Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:AMA Requests for Assistance/Archive1

< Wikipedia talk:AMA Requests for Assistance
Latest comment: 18 years ago by KeithTyler in topic Request for assistance

Request for assistance

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I'd like someone to help me have my permission to edit in the Wikipedia (project) namespace restored. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to post this request on the project page itself. Can someone please move this there? See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2. anthony 16:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Izehar 17:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

My reading of the arbit judgment was that you have been banned from editing there for a period of one year starting in March 2005. Are you seeking an appeal of that decision?Gator(talk) 17:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's what I'm seeking. Is there some sort of procedure for parole or time off for good behavior, or something? This ruling was slightly more than 7 months ago, and I don't think I've caused any problems since then, so it'd be nice if we could just lift this ban now rather than waiting 5 months. anthony 18:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I would still ask the ArbCom it they would mind changing their decision first. If they say no, then we could appeal. Izehar 19:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy

Moved from User talk:Anthony DiPierro.


Hello, regarding your request on Wikipedia talk:AMA Requests for Assistance#Request for assistance, I would like to respond, but I'm afraid I don't understand. Could you clarify it. What exactly do you want doing. I've seen your arbitration case remedies, and I don't think that your editing rights can be restored. Izehar 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that your editing rights can be restored. The arb com can do anything it wants to do. anthony 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The arb com can do anything it wants to do. LOL. Ain't that the truth. Keith D. Tyler 20:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I just moved your request. Normal procedure in these cases is to appeal to Jimbo Wales who can veto arb com decisions. Or, I could informally ask the arb com to consider amending their decision because you have sincerely repented and will not be disruptive again and their decision is too harsh etc. Izehar 17:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess I could try talking to Jimmy Wales again. I contacted him a few months ago (July 11, 2005) about this, and he said he'd get back to me (in a week or two), but he must have forgotten, cause I didn't hear from him again. But I'd rather go to the arb com directly rather than go over their head like that. anthony 18:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. I'll write something to give the ArbCom saying that you have behaved impeccably for the past seven months and that you would like to be able to edit Wikipedia project pages again, under supervision at first if necessary. Call it "time off for good conduct". I wouldn't play the "Jimbo Wales card" yet, but save it in case the ArbCom refuse. I'm sure Jimbo Wales would allow you to edit project pages again, I mean seven months is long enough and you have behaved well in the meantime. I'll post the ArbCom letter here once I have written it, and if you say it's OK, I'll post it on the Clarification Section of the RFAr. If you like though, you could write something for them. Izehar 19:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up

The main page has been cleaned up. Please, when you pick up a request, move it entirely instead of copying it :-) KC9CQJ 22:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lebanon

Someone (who uses different IDs) is replacing the percentages of religious demography taken from the US State Department with his own numbers.

"U.S. Government estimates that 70% of the resident population is Muslim; the rest is Christian... [1]

See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14006.htm for 70%

He is replacing that sentence with

"Current estimates say that 47 to 50 percent of the resident population is Christian; the rest is Muslim"

On a different talk page, this user claims that he heard this on TV but he doesn't have the source. He insists on replacing the US State Department % with his own. Please keep an eye on this page OneGuy 23:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PV

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If anyone is able or willing to help Paul Vogel (See wikien-1 mailing list), I'd expect he'd appreciate it. - Woodrow XXIIIII, Emperor of the United States, Minister of Ministry 20:08, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am already acting in his defense, is he requesting a different advocate or what? I no longer use the mailing list, so a link to or cut/paste of his exact request would be appreciated. Sam Spade 20:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think Calmypal/Woodrow may not have been aware that you were already involved, Sam. I haven't seen any request for a different advocate, and Paul has mentioned you recently in a way that I would assume he still sees you in that capacity. But you may want to check out the posts on wikien-l anyway, if you haven't already, because the arbitration committee may well consider it as evidence. I trust you know how to find the archives, even if you no longer subscribe. --Michael Snow 20:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


No, I am not asking anyone else to be my advocate, Sam Spade, although, you really should have read my own honest response to "Texture"'s typical slanderous and "false-witnessing", first, and before your own posting of that comment. -Paul Vogel

Kangaroo court for Thoughtcrime or for Paul Vogel's NPOV edits being pov and falsely called "vandalism" or "spam" when it is really for my lacking Political correctness or for my posting Hate speech in the Social Marxist-Jewish pov of the actual "Haters", "Trolls", and their POV political bigots and "Censorship": of this article[2] on Cosmotheism[3] below: and many others:


PS-BTW: Actually, some of those "criticisms" links for Judaism were actually your idea, Sam Spade, remember? The actual and only point of my posting these "criticisms" links to Judaism was only to NPOV have the two very false and slanderously pov links to Cosmotheism that were posted by "David Gerard" deleted, both for NPOV and to demonstrate that no such pov biased and to protest that no such pov double-standards should be allowed to stand within ANY religious Wikipedia articles. :D

That's just it: we want political correctness. That's part of NPOV. NPOV is not puttingin one POV section and balancing it out with another, it's keeping the whole article neutral. The Anti-Semitic site you linked to is insane nonsense about how the Jews secretly control the world, while the Cosmotheism criticisms were about Cosmotheism. That site had no information to contribute about the Jews and Judaism, it was just saying that they're all evil (well, no true information).
Hoping you're reading this,
George Washington III 01:32, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

That’s a POV of your own, Calmy. I dislike PC about as much as Paul does, to be honest. Your statements about his site are also POV, but I have to say, it’s not a particularly coherent site, and all the broken links and other foolishness make me rather skeptical myself, despite the high Google rating. And now that your case is pretty much decided, I feel comfortable pointing out why I recused myself from your case, Paul. It was because you personally were making sure it was unwinnable, and I would assume you were doing so consciously. From what I saw on the mailing list, you managed to provoke Jimbo himself, much less the various arbitrators involved. With that sort of a deficit to work with, I really didn't feel able to justify continuing on.

I would like to point out to you Paul that since Cosmotheism see's God in every one of us, that would include Black folks and Jews. Heck, even Commies exist, and are therefore an aspect of God. If, as a white person you feel closer to God, I would hope that we could judge that by your fruits. Rather than being angry and yelling at commies, I find it best to focus on doing what good and charity that we can, assisting those we love. And in the end, when God is All, we should have some basic good will and charity towards everyone. Sam Spade 02:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Sabians

I'll keep an eye on this article, but I really can't edit it much. Its honestly an area which fascinates me, and yet (or perhaps because) my knowledge is minimal. Sam [Spade] 01:39, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Organizing the requests page

I altered the format of the requests page from horizontal lines to level-3 headers. I dunno about anyone else, but I found it tedious to have to carefully scroll the page to find the particular issue I wanted to look at. Now the headers are prominent, and TOCed to boot.

I wonder if we should consider an organization scheme for open requests, a la the table at Requests for Arbitration, and track whether the request has been rejected as invalid (a la "fix the poetry page"), currently being researched, currently in mediation or arbitration, resolved, etc.

- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:59, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

The improvement of organization is good, although I would prefer to avoid the "vs." formulation if at all possible. It could foster combativeness, and I think of the AMA's purpose as helping people deal with disputes, not propagating them. The "re:" formulation would generally be better, I think.

As for archiving matters, I don't know that it's terribly necessary. I don't see this as quite so formal and legalistic a venue as Requests for Arbitration, and people can always look at the page history for older material. As long as there has been communication on the matter, if possible, with the person making the request, that seems like enough. --Michael Snow 18:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, I think we should be responsible to the requests that have been made of us, and catalog and track them until their issue has been resolved.
As for the "vs." format, I don't know why you would object. AMA is specifically here to assist with the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|]] process, so any valid request of us is going to be related to some dispute between two members. Hence, "vs.". - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:29, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

This requesting page needs a reorganization urgently. I think Michael Snow is right, we should imitate as far as we can the more 'formal' pages like the Req. for Arb. and for Med. --Neigel von Teighen 18:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That was my suggestion, Michael said that he doesn't want that. :) - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:29, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
Hey! I messed up both opinions! :) Then, Neigel von Teighen's official opinion is: I agree with Keith and we should reorganize the request page. Also, I would appreciate that someone could reorganize the whole AMA pages, this association's pages are somehow difficult to navigate. --Neigel von Teighen 21:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Overall I think the "AMA page space" organization is OK, though a couple pages are actually missing from the navigation IMO. What would you change? - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:04, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
That's the point: they cannot be missing! I'll try to do it, I want improve the AMA. --Neigel von Teighen 22:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Open, Closed & Responded???

