User:Manning Bartlett/Archive2

IRC
You around? KnightLago (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bible
Sorry, Manning, I did not see your note on the Bible article until just now. We had reached a consensus on this in another article. Biblical should always be lower case. I am in the process of going over the religion articles, where virtually every religious term had been captalized. I am using WP:MOS about capitalization. Thanks for your help. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on EE case page
Are comments aboutgang rape appropriate for ArbCom case pages? EdChem (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it appropriate? Probably not. However the comment does not breach any policy or Arbcom rule as such, so I don't have clear grounds to remove it. (This is chiefly because it is on a /Talk page - had it been said on a workshop or evidence page I would have authorised to refactor it immediately.) Manning (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer
I have answered your question at my discussion page. - Andre Engels (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Uh, I actually agree that some of the comments you've removed were probably undue - there's just so much frustration with this stuff.radek (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job on Mark Levin
This is perfect! I was trying to help out but you've nailed it, a perfect example of adminsitrative attention to restore order. I'm not a regular there so I'll just slink back to my normal editing space. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL - makes me want to quote "Team America": I AM serious. This is my serious face. Manning (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding an editor you warned on this article, you may want to look at his recent revert “war” at Byron York. Also, I placed a comment regarding this on his talk page here . Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I need to settle down. This User:BobMifune guy reminds me of the line, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." I think I'll head to bed now. Thanks for keeping an eye on the Levin mess. (But of course, the Byron York article has no bearing on this, and it was pointless for Spike ot even insert himself into this discussion.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected, then. I thought it was the same thing just spread over two articles. For that, I apologise. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just agreeing with the other comments above - your approach is level-headed, direct and unmistakeable in terms of laying out what will and won't be tolerated. We need that to happen more often. Nice one. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that Tony. Nice to see I'm not the only one who never figured Talkback out LOL :) Manning (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Manning, I too want to say thank you. Thank you. --20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on WP:BLP
Manning, if you have the time, I have a question regarding policy, and the enforcement thereof. The issue comes up with reference to the Mark Levin page, but would be applicable in a variety of instances. The WP:BLP calls for questionable content to be 'deleted immediately,without discussion'; and that reposting or reverting is allowed only after gaining a consensus. That is how I read it, but the opposite seems to be true on that page: disputed content is reposted immediately, and without regard for consensus. Am I misunderstanding the policy? Thanks.76.93.65.255 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I have adopted the role of "Conduct referee" at Mark Levin I'm going to deliberately avoid getting into a content policy debate. However I will take your request to the administrator's noticeboard and arrange for other input. Regards Manning (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting clerk actions
The edit that I reverted did not contain an indication that it was a clerk action. In fact you gave no edit summary whatsoever. I did not even know you were a clerk. Might I humbly suggest that before brusquely taking others to task, you make some minimal effort to indicate that you are a clerk and are acting as such? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

THANKS!!!
Yes! I have rollback, dont worry Manning Bartlet, I will not let you down! Thanks you soo much! you dont know how hard it is to revert vandals the really old way!-- Coldplay   Expert  23:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem - you have a good record. Thanks for all your hard work. Manning (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Note
Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators
Well, I feel like I've just come across one of the original developers of The Matrix. 8 years is a lot of time. I was wondering if you could help me put together a "History of the Wikipedia administrator position" section in my draft article: User:Varks Spira/Wikipedia administrator? I know the position varies across language-versions of Wikipedia (is language-version the correct term, btw?) and perhaps you know some foreign language sources that would help me round out the draft article with a worldview of the subject? Any help would be mucho appreciated. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

