Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision

message: I've directly contacted one of the Arbitrators today, for the first time.  Seems like it might be a good idea to make a note of it here at the talk page.Ferrylodge 09:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contact with arbitrator

message: Again, I strongly object to the proceedings here, in which evidence presented against me is cited by arbitrators, without any explanation why the counter-evidence I presented is unpersuasive.  For example, the evidence presented by KillerChihuahua is cited in the findings, without any arbitrator addressing any of the counter-evidence that I presented in response to KillerChihuahua's evidence.  There is no hint that that evidence I presented has been considered.  
Does the Arbitration Committee really want to suggest that it was disruptive for me to ask KillerChihuahua to stop posting at my talk page (as she asserts in the evidence she presented), even after she used words like "bullshit" and "pathetic" and "congenitally dense" and "inane" in her communication with me?  And now ArbCom wants me to vanish from every article where KillerChihuahua chooses to appear?  Why?  So she will not have the opportunity to swear and curse at me?Ferrylodge 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions for arbitrators

message: As of now, three arbitrators have voted to ban me from a broad range of articles that I have edited related to reproduction, and to require me to leave any other article or talk page (even my own talk page) whenever KillerChihuahua or Bishonen chooses to appear.  I would like to briefly summarize my view about this arbitration proceeding so far, before it is closed and archived.
 
No one at this arbitration appears to have actually compared and/or weighed the conflicting evidence about my edits at the reproduction articles.  They may have done so silently, but there is no discussion to indicate that such weighing and comparing has occurred.  The appearance of a fair process is created by allowing everyone to present evidence, but then arbitrators make a decision without explanation. 
I believe that an unspoken goal of some of the participants in these proceedings has been to prevent "disuption" of their POV edits to the reproduction articles.  Such edits have been going on for a very long time, and I have tried to correct them (e.g. see here).  There are dozens of other similar examples.  I admit to disrupting POV edits to the reproduction articles, and I am proud of having done so. 
Wikipedia's arbitration system needs fixing, IMHO.  Although I do not expect any of the following suggestions to be seriously considered, they ought to be:
 
1. The banning administrator should identify particular evidence that he or she believes is most compelling regarding disputed behavior, so that everyone can focus on that evidence first, instead of no one really focussing on any evidence.  The quality of evidence is much more important than the quantity.  
 
2. At least one of the arbitrators should at least give an explanation why that particular evidence identified by the banning administrator is believed more credible than the evidence presented to counter it. 
 
3. More generally, I think it would be very helpful if Wikipedia would offer a dispute resolution process before arbitration, in which several editors are selected at random to resolve a dispute, and are required to participate.  The people who edit a particular article do not form a good cross-section of Wikipedia, nor do the people who keep track of the ANI and RFCs.Ferrylodge 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd say that the admin's noticeboard is a decent cross section of Wikipedia (there are admins of all kinds). But as to the rest of your comments, I am unsure. There is evidence that you have been disruptive. And the arbitators think (at least it looks like it heading that way at this point) that a topic ban is going to best help the encyclopedia. However, I would agree that they may be ignoring evidence of vast positive edits within the pregnency/abortion topic (as provided on the evidence page). They currently have three votes that say you have made positive contributions on unrelated topics, but fail to recognize that you have made plenty of very constructive and neutral edits within the pregnancy sphere. But all-in-all, I would just say that you should be glad they are not voting to uphold the ban, and that you should just keep on editing positively and not feel so slighted by people who take jabs at you. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing, and should be embraced by all. So just keep your head up, your nose clean, and within a reasonable time I'm sure all parties will forget about this whole mess. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ali'i, I appreciate your comment, but you seem to be doing exactly what I object to the most.  You say, "There is evidence that you have been disruptive."  Would you please identify a specific example so we can discuss it?Ferrylodge 17:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that you really want me to do that, it won't help your case. I'll just say that edit warring, even if you are correct is disruptive. --Ali'i 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely do want you to give an example from the evidence presented at the evidence page, of my alleged disruption at the reproduction articles.  Then we can match it up with the counter-evidence I presented.  I really don't see any way to further damage my case regarding the reproduction articles, given that I am about to be banned from them.  I agree with you that violating 3RR is wrong, and I have apologized for the two times I have been blocked for 3RR.  I don't think that those two instances of 3RR blocks in the course of three years justify a topic ban, especially given that I've apologized for both of them (and considering that they were both in response to violations by others of Wikipedia policies including 3RR and civility).  Are the two 3RR blocks the example you have in mind?  It's not disputed that I was guilty of violating 3RR on those two occasions, and it's not disputed that it was wrong.Ferrylodge 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this ignores the 7 reverts in one day on Fred Thompson which might have earned a third block, and are an example of tendentious editing on a non-pregnancy/reproduction article. Tvoz |talk 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ferrylodge has done more to help the Fred Thompson article than basically anyone. But, yes, the revert warring is an example. Although at the time, Ferrylodge thought he was enforcing the biographies of living persons policy (which is exempt from revert limits)... although his interpretation of that policy may have been skewed, and should have been helped to understand. I'd categorize it more under good-faith misunderstanding rather than actual tendentious editing. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, searching on "BLP" shows he mentioned this policy regarding his name multiple times. Just perhaps not in that section you cite. But Ferrylodge has retired now, apparantly, so hopefully, this arbitration case can come to completion soon, and we can all move on. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I said his initial comments on the subject which were limited to references to WP:MOSBIO. Ferrylodge didn't incorporate BLP into his arguments until after they were brought up by Y, after the article was edit protected. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A few general comments

message: So....it's 22 days after this entered voting, after an overly long period of evidence. Durova and Jehochman went into voting in the span of what....2 days? Can we go ahead and start the motions to close with this case? Seriously, it's 3 weeks older than anything else in the voting stage at this point in time.  ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome (I haven't been following up on it so I didn't know. Thanks.) ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soooooo