Hi, can someone explain me what's the difference between a Request and an Open Request and the difference between Closed & Responded? The organizing seems to be a very good job, but I don't understand it. --Neigel von Teighen 21:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No one has seemed to object :) so I've tried to come up with an organization method to this page to better let us prioritize our current requests. I've refined it a bit. Unassigned/untaken requests are at the top, where requestors enter them. An issue where an advocate has agreed to start a discussion with the requesting user I've been putting under "Responded issues". If an issue has been resolved, or advocate involvement has halted, then I move it to Closed issues, which will eventually presumably move into an archive page. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 01:13, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. Thanks for your help Keith. — © Alex756 04:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Assistance please

Can somoeone please stop users from moving my request for an advocate. I DO NOT have an advocate.WikiUser 21:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At the time, Imaglang indicated that he'd responded to you, so it made sense to place it in the Responded section. This allows us to keep track of which cases need an advocate to get involved and which have already been taken on by someone. I see Neigel put it back at the top, reflecting that it needs attention from someone else. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 01:10, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. He told me on my talk page too.WikiUser 19:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changing request titles

Originally on the AMA requests page, requestors added a simple paragraph about their request, and we asked them to separate their requests with a horizontal line.

IMO this made the page hard to follow and even harder to find a particular request. So, I started adding meaningful titles to each request, so that they would be easily identifiable (as well as available quickly via the TOC).

Since I've done that, new requests have come in with their own titles. Since my intent of putting titles on requests was so that they could be easily identified with a brief but comprehensive summary of the nature of the dispute and the parties involved, I've changed some of those titles to fit a regular and clear pattern.

This practice has upset one user, who argues that by chaning the title of his entry, I've misrepresented his words. (In fact, I don't believe my title misrepresents the dispute he raises at all.)

But above all, this is a request page for the AMA, which serves a dual role as a tool for communication as well as an organization tool for advocates to identify cases where they are needed.

So, what is the AMA's opinion on my practice of adding/altering titles to requests for better identification, and how does WP convention relate to it?

Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the practice at Requests for arbitration, and Requests for mediation as well, has been that the arbitrators/mediators do sometimes edit these section headings for clarity. That may not necessarily dictate practice for the AMA, but I don't see why you shouldn't continue. Perhaps a note on the page to this effect would help prevent misunderstandings. --Michael Snow 22:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"(In fact, I don't believe my title misrepresents the dispute he raises at all.)" But that is for me and only me to say. No one can make representations on my behalf without my permission. As I explained clearly on my talk page, you have mis-represented my position. Users should not write things for other users. If you change the title I wrote for a reason, you have changed part of a post from me. I can not write statements on the wiki on jimmy wales' behalf, and no one has the right to write on a web-site on my behalf. I think the changes you made are needless and wrong. Please restore my post to the one I actually made.WikiUser 19:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know of no reason why or case where alteration of content contributed to a project page by the project participants is not allowed. The AMA Requests page is ultimately a resource which is part of the AMA project.
Like other project pages, the organization, format, structure, and acceptable content on the Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance is defined (and clearly so) by the project participants (in this case the members of the AMA). Content on the page is contributed by users, but ultimately is a part of the project materials.
You would not, for example, make contributions to a page such as Wikipedia:Substub, and then demand that your contribution to it must remain untouched.
This is in contrast to a talk page, where users are representing views as part of a discussion, and which is not defined, organized, or structured by anyone. I would not edit another users's comments on a Talk page, not even to add a wikilink. But the AMA Requests page is not a talk page, either in purpose, form, or acceptable use.
- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:58, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:dnagod_vs._User:jpgordon_et_al

I think its important that these individuals recieve advocates, assuming they desire them. User:dnagod semed particularly unaware of the arbitration process, and the wikipedia generally. I have contacted him and provided him with necessary informations. User:jpgordon at minimum should be offered representation, and provided with advice regarding the usage of our Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance page. Clearly lengthy discussions amongst litigants should not be conducted there. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think clarification of the acceptable usage of the AMA Request page needs to go all around; it has been pretty battered lately as well as contentious. I tried to do this today by increasing the visibility of some usage notes. This is a resource for AMA; we should define its acceptable usage and purpose and do so clearly. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 00:00, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and think its likely to be a growing concern. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I certainly had never heard of the AMA Request page before my name showed up on it, and simply responded (very briefly) without so much as reading what AMA stood for. My mistake there. I don't know why I would need any representation; am I missing some point here? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Based on the apparent dispute between you and user:dnagod, you may be interested in having an advocate help represent you in the dispute, especially if user:dnagod has one, and especially if the dispute escalates to mediation or arbitration. It's available to you. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 18:11, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • Shrug. I don't see much likelihood of that happening, especially since I'm letting other people deal with dnagod; I'm not the only one around here with a low tolerance for his ilk. But it's good to know it's here if for some reason I need it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RfAd?