On the recent set of ArbCom motions
Um, are you sure that "the undertow restricted" passed? It's included in the announcement & the motions archive, but it seems that it does not have enough support. Tim Song (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bugger. That is what is known as a "clerical error". Fortunately another clerk noticed it and it has been repaired already. I've left a correction statement on the admin and arb noticeboards in case any confusion remains. Manning (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection revert
Hi there. I noticed you reverted the full protection that I had set to expire on the 9th due to a report on WP:AN3. This is fine if you feel that the edit war had been resolved, but it looks like there was still some revert warring going on (including over BLP issues). In the future, all I ask is that you drop a note on my talk page just to let me know if you're going to revert in a situation like that that so that I can keep an eye on the page. Thanks a million, and cheers =) -- slakr \ talk / 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops - very sorry for that! There was a load of things I was handling at the time and this slipped through the net. Not good form and I apologise :) Manning (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you sincerely for your quick notification of parties to the date delinking motion. I appreciate it, as well your general responsiveness and helpful attitude. Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

pixar/disney fancruft thanks
Thanks for semiprot on List of Pixar film references. Agreed, it's hard to keep it clear of unreferenced items and every bit of help is appreciated. If you have a moment, would you care to share thoughts on the best way to go about semi-protecting some other articles that have been serially vandalized by anon IPs over the past months? We've talked about an IP block vs the normal temp page protection which temporarily helps - but having difficulty getting any action. Advice appreciated. SpikeJones (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom discussion deleted.
Alright, thanks - I wasn't sure where to put, since this case has sprawled so much. Would it be alright if I added roughly the same thing to my "Evidence" section - Russavia's conduct during the case is very much relevant to the case itself, the whole case more or less began with him being blocked and the proposal to unblock him was one of the initial Proposed decisions.radek (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "Purpose of Wikipedia"
Hi Manning, could you please restore my original contribution. Most Arbcom cases I have seen have a "Purpose of Wikipedia" principle in the proposed decision, for example here. This is missing here, and I was addressing this section directly to ArbCom and it is totally relevant to this case. The rest of the stuff regarding songs and stuff can remain deleted as that is off topic. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The first sentence was relevant. The remainder was not as it was a discussion of the "nature of Wikipedia". Manning (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Manning, the whole thing is relevant as I am framing a particular argument to the ArbCom, as the principles underpin the entire outcome of the case. Since I am the one subject to potential sanctions here, I think you should allow me to address the committee in a way that may (or may not) help my defence. --Martintg (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll reinstate it, but will not allow any further discussion. Manning (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Help on M Levin page, abusive edits
Sorry to bother you with this, but once again we are having difficulty with an editor on the Mark Levin page reverting disputed material without discussion or consensus. The editor is Gamaliel, who I understand now is supposedly an administrator(?) and should know better. Since repeated reminders of the rules do not seem to affect him, I expect the only effective solution will be a block.Flyer190 (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I scanned and found nothing I regarded as abusive. Regardless I have posted the matter at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents to get input from uninvolved administrators. Manning (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

supposed revert
You scared me for a second. I was about to start changing all my passwords and blanking my user page. Remember, people is paranoid here.radek (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia section, again
Manning, thanks for giving me the opportunity to present my statement. If you carefully read my response to the IP, who suggested the committee was giving stronger sanctions to those "who had exhausted the patience of the community", it contains a plea to the committee to consider the findings of a previous case involving me and a statement of reflection in regard to the mailing list. This is all relevant to the Proposed decision against me, so I'm not sure why you want to excise it from the talk page so soon. --Martintg (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not excised anything - the "will be archived soon" is just a generic aspect of the "closing" template. I left your follow up comments, but I closed it at that point because I do not want the discussion to get out of hand. My original reasons for excision were because it did not - at face value - appear to be strongly related to the proposed decision. My attitude changed when you provided the back story. I have been instructed by Arbcom to strictly maintain discipline and relevance on this case, and these are my sole criteria for deletions. Manning (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. Thanks again. --Martintg (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi
My password to email account where had my wiki password stored didn't work and I had to reset my account by google assistance. The same happened to other accounts I used from my computer. I would rather not describe this in detail in open due to security concerns. While I have regained access to some of the accounts, I understandably do not trust them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Just let me know when you have regained control of your Molobo account to your satisfaction. Please alert me using your "MyMoloboAccount" though, as I will ignore any messages from the Molobo account until I am certain it is no longer compromised. Manning (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for clerk action
I requested clerk action in this thread (somewhere in between Molobo's posts). Please let me know if and how this is going to be dealt with. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do, I wrote to Skapperod to write me what he wants striken down, instead of dragging clerks, but it seems he refuses personal contact with me.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote to Skapperod to write me what he wants striken down - Moot, yet I did not receive any such message. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

