User talk : Jdforrester/Arbitration Archive 2

RFA: Messhermit

Due to College and Finals, I was absent from Wikipedia for quite a long time and I did not prepare a good defense or evidence in my RFA page. I have now provided the necessary information that will make this RFA more balance. I would gladly accept the outcome of the RFA once my information is contrasted with the other party involved in the dispute.
Thus, since you were part of the arbitration board that has already casted a vote without hearing my defense, I would like you to read my evidence, and in these sense reafirm your decition or change it after hearing both sides of the story. Thank you. Messhermit╪

Thank you.

Lou franklin 15:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Integrity: Does Anybody Care?

Over the last few months I have worked hard to raise a red flag about extremist groups using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. I have now brought the issue to the attention of those at the very highest levels within the Wikipedia community.

Now that I have gone through all of Wikipedia's bureaucratic hoops, what steps are being taken to correct the problem? How are policies being changed to prevent advocacy groups from using Wikipedia to disseminate propaganda?

There is widespread agreement that "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is not an impartial article written by impartial people, but nobody cares enough to fix the problem. Is leaving the same group of editors in charge of the same article supposed to produce different results somehow? How long will it be before the article claims a correlation between natural disasters and Protestantism again? Now that this has been brought to the attention of the powers that be, what mechanism has been put into place to prevent that from happening again?

Can it be that nobody in the Wikipedia community, including ArbCom and Jimbo, cares about the integrity of Wikipedia? I have suggested several approaches to help prevent this kind of misuse of Wikipedia in the future. Is Wikipedia going to adopt these approaches, or will you continue to ignore the problem and discipline whistleblowers instead?

We all know that ArbCom knows how to give users the boot - they do it all the time - but who is going to actually fix the problem?

I would disagree that we boot users in anything other than an attempt to fix the problems as and when they occur, but that's a topic for another (life ;-))time.

regarding "civility"

I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester, Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia -- behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community. I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term "mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than almost any other segment of a society. More likely to be the victims of physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly when their needs are greatest. In the relatively rare instances when they have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen, particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything else could.

Monicasdude

Not licensed, no rights released

Note that by claiming that your text is "not licensed", you have significantly violated policy and properly should be blocked until you agree to stop polluting the copyright pool. Be careful of into what trouble your screeds get you.

Please consider before ending Terryeo's RfA

Please read the discussions here [1] and here [2] before finishing off Terryeo's RfA. A number of us are hoping the arbitrators will vote on banning Terryeo from Scientology-related talk pages as well. Thank you. BTfromLA 17:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

James F. (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond.

Once again, I respectfully request an explanation of what "dispute" you believe I was engaged in with Netoholic when I blocked him. I inquired a month ago, and I believe that I've been rather patient in awaiting your reply. Thank you. —David Levy 13:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for posting the above message in the wrong place. I overlooked the fact that you have a special subpage for arbitration-related matters. —David Levy 22:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I've now replied there. Sorry for the far-too-long delay, but I've had very little on-wiki time in the past month or so.

Thanks very much for replying. I've done so myself, and I hope that you have the opportunity to address my follow-up in the near future. —David Levy 23:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI

I understand your reluctance to use Arbcom for the state route naming convention issue; however, what alternative would you suggest? Everything from RfC to MedCabal, non-binding polls, Tawker's unofficial arbitration on WT:CASH, and several other debates strewn throughout talk pages has tried and failed. IMHO, the only way to end these move wars is to develop a binding naming convention. If not Arbcom, how do you suggest we go about this? -- Northenglish 21:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

The Committee does not exist (and would most likely get pulled down by community where it to attempt) to impose policy on the wiki as a whole. Policy creation is done through agreement; the wiki as a whole is about agreement, indeed.