Has anyone considered changing this page's name to Requests for Advocacy? It may make it a) more available and b) more obvious. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 00:01, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Acceptable usage of the requests page - draft

We should come up with a draft statement to define and clarify the intent and usage of the Requests page.

I contend that the Requests page is ultimately a resource for the AMA to carry out its work. It is not a talk page or forum and should not be treated as such. Here are some draft suggestions:

  • This is not a space for dispute resolution. Arguments or other discussion between litigants does not belong here. Individuals referred to in requests may add one opposing statement if they also intend to request advocacy.
  • Reqeusts for advocacy should state the nature of the dispute, any participants, and what sort of advocacy they desire (any details such as full representation, co-representation, procedural advice, etc.).
  • Advocates (when in this space, acting as advocates) do not perform mediation or arbitration; though if accepted as advocate they can aid the member in initiating the process through the proper channels.
  • This is not a talk page; all requests are informational submissions to the AMA, and the AMA will summarize, organize, and otherwise manage requests and their content to further their ability to perform their work.

- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 18:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Just from my own immediate experience: I'd suggest that individuals referred to in requests may add one opposing statement, period, regardless of whether they seek advocacy. Also, make it clear that stuff outside the guidelines will be summarily moved or zapped. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree about deleting talk (or preferably moving it to this talk page), but opposing points should not be allowed unless they involve a request for advocacy. Point-conterpoint can occur elsewhere, this page is only for requesting an advocate, and potentially for advocates to discuss cases / request assistance. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I sort of prefer moving large amounts of talk to its own subpage as I've done with the dnagod/jpgordon request. I would probably advocate this for all requests which relate to a dispute between members that is not explicitly article-oriented, as a place to collect information and perhaps discussion and even negotiation. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 19:51, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, we need more documentation anyways. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What about this? Call a request by a formal name, Requests for Advocacy (RfAd), in the following form: Requests_for_Advocacy/<USERNAME>. Cases are referred to as In re <USERNAME> instead of the adversarial <USER 1> vs. <USER 2>. A brief statement of the issue is placed on the Request page. When the request is picked up by an individual advocate, the advocate moves it into its own project page with talk space and would move the summary into the Answered Request section with a link to the actual project page, thus keeping the clutter on the main page to a minimum. Closed cases with summary of the dispute and resolution move to the Closed Requests section and an appropriate template flags the individual case page as 'Closed'. I will work on a proposed format somewhere and will update this page when I have it ready. KC9CQJ 22:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce vs ArbCom

I wish to place on record my thanks relating to the efforts of Advocate Wally with regard to my Request for Arbitration it was sincerely appreciated. Arising out of the RfA experience I would suggest the AMA consider a few points with regard to arbitration. Firstly there is no doubt that despite the structured legalistic template used during a RfA the committee itself discharges its duties more like a Roman Emperor with a thumbs up or down than producing any coherent judgement. The time and efforts of advocates are then really meaningless where the evidence is not seriously considered. I notice Keith Tyler has been putting in a lot of work in reorganising the AMA and good luck to him too. I would suggest however that before you go much further you extract an undertaking from the current ArbCom that they are indeed going to take their role as arbitrators seriously and going to really consider the evidence and issue a judgement of sorts rather than just a thumbs up or down. - Robert the Bruce 06:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IMO an advocate should do everything they can to ensure arbitrators are examining evidence. To that end, advocates also need to examine the evidence, and be sure to comment on any that are being ignored or are suspect -- and not just on the Evidence page. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 05:27, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • When I realised the problem was the ArbCom through the cavalier manner the motions Advocate Wally presented were dismissed there was little point in continuing with the AMA support when ArbCom does not even bother going through the motions of some sort of respectable process.
There is an issue which maybe is worthy or discussion here and that relates to recusal. It is quite clear that Raul654 was involved with the complainant in the lead up to the second RfA request and as the first acceptance that there was a conflict of interest. It was to be expected that Raul would not voluntarily recuse himself as that would be/could be seen as an admission of complicity but the ArbCom did nothing. It is therefore necessary to add a process where should an “affected party” call for an arbitrator to recuse himself and he declines that a vote by the remaining active members of the ArbCom be mandatory. A ruling with explanation must be published with the result of the vote (with all the provisions for minority views etc etc) and ArbCom must have the power to remove the particular arbitrator from the case.
This and other checks and balances are required to address the issue of “quis custodiet ipsos custodies”.
-Robert the Bruce 09:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Robert. It's a hole on the ArbCom rules that must be fixed. Obviously, some could say that the affected party can always contact the arbitrator by his talk page, but doing that it's a kind of pressure on the arbitrator. Arbitrator should know they have to recuse if they were involved on the dispute somehow and it's a shame if this is not respected. --Neigel von Teighen 23:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps ArbCom malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance should be addressed to the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia? [4] What do you guys think? — © Alex756 02:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
While I thank Robert for his kind words (at the same time acknowledging that my style of presenting the case was not exactly the sort the ArbCom found preferable, and that I'm afraid I did some harm for that reason), I disagree that, in general, the ArbCom itself was wrong on this case. I very much believe in both of the preliminaries I offered, and still do, and believe Raul654 was wrong not to recuse himself (especially considering the ban which the ArbCom is not considering in his case, which to be perfectly fair Raul has not voted upon). However I am not convinced that the ArbCom as a whole was at fault. Recusal is a personal decision. Failure to do so appropriately might be grounds for appeal. Anything else is irrelevant, to my mind.
I do think, however, that while things should be as concise and informal as possible for the ArbCom, they might entertain different styles of case presentation on a fairly equal level. I also wish Robert the best of luck on continuing the fight against his trumped-up charges (and, incidentally, encourage an appeal to Jimbo when all is said and done). Wally 03:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The [decision] is being voted on now. Raul654 has voted in the following resolutions. Vote counts are provisional and may switch during deliberation:

  • Initial acceptance: 5 yes and 1 recusal (Theresa Knott). Needed four for acceptance of the case?
  • Preliminary injunction: 9 to 0
  • Principles:
    • Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point: 7 to 0
    • No personal attacks: 7 to 0
    • NPOV: 7 to 0
    • Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy or propaganda: 7 to 0
    • It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits, especially on controversial articles: 7 to 0
    • Removal of references from articles is generally inappropriate: 7 to 0
    • against Wikipedia etiquette and NPOV requires references to advocates of a point of view in terms which they accept and would use to characterize themselves: 2 to 5
    • It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view: 7 to 0
    • Wikipedia users are expected to conduct themselves in a courteous manner in their dealing with other editors: 70 to 0
  • Findings of fact:
    • proposed The arbcom is satisfied that User:Robert the Bruce, User:Friends of Robert, and User:Robert Brookes are all the same user. Despite very similiar editing habits, technical evidence suggests to the satisfaction of the arbitration commmitee that they are not the same as User:Robert Blair: 4 to 0
    • 7 other findings of fact currently have a passing vote (5 or more ayes) but he has not voted on them.
  • Decisions
    • He has not voted on any of these proposed remedies:
    • The ban for disruptive behavior currently has a passing vote (5 or more ayes)
    • The proposed ban on sex-related articles currently has a passing vote (5 or more ayes).