Thank you for clerking. However, in your clerking post, you wrote that you consider my post to be "flamebait", because you think arbcom has certainly "already looked at Molobo's role closely".

Actually, the whole post is about arbcom not communicating their assessment to the public. I have no way to be certain whether or not arbcom is aware of the evidence at all, how they evaluate this (there is no fof) and what they are going to do about it (there is no remedy). Imagine this evidence came up at an administrators' noticeboard, and get closed w/o comment and no action. I consider this to be very unlikely.

Please reconsider your assessment of my motives. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I considered it to be "flamebait" because it presented nothing new and was worded in a highly biased manner which I regard as little more than a thinly veiled attempt to provoke a response. Had you only wished for a clarification of how the committee viewed the actions of Molobo, it could have been worded far more neutrally. I only permitted it to survive because there actually WAS a legitimate question beneath the rhetoric. Manning (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you take it that way. Is there a specific wording that you want me to change? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrative blocks
Regarding User:Molobo, I am wondering why his user and talk page were replaced by the notices? Isn't is common to add such notices at the talk of the page and leave the remaining page as it was underneath? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Because of the enormously high interest in the EEML case, Molobo's page is presently a high traffic one. It was important that anyone (particularly Arbcom members) who wandered by Molobo's page understood the situation immediately. Also because of Molobo's controversial past, it was important to communicate that this block was not user-conduct related. I have provided links for full restoration of the removed material. Manning (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of administrative notices here, I also believe that user DonaldDuck was also ublocked only for this case, just like Molobo:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted - thanks. Manning (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Very suspicious edit
Please take a look at this edit. Jacurek intends Brigitte's comments so that it appears that Brigitte agrees with Jacurek instead of with the IP. I know that it may not be possible to check every single edit, but you really should keep an eye on things like this. Offliner (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * While I appreciated being alerted to edits that may be offensive, I strongly object to being preached to, or being subjected to what I regard as attempted coercion. You are thus issued with a conduct warning. Manning (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I understand that it may be extremely hard to notice such edits. I really should have formulated my message in another way. My intention was not to preach or to coerce, and I'm honestly surprised how you interpreted my words in this way. Apologies. Offliner (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - I've withdrawn the warning. Manning (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the edit and while I certainly agree that the indent is questionable, I am unable to conclusively read it as malicious. I have refactored it. Manning (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to confirm that I did not have any bad intentions and placing of the message was totally coincidental. I would like however to draw your attention to this[][][]. I'm afraid that these are attempts to present me in a very bad light here and I'm protesting against such behavior.I'm being attacked/followed by many different IP's and new users recently[][] and I'm very alerted to accusations.--Jacurek (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jacurek - I accept your explanation re the indent in good faith.