Of course, this is all utterly unhelpful. Sorry, I don't have all the answers. :-(

James F. (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway move wars

Hi I noted your accept vote and comment on the Arbcom for the Highway move wars. I'm confused however. The Arbcom was brought to have Arbcom decide the naming convention. If you're not willing to do that then why did you accept the arbcom at all? That was the basis for the entire 4 month dispute. Agreement as you term it was not possible under any circumstances among a large group of editors (far more then the 4 specifically named hence "various other editors" that was placed on the title of the request). JohnnyBGood t c 00:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee certainly was not created to "decide the naming convention"; as one of its original designers, I think that I'm able to remember. :-)

James F. (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the point of the Arbcom on this matter moving forward? JohnnyBGood

t c 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request for clarification at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop because it's not entirely clear to me what the scope of the arbitration will be. As the arbitrator who initially ruled out directly settling the content dispute, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. —phh (^t/_c) 15:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this to the main case talk page, and replied there.

James F. (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Proposed decision#... is discouraged

I don't understand this (in addition to disagreeing with it). According to WP:NC:

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."

I believe the first two parts give preference to the parenthetical method (in those states that don't actually put the state first). But the third part is the important one, as most links will be from articles where the context of the state is established. Thus, if we use a convention of putting the state first, linking to these articles while avoiding redundancy is a good deal harder, as one must type the tame twice. --SPUI (T - C) 15:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sorry that my edit to move this here and reply didn't go through. Let's try again:

What any particular instantiaion of any particular page at any particular time says about any particular policy often does not reflect what "policy" actually is. You've been around here far too long, and in far too many such discussions, not to be utterly familiar with this concept. I can't udnerstand what you want me to say.

James F. (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here long enough to know that we use parenthetical disambiguation as the norm, except in rare cases (U.S. cities for example). I also have the support of what the policy page currently says. --SPUI (T - C) 16:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James, I must tell you that if you and the rest of ArbCom attempt to shove a change in the disambiguation naming policy (that is, the use of parentheses), I (and many other editors) will simply ignore the ArbCom. Don't be silly here. The current disambiguation system works and the software is designed to worth with it specifically (whether or not YOU PERSONALLY like that is quite frankly irrelevant). The ArbCom needs to confine itself to the conduct issues in that case and not attempt to circumvent community process in developing (or in this case, altering) longstanding policy; to do so risks destroying the credibility of the Arbitration Committee. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

Is there a reason the ArbCom is not touching any pages other than the proposed decision? --SPUI (T - C) 01:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is normal proceedure.

James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a great many find them an ugly intrusion"

Huh? Could you clarify this item, or unweaselize it, or remove it altogether? Thanks. — Jun. 11, '06 [15:05] <freak|talk>

Seriously, who are this "great many" of which you speak? — Jun. 11, '06 [15:19] <freak|talk>

It is my job to speak to policy as it has formed over the years. Parantheses as a means to disambiguate have been seriously strongly deprecated for a very long time now.

James F. (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By whom, and where? — Jun. 15, '06 [21:32] <freak|talk>

By anyone with a passing acquaintance with the utility of the comma, I should think. --Tony Sidaway 22:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well hello Tony. I have a feeling that if I attempt to persuade the devs to extend pipe trick functionality to also work with commas, e.g. to automatically expand:

"[[Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans|]]"

to

"[[Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans|Louis Philippe II]]"

when the "Save page" button is clicked, similarly as it would if the title were Louis Philippe II (Duke of Orléans) (which would be an über-handy feature with titles following an ordered pair format, such as "City, State"), I'd probably get laughed at. — Jun. 16, '06 [14:02] <freak|talk>

The existance of any features in MediaWiki, to which we have added a great many without significant forethought as to their effects on the English Wikipedia - one of many tens of thousands of sites that use it - does not in any way encourage their use and/or abuse.