In these circumstances, could Raul654's failure to recuse have prejudiced Robert's chance of a fair hearing? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Tony, If Raul654 has not voted because he feels a twinge of guilt then perhaps there is some possibility of redemption. But sadly he has shown both poor judgement and a lack of integrity in getting involved with EB in the first place and then to do a "Bill Clinton" and try to brazen it out. It has happened and he will get away with it ... but it should not be allowed to happen again. That is what the point of this is ... to close this particular loop hole and begin to hold members to a higher standard intergity than is currently being displayed. - Robert the Bruce 16:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's what I alleged. You can find the full treatment here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Evidence#Evidence for the Request for Arbitrator Raul to Recuse Himself. Wally 04:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe there are points in which Raul's vote would have affected the decision. It's difficult for us to say that at present because voting is ongoing and the above tallies may shift (apart from the acceptance and the temporary injunction, which are final). However it looks like Raul has been very wary of playing much role in the case since acceptance. If his vote is subtracted from any of the above, the decisions made (provisional as they are) would not be affected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I am not attempting to draw discussion of the merits of my ArbCom case. All I wished to raise was the issue of recusal ... for the rest there is nothing one can do about the kangaroo court process. The issue of recusal should be a reasonably "soft" issue to discuss and a matter which can remain at a level of principle and not draw defence of certain ArbCom members actions (or the lack thereof) through a proxy. My point again is that there should be a mechanism entrenched into policy where the ArbCom itself can review requests for recusal (should the applicable member refuse to recuse themself and either declare it "frivolous" or "excuse"that member from further proceedings. Personally I doubt whether the ArbCom would be up to making such tough choices (as it is a very clubby type of setup) and would recommend that third party (people [say three] with some legal background) review the evidence and make a determination. This would take the pressure off the ArbCom where they may have to make a decision "against" one of their own. Interestingly if one observes the arbitration proceedings of one WikiUser at least four ArbCom members have grounds to recuse themselves. This of course tells another story but it is the explanation of one Fred Bauder who states: "Accept, I could recuse myself based on this attack but we cannot all recuse ourselves in a case like this but must hear the case if needed." The rationale is quite bizarre. Perhaps a minimum understanding ethics should be a prerequisite for standing for ArbCom election. - Robert the Bruce 05:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I looked at what your own former advocate has written: I am not convinced that the ArbCom as a whole was at fault. Recusal is a personal decision. Failure to do so appropriately might be grounds for appeal.
It was this question that I was trying to get some kind of comment on. Wally mentioned the possibility of an appeal--and you know from my comments on your user talk page that I've been thinking about the same thing myself. So the intent of my post was to ask Wally to elucidate, by quoting the voting at him and asking the kind of questions that would be asked by someone considering an appeal.
ArbCom doesn't need any defense from me, nor am I its proxy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:34, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • An appeal? You are joking surely. There is absolutely no point in an appeal iro of anything. I would like to hear the case being made how the appeals process can be functional when just about everything else is broken. Your argument I suggest is coming from the wrong side of the issue. Two simple questions is all that needs to be asked; was there personal involvement, and was there even a hint of impropriety? The answers are obvious ... he should have recused himself. Case closed ... no further discussion needed. Where your point may have value is if and when he is called to account for not having recused himself ... then in mitigation he can claim that he played little or no part in the proceedings. That might just get him off being banned for a year ;-) - Robert the Bruce 03:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let's watch ourselves, eh? This is a place for civilized discussion (at which we are doing quite well, I may pleasantly say), not mudslinging. This is the AMA - not the Mediation Committee. :P Wally 11:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well I think some of the targets may take the phrasing here as somewhat less than civil--Roman Emperors, doing a Bill Clinton, brazening it out, drawing an inference of guilty feelings, trumped up charges--but I take your point. I've removed the unnecessary parts from the second paragraph. There was no need for me to descend to the same level. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I read more of this, what I'm hearing is that I could effectively prevent all arbitrators, or any I didn't like, from being involved in a potential arbitration, merely by making a personal attack at them on their user talk page. That seems like an unacceptable loophole. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 19:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • How so? It is more evident that a number of the current arbitrators willingly get involved in "exchanges" with people in the run up to and during ArbCom proceedings. This is the strongest indication that the "wrong" people are being elected to the ArbCom as the sheriff later becomes the judge (and jury). If one views a definition relating to recusal it is pretty simple really: "To disqualify or seek to disqualify from participation in a decision on grounds such as prejudice or personal involvement." It always leave a bad taste in the mouth when someone with 'personal involvement" in an issue refuses to recuse themself as it gives the impression that they have malevolent intent. This simple fact (personal involvement) should be enough for most to recuse themselves without having to even raise the possibility of "a hint of impropriety" etc etc. Like many such arguments the principle is simple and it only starts to get complicated when personalities and specific instances are introduced to to the discussion. - Robert the Bruce 03:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well then you choose bad examples. The only example you've given is of Fred Bauder's refusal to recuse himself based on a personal attack made against him: [5] (your link, from above). You were upset at his reason for not choosing to recuse, but his statement was certainly expressing the same concern I am.
      And this discussion is rapidly leaving the scope of the AMA Requests page. Shouldn't this discussion be being held over at RfA or ArbCom pages? - Keith D. Tyler [flame]
When the arbitration policy was being adopted, I argued that grounds for recusal are based on the conduct of the arbitrator, not the conduct of other people who may be involved in the case. Using that logic, there is less of a problem. CheeseDreams tried to request arbitration against the whole arbitration committee, but they didn't all recuse themselves, they just rejected the request. --Michael Snow 01:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • At the centre of this discussion is the conduct of the ArbCom members. It is evident that many want to play the roles of sheriff, judge and jury (at the same time). So my point remains that either civilised rules need to be made and enforced or the current pretence of due process should be dispensed with and people just being banned willy-nilly as the spirit moves the ArbCom. - Robert the Bruce 03:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this discussion is really pertinent to this forum, nor is it being productive in any sort of meaningful way. Wally 05:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does this work?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It appears that many requests have not been answered. Am I missing something? Maurreen (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, I am a new advocate myself so I am not entirely sure, but I have responded to one request myself. Some advocates may or may not monitor the request page. I would suggest that if you have not heard from anyone that you check out a list of those advocates that are accepting inquiries and you may want to compare that list of active advocates with the advocates statements to see who might be a good fit for your problem and then contact him/her directly. I hope that that is not too confusing but if you are not getting replies on the request page, it may be best for your to drill down to a specific advocate to grab his/her attention. - Jord 20:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Maurreen (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Good luck, hopefully you find someone! - Jord 02:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