 * Re the other matter, I can appreciate you do not like those comments. However for the edits that occurred outside of Arbcom space, I have no authority. (My actions outside of Arbcom pages are limited to specific enforcement of Arbcom directives.) I have deleted the entire exchange that occurred within Arbcom space. Manning (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response and accepting my explanation.--Jacurek (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence section
Hi, I was just looking over the evidence section and noticed something: Right at the beginning of the page, right below the table of contents there's a big red warning template which says: Due to the private nature of the contents of the alleged mailing list, the following rules are in order: * No quoting of any email is to be done by persons other than the author or intended recipient(s). Looking over the Evidence section quickly, I want to note that most persons obeyed this warning - posted references to mail in the date format but refrained from posting quotes. However, user MK is currently busy quoting from the emails left and right. Can you please fix this, and ask MK to stop? Thanks.radek (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have contacted MK asking for proof of this exemption he/she claims to have. Manning (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, if he got some kind of exemption that's fine. Of course, there was no way I'd know about something like this, hence my comment.radek (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also (sorry to bother - there's just so much noise in all this) this is pretty straight up flaming on the PD page.radek (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat
Hi Manning, at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop, Vecrumba has made what could be construed to be a legal threat. I have already suggested that he refactor his comments to make it completely unambiguous as to whether there is or isn't a legal threat, but perhaps you wouldn't mind asking him to also do as such, for it would be silly to for an editor to get blocked for making what could be construed as a legal threat, at an arbitration case no less. Thanks, --Russavia Dialogue 17:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall attend to it. I will remove your comment to Vecrumba solely for the sake of not adding fuel to the fire. Manning (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Arbcom permission for EEML evidence
Done. Hopefully, Committee will give unambiguous answer on quotes soon. Cya, M.K. (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

ANI Postings regarding the EE case
Hello! There was a recent posting at WP:ANI regarding the EE case which you are clerking. Some participants were commenting that obtaining the opinion of the case clerk would be beneficial, thus I thought I would drop you a note to let you know. The discussion is at ANI under "Brews Ohare's right to collect evidence". Here is the diff that requests clerk opinions. The situation is a bit dramatic, but I suppose you are used to that. —Finn Casey * * * 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Finn, but that's actually related to the Speed of Light case, not EEML. User:Hersfold is clerking that one. I'll send him a note. Manning (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just caught that. I don't know how I got you mixed up. Writing too quickly I guess.  How embarassing... Sorry to bother :) —Finn Casey * * * 05:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem. And just FYI, all clerks work on all cases, we just assign someone to take primary responsibility. Hence it is quite acceptable for you to contact any clerk about any arbcom issue at any time. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New proposal at PD
I posted a comment at the PD page here:. Please let me know if there's anything unwarranted in the text. I am mostly concerned that the main point of the proposal - which I think belongs on the PD page - is there.radek (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