James F. (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're actually suggesting that I move Acera (incense box) to Acera, incense box... that just looks ridiculous. Parentheses allow one to use a term without looking like they're defining a new term, which "Accera, incense box" may be seen to do. What applies to highways doesn't necessarily apply to every other topic on the site, after all. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-19 16:34

Well done for putting words in my mouth - you seem to assume that I'm in favour of not using parantheses, and give a wholly ridiculous apparent counter-example, amongst other flaws. FWIW - and I'm sure that you, of all people, would be bright enough to work this out - the suggestion from those against paranthetical disambiguation would be to call the article "Acera incense box". Assuming that that is what you were asking, I'm happy to have helped. And I really couldn't care less what naming convention is adopted by people who think that heterogenous motorways are interesting, as long as their behaviour and actions are within policy and not disruptive, so your last comment is more than a tad bizzare.

James F. (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote on Topalov

This matter is a content issue (DanielPi wants to include the allegation, I don't), not an issue of edit warring or civility or conduct. I am fully capable of compromising, and I've never been blocked or banned. This case should be in mediation, not arbitration. Dionyseus 06:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we accept a case does not mean that we find any one (or, indeed, any) of the parties to have erred.

James F. (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision about Cesar Tort et al.

Only one question. If the 6 April article I rewrote with Midgley [3] was a NPOV correction of the previous pov incarnation (in which Midgley, not I, removed the tag), how can this be considered "Tendentious editing by Cesar Tort [...]" in Proposed decision? [4]. —Cesar Tort 15:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tag Arbitration case request

What would be your recommendation to me as to how I should follow up at this point? Is there certainly a violation of policy at work? Guidelines are supposed to be followed, but are they definitely in the same vein as policies, such that I should just ask an administrator to look the case over? It's said on the policies page that there can be exceptions to guidelines, but given that what the user I was in disagreement with was proposing was the complete removal of spoiler tags and the abandonment of their use, that's much more than an exception. Especially in the case of it being a single individual's opinion that they are unencyclopedic on an encyclopedia that defines itself differently from paper encyclopedias in the first place.

So, really, who should I talk to at this point? Administrators may even disagree over what should be done and veto one another, given that Wikipedia doesn't have a very strict enforcement style except in the case of vandalism. Is there not really any way to get the issue settled for good beyond the guideline being elevated to a policy? Thanks again for your time, and any advice you may offer. Ryu Kaze 12:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, pretty much nothing is "settled for good". We have changed (reversed) our policy on whether senior British politicians (by which I mean members of the Privy Concil) are to be called by their honorifics at least five times since I've joined Wikipedia, just to give a random example. Speaking on a wholly personal level, and in no way as an Arbitrator, I think spolier tags make sense in articles about non-current media - I have had my enjoyment of books somewhat spoilt by having accidentally read "too much" of the article of occasion.

James F. (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

If I am to be included in any probationary measures, I request that you explain what, if any, evidence has been presented against me that influenced your decision to include me. Even after I made a specific request for evidence of any bad acts I've committed,[5] the only time I've even mentioned on the Evidence or Workshop pages is one instance in which I characterized SPUI's page moves as being akin to vandalism,[6] a characterization I subsequently retracted after reviewing the relevant policy.[7] Other than that, no one has presented any evidence against me at all.

My position is that I have responded to SPUI's page moves every time by seeking advice and assistance at WP:AN/I, rather than by reflexively warring with him; have only reverted SPUI's moves on a small number of occasions after being confronted with clear and convincing evidence of overwhelming administrator indifference to any such moves; and that I stopped moving pages entirely after an admin asked me to disengage from the move war as a unilateral gesture of conciliation. I can provide diffs to prove all of these things on request. —phh (^t/_c) 19:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

I particularly hate when people rush things but there is an issue arbitration commitee must look at urgently.

Moby Dick has ceased editing as of 7 june (Special:Contributions/Moby_Dick) and logs making checkuser posible will expire in about a week. These logs must be kept at least until the case closes. The fate of the logs will be depending on the outcome of the case.

I am just concerned about the posibility of moby dick returning with a new sock continuing the behaviour I complain about.

--Cat out 07:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention; it has been actioned.

