James, can you please explain why you have decided this is a Wikimedia-wide issue (and thus posted to this list), while not bothering to notify the Committee whose decision you are questioning that you are doing so?

On 23 March 2013 20:45, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote: James, can you please explain why you have decided this is a Wikimedia-wide issue (and thus posted to this list), while not bothering to notify the Committee whose decision you are questioning that you are doing so? Risker _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2240 / Virus Database: 2641/5698 - Release Date: 03/23/13

So why did I not notify the arbcom list? I am sure all the arbcoms are watching this one so I did not see it as necessary. I am also not appealing arbcom's decision to arbcom. I am appealing arbcom's decision to the editing community at large. I guess I lack faith in the functioning of arbcom as a whole especially in light of the recent resignation of a couple of arbcom members and the persons attacks against me from members of that group. I do not agree with the secrecy that surround the majority of the deliberations of this committee. I believe that conversation should be open / public as much as possible. Thus I have elected for an open conversation. To add to this the arb who drafted the case in question has agreed that Will Beback never outed anyone on Wikipedia. The evidence for "outing" was a private email sent to the arbitration committee itself among a few others. So yes I will keep my conversations public. I do not wish private email to the arbitration committee to be used for my own banning. Per Will "I have honored the ban for more than one year, during which time I have neither engaged in any ban evasion nor in off-wiki campaigning. I have apologized to TimidGuy, expressed my remorse for my errors, and promised to avoid repeating them. In my appeal, I did challenge some of the findings in the case, which I believe were based on insufficient evidence or misinterpretation of policy. Apparently banned users are not allowed to argue for their innocence and can only admit to total guilt and beg for mercy. The appeal was rejected without explanation, and without even telling me who voted for or against it. I am not sure how the ArbCom processes these appeals, which is done entirely in secret. I have been a constructive editor in the past, and believe that I can be again." With respect to "very good show of trying to insinuate that Will Beback was banned in relation to conflict of interest" I am just quoting the evidence arbcom has provided. The rest of the evidence is equally poor IMO but others are free to look and judge for themselves. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:17 AM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm not certain if there is any common pattern of interactions between the Arbcoms, the Wikipedia communities, and Jimmy Wales. in any case, I think that local issues (one local ArbCom decision) should not necessarily be discussed at international level, unless there is a clear concrete explanation what can be drawn from them - way too often the English Wikipedia and its ArbCom are presented and interpreted as THE Wikipedia and THE ArbCom. best, dariusz _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l