EEML
Could please explain this? Offliner (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Am relocating the most extensive evidence sections as the evidence page is now completely unmanagable. Am doing several. You just happened to be first. Manning (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is probably a good idea. But would it be possible to leave a summary on the main page, such as this one in a previous case? Offliner (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. If you give me five more minutes, all affected editors (including you) will have a talk page message explaining all about that. Manning (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning my little deletion on the Proposed Decision Talk page, this is connected with. There is a thread on the website Free Republic now I cannot link to it because Wikipedia rightly identifies it as spam), where they are discussing that edit, and propose to find IPs. I suppose they will only be able to prove that I am not Carter's clerk Velamoor, but one can never be too careful. Restore it if you think I have no right to do that. Cleanse it from history if you think even that is necessary. Thanks for your attention to that page.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The current state seems fine at first glance. Thanks for the update. Manning (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Will try to keep cool
Ok, no problem. Please let me know if at any point I step over the line.radek (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence
I would welcome restoration of my evidence, the current situation is that accusations against me and other parties, that are far larger are clearly visible for reading, while my defence has been removed from readers visibility. I would welcome restoration of that, or equal treatment for much larger texts that have remained. I do not view current situation as fair.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Would not a summary of your main points serve just as well? I decided which evidence to relocate solely on the basis of whether or not I could make sense of it by the time I got to the bottom. In your case I had lost all context. I (and more importantly - the Arbs) find it much easier to comprehend and absorb in its current form. Manning (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Molobo. I'll be summarizing mine in the next day or two on the main evidence page, if you need any assistance let me know. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:Relocation of EEML evidence
Hello. I understand the desire to make Evidence list manageable. However I think it needs minor improvement. For instance, this part of evidences I added not long ago and soon afterward it was moved to subpage; I think such approach is unpractical - Arbs, involved parties are in different time zones and quite often it is impossible to review evidences in first 24 h. Therefore I propose certain improvement -  the new evidences should be placed on the page page of Evidences page and after, lets say, tree or four days moved to the subpage. This will ensure efficiency, and as well as that nobody missed new evidences. I hope it is ok with you. Rush to improve my E section in this fashion. M.K. (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not practical - I would be spending hours trying to track who posted what and when. My simple rule is that as soon as the evidence exceeds a pre-determined length (equivalent to more than three scrolls of my rolling mouse button), the entire section gets moved. I know exactly what the arbs are doing at the moment regarding this case and so please trust me, my solution is the best for all concerned. Manning (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * PS - I am actually totally unconcerned as to how the public accesses or interprets evidence. The arbs are the only audience that need to be accommodated. Manning (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I myself will move my new evidences after arranged time limit (two days or so), so this will eliminate baby siting :) M.K. (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Put ALL new evidence on your new page. Manning (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I hope this style of summary is good. M.K. (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ideal. Manning (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, will finish that work ASAP. M.K. (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to respond to this "evidence" in detail - should I also make a separate new page for the response? Also, please understand that I will need some time to fully address all these smears.radek (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Radek - I would recommend linking to the sections you are disputing. Create a heading, then below that write :"In reference to < >. This way the arbs can follow the argument and aren't forced to try and dig around forever just to make sense of it. Due to the enormous volume of material I am trying to do what I can to make it intelligible for the arbs. I'm sorry for the extra work but it has become necessary. With regret I must also add that you need to hurry - the arbs are bunkering down over the next four days to really address this case. Manning (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be able to respond only on Monday due to RL matters, is that ok ? The extra need to edit the evidence in complicated way is not helpful in this.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As you have not added any new evidence for a while it is not a big concern either way. The arbs are already familiar with what you have presented, and also know where it is for when they wish to refer back to it. As I said previously, my main priority was to make your evidence more usable during the deliberation phase that is currently underway. My comment to Radek about haste was in regard to new evidence he wished to present. Manning (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will need to respond to new accusations that have been presented after my last post.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Early days
Hello, Manning, pleased to meet you. I bow to your experience on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you have written an essay or something, where you related the early days of Wikipedia (apart from your userpage). Best wishes,  Anna Lincoln  07:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna. Um, no. No-one has ever expressed an interest before. :) Manning (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible problematic section
Hi Manning, at EEML Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision may be a problem in that it is basically just rehashing the same thing that has been rehashed over and over and over. Could you please look at it, perhaps it needs to be archived, or whatever. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 18:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And next time you're looking at the EEML clusterfuck, perhaps you'd like to ponder this so-called evidence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clusterfuck? PMSL...haven't heard it described as that...until now. :) --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I request a warning be issued to Russavia for their derisive commentary. And let's not indulge the predictable "I can make any threats and insults I want, they're not serious, they have a smiling face" comeback. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, this is Manning's talk page, so I am not going to get into any discussion here, but your post is obviously trolling by yourself, for if you look at the post directly above me, well....need I say more? :) --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as arbcom does not reveal where the archive came from, I and any other mailing list member are free to maintain the evidence is the product of hacking as all mailing list members have indicated they are not the source . As long as this does not change, I see no issue with my requesting that findings regarding acts of contrition be withdrawn as speculative and prejudicial unless there is proof a mailing list member is lying regarding their not leaking the archive. It's a simple request.
 * That it has been "hashed" over and over is irrelevant since arbcom chose to "rehash" it again by proposing a finding in this regard. Striking the finding solves the rehashing issue. Don't blame me for "rehashing." Russavia's request is a blatant attempt to quash the issue which arbcom has chosen to reopen. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Russavia's above comment is not a warnable offence. I think Vecrumba certainly has a right to request the motion be stricken, but beyond that the discussion has been thoroughly explored. Manning (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding date delinking case
Hi. Regarding the motion about the date delinking case, I think the necessary majority has been achieved. Is there a specific waiting period required before the motion is closed? Thanks for any insight or clarification you may offer. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I presume you missed this diff from yesterday. When we (the clerks) have not been explicitly told by Arbcom to close a motion we first issue a notice indicating our intention to close within 24-48 hours. (This gives the arbs time to tell us otherwise if there is further discussion they want to have)