James F. (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with request for arbitration

elements cross-posted

Hello Jd,

I wish to post a request for arbitration but, despite following the instructions on the request for arbitration page, just can't get past the stage of clicking the Edit tab above the section line break; the page that then appears has no facility for copying the full formatting template. Maybe at age 72 I'm getting senile (!!!) but I've even had the IT manager of the local Uni campus come & try without success. If you could refer me to another Wikipedian who might help I would greatly appreciate.

regards Geoff -- Geoffrey Wickham 07:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit link it asks for is this one, which contains the formatting template - then copy it out below and fill it in.

If this doesn't work, please ask again. :-)

James F. (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James F. I have gone to that link but find I am unable to understand the procedure required. Sorry. Appreciate any help.--Geoffrey Wickham 10:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above & before I continue to attempt to post a request for arbitration, a viewpoint on whether arbitration can be of value in the particular case would be appreciated. The case involves an article created by me (Telectronics) which is being repeatedly hacked by a singular person who declines to register as a user, does not sign posts, and uses multiple IP's. Can arbitration be of use in such a case ? Thanks --Geoffrey Wickham 23:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest

Please confirm that you understand the specific meaning of the phrase "consider your position" when used in British politics. David | Talk 15:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do. I fail to see the relevance here, though - are you asking me so to do? If so, I'm afraid that you will be disappointed.

James F. (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not you. I was directing you to the last section of the statement which I sent to the ArbCom. I just wanted to make sure that you were sure you knew what you were doing in respect of proposed decision no. 1. David | Talk 10:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go out of your way to be confusing. :-) By "the last section of the statement which I sent", I assume you mean:

Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Dbiv is a red link. No issue has been raised on an RFC. Indeed, I have been described, unprompted, as "truly an excellent admin".

... which, ahem, makes no use of nor allusion to the above phrase. There is obviously a rather significant failure in communication here.

James F. (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Dmcdevit to circulate a statement to the ArbCom on Monday, 26 June 2006. He told me he had done so. This is the statement to which I am referring. David | Talk 12:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We did get this, yes. However, such private statements are so very unusual that it had completely slipped my mind. My apologies.

James F. (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Hanina

As a arbiter in Wikipedia I hope you will read the words of the Palestinian writer Hanina here: [8] especially the part about History which is where Wikipedia takes part. Best Zeq 10:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting.

Impervious to blocks

I've nothing against IPT personally, though it's hard to disagree with this finding of fact - anyhow, why not "Irishpunktom is unmoved by blocks"?Timothy Usher 03:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. Thanks!

James F. (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re : need help with request for arbitration

James F Did you get to read my last posting under 'need help with request for arbitration', posted 23.51 UTC 8 July Thanks --Geoffrey Wickham 04:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Argh, yes, sorry!

RfA/CoolKatt number 99999

"Accept. But if he really is that bad... will no sysop rid us of this user?" Trust me, we've tried to get someone to permalblock him for all his crap but he ends up playing the victim to every admin he sees, using "victim words" like "Stop", "Leave me alone., "I promise not to do it again.". Number one, I or others did not do a single thing to him, and number two, those "promises" always get broken. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's... non-ideal.

He just got to be so much of a problem and we were quite tired of Admin inaction and we went to ArbCom for a solution. --CFIF (talk to me) 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you think it's arbitration

Why are you wasting time debating a completely irrelevant bit of the finding and not doing anything about decision no. 1, the article ban, which is the most important? I couldn't give a stuff about the rest. If decision no. 1 gets passed, I'm off. If you haven't decided to withdraw decision no. 1 before too long I will resign as sysop merely to piss you off by showing you wasted a lot of time. David | Talk 21:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David. Your posturing isn't doing your situation any good, you know.

