seeing the problem, one needs to gather facts. I am denied of gathering facts. That's censorship. You said you fail to see how that helps the project? Well, I think especially admins should follow the written rules and obstain from false claims and lieing. What do you think? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's how to go about resolving any disputes you have with administrators or anyone else: Resolving_disputes. As listed on this page there are channels available where you can list alleged abuses with the aim of seeking a resolution. Kutabi 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the page is quite long. could you be more specific? Furthermore I would like to know what the censor thinks, not any user just dropping by. Seen too much of them. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

mobbing
pls stop people from blocking me without sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=137852540&oldid=137846299

no laundry list. where should this be? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1RR per week
why did you vote for putting me on 1RR per week? I never even violated 3RR. Even if one admin claimed so in the block log - my first block I received. And the first in a long row of false blocks. Pls tell what I did you think to cure with 1RR per week. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * reminder. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility guidelines

 * I would be grateful if you would confirm that:
 * (a) Civility and personal attacks (ie. respect) are a key Wikipedia policy and one of the five pillars of Wikipedia
 * (b) There is no defense or justification for incivility
 * (c) Reporting an editor for incivility is part of the dispute resolution process
 * (d) That reporting an editor of actual incivility (a core policy) is never classed as vexatious litigation (a guideline). --84.9.191.165 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I imagine, possibly arrogantly, that I can see where this is going, and so I think I will refrain from feeding, if that's all the same to you.
 * James F. (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning paranormal RFA
Please don't forget to add [] and [] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area []. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for by the arbitrators. Also please add [] and []. to the "Proposed decisions" area. Thanks. Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Diyako checkuser logs

 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat chi? 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Miskin arbitration case
I noted your comment on the motion to close. I've put a proposed finding of fact on the workshop page which might solve the problem. Sam Blacketer 14:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will look at it now.
 * James F. (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Note or not?
Hi James. With regards to your vote at Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Proposed decision, did you mean "note" as opposed to "not?" Picaroon (Talk) 03:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, whoops! Thanks.
 * James F. (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well?

 * undo, per Arbitrators JamesF and Mackesen, it is "beyond merely absurd" to apply NPA in article space
 * 1: ArbCom has not ruled on this 2: please explain how NPOV applies on talk page
 * Protected Overstock.com: Editing dispute [edit=sysop:move=sysop (expires 2007-09-14T15:06:36 (UTC)]
 * Protected Overstock.com: Editing dispute [edit=sysop:move=sysop (expires 2007-09-14T15:06:36 (UTC)]


 * restore original site per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BADSITES_.2F_NPA_in_articles, "beyond merely aburd" to apply NPA to articles
 * removing link until arbcom rule on the issue- seems best option
 * removing link until arbcom rule on the issue- seems best option

Alternative solution to the Dalmatia issue
My first impulse upon seeing the proposed decision by the Arbitration Committee, was to protest by saying it is unfair to simplify matters thusly and equate User:Giovanni Giove with myself (because of my being on the "defensive" in the edit-warring, because of my numerous attempts at dicussion). I realised, though, that that kind of stuff is probably often heard in such situations, and that my protests will be disregarded (due to my obvious personal interest). This is why I tried a different approach. User:Giovanni Giove and I have reached an agreement that should do the trick to first stop, and then finally "dismantle" the conflict (see Giovanni Giove's talkpage). Such attempts at discussion have been made before and have proven effective in resolving several issues with Users PIO and Brunodam (on the Albania Veneta, Istrian exodus and Foibe massacres articles, for example). Even though our previous record may lead someone to question the credibility of this effort, one must remeber that thanks to the Arbitration, we now face a very real possibility of severe restrictions lasting an entire year. This finally changed the overall situation in a way that finally lead to a lasting agreement. The question, of course, is would you support such a solution to the problem at hand? I, for one, truly hope so, since the proposed restriction would effectively put an end to my work on Wiki, something I'll do my best to prevent. DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 18:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Melsaran block
I just noticed that Melsaran's bot account, User:MelsaranAWB is not blocked. I didn't know if that was an oversight or by design. --Kbdank71 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Argh. An over-sight. Thanks! Now fixed.
 * James F. (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm I take this very seriously. Melsaran is a moderator on the Dutch wikipedia. Can I find somewhere what the reasons were? Waerth 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, not a mod, but a very active user. Waerth 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal on "The Troubles" /workshop page
Would that be a suitable break down as to who the Probation would apply to in the Troubles case? (I picked out all the names from the previous list, and checked their block logs, and placed them on the list if they had one or more blocks for edit warring).