 * As the time has elapsed I will be closing the matter fairly soon - I just have RL things to do first. Manning (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
Can I copy assesment regarding this 

Here: 

Basically the same request was copied two times. I believe certain information would be of interest to parties judging this on AE.

If you don't agree then I will fully accept your decision.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as you keep it succinct and civil then I won't interfere. Manning (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Molobo was granted a Temporary and restricted unblock to participate in Arbitration case only, under the condition: "If you edit outside these pages, your account will be re-blocked indefinitely." This obviously applies also to User:MyMoloboaccount, Molobos reincarnation. Manning Bartlett, can you explain to me what is your reasoning to allow MyMoloboaccount to edit at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? Are you entitled to do so, is your decision backed up by Arbcom? To make things worse: Molobos request was about supporting Jacurek, one of the other members of the EEML, in a conflict with a third editor. Which is one of the purposes of the EEML. -- Matthead Discuß   00:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you. I will keep it to informing about already existing sanctions and past rulings of administration.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Matthead - Ah, very good point. Unfortunately I am guilty of "inadequate diligence" here - I had only interpreted Molobo's request in terms of what would be appropriate user conduct and had completely forgotten that he was operating under an editing restriction. I shall notify Molobo immediately of my withdrawal of permission. (A permission I certainly do not have the authority to give). As this was my mistake, I will email Arbcom on his behalf to get their verdict. Manning (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting that Matthead found his way here to comment on a case that apparently has absolutely nothing to do with him. However then one has to remember that Matthead was the prime suspect of operating the Varsovian account, an account which appeared just after Matthead and a argument with Jacurek and that the account Varsovian provokes Polish editors, that Skapperod used a note that "Varsovian" put on his talk page as evidence in his complaint against Jacurek and then everything starts to become a little more clear. Loosmark (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the simple fact is that I made an error and Matthead correctly pointed it out. Apart from that the matter does not interest me. Manning (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Loosmark: there is a request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Matthead for you to identify all possible editors which you think I could be. Please either make your accusations public or cease your insinuations. Thank you in advance for your co-operation.Varsovian (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok
Sorry for the trouble. Also another question: A user has created a diff with the name "Molobo's political views" in evidence which leads to an edit by SPA full of selective collection of various statements outside of wikipedia made not by me but by other people on a political forum. How should I react to this ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion I'd completely ignore it. At this stage of the game I find it unlikely that Arbcom will even bother to examine the allegations. Even if they did, they would certain contact you directly to get your response before coming to any conclusions. Manning (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I followed your advice, I am writing an update right now to my evidence.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername's Anti-Nationalist
If the findings and proposals go beyond the EEML members, then PasswordUsername's choice of username (and derisive accusation of bad faith) is significant. V ЄСRUМВА [TALK] 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence pages used as platform for lying and libel
Manning, Radek's "evidence" page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence/Radek, contains a section with downright lies designed to defame me in vicious terms. I am not happy. What will you do about it? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I added some diffs for support and reworded a portion. I apologize to Deacon for saying that he called Polish editors mud-hut dwellers - that was inaccurate. I don't apologize for the rest as it's a simple truth.radek (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Manning, please tell me if you are not going to do anything about this. I've had enough of being lied about by these specific eastern European users ...see Radek turning a rather innocuous comment about urbanism in 11th century Poland into a racial slur ... I've just totally had enough of this. I've never even been a regular editor in these areas (though Radek wouldn't know this as he never encountered me until after the Piotrus 2 arbcom). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe this concerns those comments: contemporary Poland, before it brought in German settlers to urbanize it, could boast little more than a series of fortified cragie lumps with some mud-huts around them. Also calling Polish spelling in Wikipedia Polish nationalist masturbation. Note,that at that time Deacon used the name Calgacus, and that those events and conflict with Polish users were not discussed during his adminship bid due to name change later(people didn't knew that Calgacus didn't leave but changed his name to Deacon) .--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Deacon et al: I am a clerk, not an Arb. It is my role to ensure that procedures are followed and proper conduct is maintained. But I have no right/authority to interpret evidence, that is for the arbs to do. That is why there is a rebuttal section.