copyright not violated: I am the author

I submitted text on Andreas Scholl but the entry has been removed due to suspected copyright violation, citing web page http://www.andreasschollsociety.org/biography.htm

There is no copyright violation. I am the author and sole copyright owner of the biography, from which I wrote the shorter version submitted to Wikipedia.

Please can someone help to get the Andreas Scholl biography in Wikipedia undeleted and restored?

I am the owner of the website http://www.andreasschollsociety.org/

I can be contacted through mail@REMOVE-SPAMandreasschollsociety.org or through jill@REMOVE-SPAMgunsell.net (delete REMOVE-SPAM from the email addresses)

OR you an contact me through this page: http://www.andreasschollsociety.org/Message_to_webmaster.htm

My name and phone number are given on my site map at http://www.andreasschollsociety.org/Site_map.htm and the phone number also appears on the home page of the site.

My name appears in the text I submitted to Wikipedia. Johnannes Scholl, acknowledged in that text, is Andreas Scholl's brother, who supplied me with some details for the biography.

Thank you for your help.

Regards,

Jill Gunsell

Moved comments made on main pag

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have taken the liberty to move the comments made by User:rktect to my request for assistance since I do believe such comments does not belong on the main page. They are pasted in between the lines, below. -- Egil 08:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific attack

Several pages to do with historic measures and weights are currently under attack.

That might be just a little strong.
I'm trying to add some comments, user Egil automatically reverts
or deletes anything with my name on it, even source material and
references.
Revert wars are obviously not going to solve the problem, and discussions have proven futile.
What discussions? You don't discuss anything. You just delete.

One could probably claim that these are acts of vandalism, which I guess would solve the problem, but I'm convinced the person who does this sincerely believes in his original research, so lets call it that.

When it comes to vandalism I think unilaterally and systematically
reverting or marking for deletion everything a person has to say
might better represent that catagory than putting up a list of
references.
I'm still waiting for an answer as to how citing a book in it's
fifth printing is original research. Several times you have objected
to things as if you had never heard of them before that have been
the subject of discussion since classical times.
Rktect 8/7/05 How about we solve this with a debate on whether
Norway had standards of measure prior to 1593?
Egil why don't you begin by telling us what your credentials are
regarding standards of measure? Either that or mayb you could
just give it a rast.
Do you think possibly geocentric Ancient Weights and Measures
go back before Ole Roemer?
Is this a topic you have studied? Read About? Have an interest in?
Is there a particular period or culture that you think you have more
knowledge of than some other?
Can you point me to your sources that you have listed on a page?

References

ArchaeologyColin Renfrew
A History of Seafaring George F Bass
The Ancient Near East William H McNeil and Jean W Sedlar
The Epic of GillgameshTranslated by Andrew George
The Ancient Near East James B. Pritchard
Bahrain through the Ages,
Shaika Haya Ali Al Khalifa and Michael Rice
Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula
Dr. Muhammed Abdul Nayeem
Mesopotamia 10 The Sumerian Language Marie-Loise Thomsen
Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East" Michael Roaf
The Archaeology of Ancient China Chang
The Arabic Alphabet Nicholas Awde and Putros Samano
Gardiner Egyptian Grammar § 266 for names of Egyptian units
A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egytian Raymond O Faulkner
Ancient Egyptian Antonio Loprieno
Atlas of Ancient Egypt Baines and Ma'lek
Egypt's Making Michael Rice
Mathematics in the time of the Pharoahs, Gillings, chapter 20.
Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture
Somers Clarke and R. Englebach
InSearch of the Indo Europeans J. P. Mallory
Rivers in the Desert Nelson Glueck
From Alpha to Omega Anne H. Groton
Our Latin Heritage Hines
The Ten Books on Architecture Vitruvius
The Geography Claudias Ptolemy
The History of Herodotus
Old Hittite Sentence Structure Silvia Luraghi
The Rise of the Greeks, Michael Grant
A Field Guide to Rock Art Symbols of the Greater Southwest
Alex Patterson
The Historical Roots of Elementary Mathematics
Lucas N. h. Bunt, Phillip S.Jones, Jack D. Bedient
The World of Measurements H Arthur Klein
Norman's Parrallel of the Orders of Architecture R. A. Cordingley
The Medieval Machine Jean Gimpel
The Atlas of the CrusadesHJohnathan Riley Smith
The Plantagenet Chronicles Elizabeth Hallam
Medieval Warfare H.W. Koch


The user in question seems to have operated under 3 different IDs: 69.164.79.243, 66.200.223.112 and rktect.