Combined with the future remedy (IE, if any new edit wars break out, they can be placed on the list fairly easily), I think that should be a fair compromise. SirFozzie 19:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik
Hello. You were part of Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Proposed decision which got Tajik banned. New evidence from checkuser suggests that the accusations against Tajik were wrong. This is supported by a few admins and other users in a recent comment. The case was already reported to User:Jimbo Wales. Please take a look at this and comment on it. I would also appreciate it if you could contact other clercs since I do not know how to do that. PS: I am not Tajik, but I know Tajik. I do not know how to prove that, but it does not matter anyway. Thank you for your help. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.134.180 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for flagging this to my attention.
 * James F. (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

About your Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy two decision
A template has been created that seems to have substantially changed the wording and the extent of the remedy you voted for at []. I am currently discussing this at [] and I would welcome you input. I have posted this same message on the talk pages of the other 5 arbritrators who voted for remedy 2. Meowy 16:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, have commented there.
 * James F. (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

ARBCOM Dalmatia decision breach
Hi JD, I hope you won't mind if I turn your attention to the final decision of the Dalmatia ARBCOM, with respect to recent events. Now, snitching isn't my game, but I think that in this case I really ought to make an exception. With the final decision not one week old, User:Giovanni Giove has already made, not one or two, but a little under two dozen reverts of varying size in the Marco Polo (history page: ) and Dalmatian Italians articles (history page ). In the Dalmatian Italians article (besides reverting more than once) he also made no attempt whatsoever to discuss his edits, and the discussion page does not have a single explanation of these numerous reverts and provocative edits. In the Marco Polo article he quite flagrantly ignored the instructions of the ARBCOM and reverted on several occasions this week (on the same article).

I edited as well on a few occasions myself, but (as per instructions) you will find only one revert per week per article, and a thorough and honest discussion each time.

I will post this to your fellow arbitrators as well, hope none of you mind... DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 08:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for flagging this to my attention, but the correct venue is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:AN/I. Will pass request on.
 * James F. (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot and The Troubles RfAr's
Based on the latest comments, it appears that the Sadi Carnot RfAr should be accepted after all. See the various comments there. It had appeared that the dispute was being worked out, but apparently not.

Please also take a look at remedy proposal 3.2 in The Troubles and verify, by vote or otherwise, that it correctly summarizes the intent of the decision as desired by the committee.

Thanks, Newyorkbrad 15:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actioned.
 * James F. (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections
cross-posted to User talk:Rudget, User talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration

I see at this edit, that you've delisted Messedrocker as being too young. Could I ask what the minimunm age is? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Regards, Rudget . talk  19:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read further down, I clarified this point a few minutes later. Sorry for the confusion.
 * James F. (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks for the giving me the updated notice. Regards, Rudget . talk  12:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Age limit elections
I don't get it and the explanation you've posted doesn't explain things - it's just a statement. Please go to the arbcom talk page where I posted my question in a little more detail. - Mgm|(talk) 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied there.
 * James F. (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova ArbCom - Arbitrators' receipt of evidence prior to block
cross-posted to User talk:Isarig, User talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration

Since I have not been able to get an answer to this on the project page, let me ask you directly: Did you receive Durova's "secret evidence" prior to the blocking of User:!!? Isarig (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As has been stated, the Committee was not sent the evidence to which I believe you refer prior to the events.
 * If instead you mean to ask me whether or not I am on some special list, I do not think it is a question of relevance to the case. Had I given advice on the particulars of this matter, I would of course have recused myself.
 * James F. (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have several follow-up questions on this matter. Firstly, you state "the Committee was not sent the evidence to which I believe you refer prior to the events.". Another Committe member has replied to me regarding this matter saying "The committee received an email from Durova outlining her concerns about !!. I believe it predates the block but I may be mistaken." Could you confirm that the committee recieved such communication, and that it was different than the "secret evidence" report which Giano published? Second, I believe you are very mistaken regarding the relevance of your possible membership on the "secret list" which had gotten the report. That list is being discussed in the case, its very existance, let alone usage, is the subject of numerous statements of fact, questions, principles and remedies suggested. For you to be on that list while at the same time arbitrating matters regarding it is an unthinkable conflict of interest. I urge you to reconsider your response. Isarig (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible arbcom process for dealing with wider set of related conflicts?
Hi, I am contacting you because you were one of the administrators on the Macedonia arbcom.