James F. (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well being polite and waiting hasn't done it any good either. Quite frankly I'm beyond caring. I've tried communicating with the ArbCom and I haven't had anything back. No-one's justified the appalling proposed decision, no-one has even been prepared to defend it. I point out a factual error in it and that gets ignored too. What the fuck am I supposed to do? David | Talk 21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We feel that the proposals stand up by themselves; we aren't in the habit of "defend"ing our decisions, because they are self-contained.

As to the remedies you find objectionable - with what do you disagree? That they occured? That they were breaches of policy? That, by community standards, you should be desysoped, and that we're being (perhaps overly) lenient? What?

Why do you keep going on about the sysopping? I don't care about that. I am not prepared to have any article ban because it amonts to a judgment that my contributions, taken as a whole, to that article are harmful. That is a calculated personal insult and I am not prepared to contribute under such condemnation. It is totally unjustified. It is a personal attack. I will not have it.

This is quite pathetic. I told you all this four weeks ago. Your performance, collectively and individually, has been appalling. The ArbCom which describes itself as solving disputes, has turned a minor dispute into something which is going to cause a respected contributor to leave. I'll leave you with two undoubted facts: 1) modesty is a form of lying; 2) No other active wikipedian knows more than I do about British political history. David | Talk 22:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise is a highly helpful criterion for being a useful Wikipedia contributor, but certainly isn't sufficient. But then, you of course know this already - because you've been here for a very long time, and know the ropes. So why try to use this defence/excuse, when you must know that it's never worked in all the years we've been doing this?

James F. (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can remember one member of arbitration committee telling me (personally, to my face) in terms that their decisions were based on precisely this factor: generally constructive editors were allowed a degree of latitude in recognition etc. Do you want me to identify this person? His name will not be unknown to you.

I really can't understand why you're being so stick-in-the-mud about this. I've expressed my position in calm terms. I've indicated I'm willing and able to negotiate. I've actually solved the dispute. What on earth more can I do? Let me be specific: "What would you have me do to get you to withdraw proposed decision no. 1?" David | Talk 19:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Arbit

The NPR arbit at [9] has been updated with dispute resolution data and additional information from concerned parties. Thank you for your consideration. - MSTCrow 01:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will look at it.

James F. (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration templates

For the third time I have fixed this the way I want it, with more than one template for each section. This template is much more convenient for putting proposed decision on /Proposed decision. It is very tedious to have to add them by hand each time. Fred Bauder 19:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What suits you is highly irritating to everyone else, though. :-)

22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaesar case request

I ask that you kindly reconsider your vote for user:coolcaesar and change it to accept the case. After he made his apologies on the arbitration page, he has gone on to offend two more Wikipedians in just 3 days. I know that there has not been alot done previously, and mediation as well as dozens of notices to him were the actions that were taken. But, after he apologized to the ArbCom, he continued again to do this. It shows that even a pending ArbCom case is not enough to change his actions. I kindly ask that you reconsider your vote for he flat out lied, and that comes after all the horrible personal attacks he committed. I posted the links on the Arbitration Case that relates to him. I would appreciate it. Thank You. --69.227.160.83 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit late now.

Committee mailing list

FIY. I've changed email address and some of my arbitration-related emails are being bounced. Nothing urgent, otherwise I'd resend from the old address. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been tended to.

Kehrli case request

I have been waiting patiently for some response by the committee regarding this arbitration case Kehrli. I do not mean to solicit but it seems necessary or even helpful to bring this to the attention of the committee members directly.

Thank you--Nick Y. 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arb request extensively updated, including input by another editor and recent threats and administrator impersonation.--Nick Y. 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tended to.

Honest apology

Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Proposed decision

Not to users: I don't know if this is the right place to state this, but I justthink its important you know this : I've stopped doing thesr things (about 1-2 weeks ago) and am making good edits, please ask a couple of other editors, particulary the ones who commented on my talk pahge (including the archives) and the Pokémon Collaborative Project. I am about to apologize to HighwayCello, im being truthful about this, so please read my contributions, cheers —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized [10] —M in un ^{Spiderman • Review Me} 19:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will take this into account, certainly.