You have visited my page, but didn't have much to say as I recall
I'm not a user in question, Egil, I'm Rktect a person, you can
talk to me rather than about me.

Most of the claims made are classic pseudoscientific metrology,

Most of the statements are suported on the discussion pages
by cites from books and webpages such as the Electronic Sumerian
Language Translator with transliteration and translation into
English. Does it make it pseudo scientific that its from a classical
source like Ptolomy or a medieval one like Ogilvy? Egil apparently
supports deleting anything that isn't written in Saami.

but additional problems are a totally arcane Wiki markup, total disrespect for conventions for discussion pages, and typically pasting vast amounts of more or less irrelevant text into articles and talk pages, totally blurring them.

If you want my respect why not try to earn it by being intellectually
honest enough to admit you don't know what you are talking about?
You really can't have it both ways. Pseudo scientific original research
would be uncited, so complaining that I cited something or sttempted
to discuss a source seems an odd way to make your case.

Many articles have been subject to the contributions of this user. Some are currently under control, most are not. For a good example of what the edits consist of, see this example (reverting one attack): Mile (diff).

Seems to me like you reverted or deleted without discussion
an edit of a page that alleged Ole Roemer invented the mile.
Care to debate that false claim?

Main problem areas:

For examples of the discussion style, see the VFD pages for some of his articles:

Why not, better yet, go read some of the articles?

If anyone could assist, I would be very grateful. -- Egil 10:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Egil about this being a problem. Gene Nygaard 14:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I also agree that this is a problem; I don't think that the problem editor is committing vandalism, but like Egil, I believe that he's sincere in his belief in the pseudoscience he's adding.
Let's try this. Pick something I said that you think is false and let's
discuss it like grownups. You go get your source material together
and I'll get mine and we'll debate the issue.
The editor in question is, among other things, writing at least partially in the first person, something which I normally only see in original research. On the VfD pages for the various articles, he seems to be trying to confuse the voting by pasting rather large amounts of text from one vote into the others, or pasting entire sections of the articles in question into the votes, rather than engage in actual discussion.
I'm trying to show that when someone calls a table a list and
says it has no useful application or merit that's simply false.
In the long run false allegations won't help you
He also seems to be inclined to engage in Wikilawyering and personal attacks (see the third paragraph of this version of this article).
So how would you characterise everything else written here?
Personal attack or no?
I will say that I think some of the material the problem editor wants to add may have merit, i.e. it may be possible to get a useful, and encyclopedic, article out of some of it after the pseudoscience has been extracted.
And you are qualified to make this determination because of your
Education? Training? Experience? Interest in the subject?

I'm certainly not an expert in the subject matter, but it seems to me that a table comparing various systems of weights and measures, without original research as to their interrelatedness, would be very useful.

That would seem to be the case , yes.

However, I feel that the way the material is presented, and the stridency of the editor that it be presented in a particular way, make these articles unworkable at this time.

I thought I was doing a pretty good job of keeping my cool.
Egil began asking for the deletion of these articles all together
the day I began stubbing them.
That has meant I had to do a lot of work in a short period of time
to get them to the point where they were presentable.
I had to make tables, collect data and put it in the tables,
collect references, put them in the articles and keep an eye on Egil
who has been reverting and deleting everything I put up faster
than I can footnote it.
Because Egil does this unilaterally with Bush like confidence
in his right to attack and never look back and no attempt
to discuss anything I have difficulty thinking of him
as benefiting the process.

Ken 16:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ken, I was also, to begin with, under the impression that perhaps 10% of the material could be used. Problem was, everywhere I probed, it turned out to be bogus. So I've given up. -- Egil 21:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Why not discuss which parts you think are useful
or for that matter give a specific instance of what part
is not useful?
All this handwaving makes me suspect you have all been
foist by your own petard
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Archive1&oldid=97613120"