I'm having problems with two specific editors (The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy) on a wide number of articles. These, to varying degrees, include: 7th Muslim Brigade, Bosnian Mujahideen, Serb propaganda, Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia, Alija Izetbegovic, Mujahideen, Bosnian War and Srebrenica massacre. These conflict are all related to, what I perceive to be, certain editors' use of these articles (and potentially others) for the purpose of pushing nationalist views, breaking Wikipedia principles relating to WP:POV, WP:COAT, WP:SOURCES and WP:OR, to name a few. This user has also deleted articles or links to articles which which he does not agree with. I feel that I have raised these issues (POV, etc) with him but have met with no understanding. I have also nominated the articles Serb propaganda and 7th Muslim Brigade for deletion. The latter is still pending while the outcome of the afd process on the Serb propaganda article was no consensus. While I agree that the subject deserves an article, Serb propaganda certainly was an important factor in the Yugoslav Wars, I, as did most of the non-Bosniak editors who participated in the afd debate, feel that the current article is grossly POV.

My question is, rather than engaging in never ending reverts and engaging in lengthy and extremely time consuming mediation processes for each individual article / conflict, is there a way to deal with what is the underlying problem with all of them, namely WP:POV, in one single mediation/arbitration process? All the other problems are merely symptoms/results of the underlying nationalist POV being pushed in these articles? Stifle recently mentioned that there was a precedent for dealing with conflicts related to Balkan issues where an "editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process" (where I take the first two to also cover POV issues). Could this be used as a basis for such an arbitration process?

If it becomes too time consuming to continously seek remedies against people who are consistently misusing Wikipedia to push nationalist views, only die hard natioalists and people with extreme views will have the tenacity to edit pages which attract these types of editors. Unfortunately, some of these articles are not notable enough to draw a large number of editors and the POV pushing is often quite subtle (though more often, such as in the examples I cite above, it's not). I believe an arbcom encompassing a wider set of smaller conflicts related to the same issue or user(s) would be an efficient way of dealing with these types of probelems. Your comments and/or guidance on this matter would be much appreciated.Osli73 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I must comment Osli73's claims. He says he is having problems with me and user:Grandy, which is wrong. He is just having problems with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you look at his block log he is constantly blocked because he permanently breaks Wikipedia rules:


 * 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)


 * 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)


 * 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli7 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎(violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)


 * 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)


 * 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months ‎ 


 * 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ 


 * 12:23, 5 December 2007 Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen

Regarding his claims that the problems are results of the nationalist POV being pushed in the articles he mentioned above, I also can't agree on that. If you look at the history of those articles you will find this:


 * Osli73, wrote Bosnian Mujahideen in order to replace the existing article with the offical and precise terms 7th Muslim Brigade. He also nominated 7th Muslim Brigade for deletion after he wrote Bosnian Mujahideen (which is mostly based on WP:NOT content).


 * Osli73 then wrote Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia in order to replace the existing Serb propaganda article based on International court for War Crimes verdicts. And he also nominated Serb propaganda article for deletion. But it didn't go well, and now he is asking another way to destroy other users effort and contribution. I was also suggested to start a request for comment if he continues to behave this way. Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/IRC
I presume you are recusing yourself in this? Picaroon (t) 00:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes; done.
 * James F. (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

CPC-ArbCom
Hi James F., I have left a reply message here regarding the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Arbitration Committee Proposal. Your answer for this proposal was "Err. This exists. He's called Jimmy." I've been hesitant to answer your question and still hold reservations. Nevertheless, I recently discovered that you are part of ArbCom committee. I have highlighted this at the proposal. Perhaps this could be used in a positive fashion? Your expert knowlege of the Arbcom shall surelly facilitate a strong and indepthfull response? Perhaps you could please provide a response that highlights at least 3 key points instead of just one? Thank you for your time. --CyclePat (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What if there is only one? --Tony Sidaway 13:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ionas68224 and User:68.224.117.152
I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! -- omtay 38  02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied.
 * James F. (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Help to calm down Balkan nationalism
In many articles about Dalmatia the group of fanatic Croats (user:Kubura, user:Zenanarh, etc..) is back with the usual Balkan fanatism, like in Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia where you did arbitration. I have sent them messages about "Let's do Wikilove" in the hope that they could calm down and cooperate with Italian wikiusers (like user:Cherso, user:Pannonicus, user:PIO, user:Mariokempes and others) but nothing has changed. May be you can help to calm down this Balkan nationalism (that user:Dewrad has defined insane)? Thanks. --Marygiove (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 2 Arbitration
Editors are getting impatient and there is a great deal of confusion regarding the injunction. Could you please respond to Kirill's proposals on the Proposed decision page as soon as possible. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)