Now without reference to Deacon's specific complaint, the evidence section in this case HAS been used for wildly biased and bad faith accusations repeatedly and by both sides of the debate. Arbcom are aware of this and are giving some thought to a long term solution. However for the moment there is little I can do to help. Manning (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a different line you're taking now on intepretation. But anyway, I don't usually respond to these users, and "rebutting" this would, however elegant, be equivalent to arguing that I don't beat my wife. This Radek guy is shamelessly lying to effect defamation; there's no reason to let him do it on arbitration space, unless you agree that I should be defamed. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Deacon, are you saying somebody else made the above comments ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also wondeing how you're going argue that these comments were not made by you. I refactored the one I got wrong (honestly I misremembered it) - but at the end of the day I still think it's an important remark to show.radek (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My talk page is NOT a place for people to engage in disputes. I have thus far done everything I can to try and make this case tolerable for everyone. If you have an issue with how I have gone about it, please take your complaint to the case pages or to ArbCom. Manning (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Manning, where am I engaging in "disputes"? I asked for you to do something ... why are you accusing me of engaging in disputes? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It was just a general statement that disputes that don't involve me directly aren't particularly welcome on my talk page. Don't take things so personally. Manning (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that to me? I'm not bringing disputes here, I was just asking you to do your job. You're not going to do anything, fair enough, but that statement adds insult to injury. I have no dispute with those users, other than wanting them to refrain from lying about me. These cabalists have been saying this sort of crap since Molobo created the sockpuppet Koretek to spread slander when I started the Piotrus 2 case last year. I found it upsetting that it was ignored then, and I'm despondent that it's being ignored now. I want it to stop. What else can I do? ArbCom is busy enough, and will surely just ignore any complaint I make to them. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Deacon: For the last time, I never said YOU were bringing disputes here.

Now I appreciate your concerns, I really do. And if there was a magic wand whereby I could undo all of the truly appalling stuff that has gone on in this case I would use it. I would love to undo the bad faith statements against you (I know they exist) but I would also have to undo ALL of the bad faith claims against everyone else as well. This would require me to make an enormous amount of judgement calls, all of which would be challenged endlessly. So my hands are simply tied.

As I said, Arbcom are aware of the extensive gaming that went on in the evidence section. The current system allows for fairly heinous things to be said as long as they are civil and (ostensibly) supported by diffs. This system has to change, but exactly how to do that is unclear.

Now I am sorry I cannot do more. I hope you can accept that and appreciate that I am not dismissing your complaint as having no basis. Manning (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for the response. I've taken a lot of crap over my years here, and I've given a bit of it too of course. But I hope you (and any other parties reading this) understand that I find allegations or innuendo that I am racist and go around habitually issuing racial/national slurs to be quite distressing. This is not much better where I come from that being called a rapist or wife-beater. I could just about endure it when only Molobo/Koretek was doing it, but it's doubly worse now that another user has begun doing it, and has commenced doing it since Coren started the proposed decision. It says to me that they have gotten away with it, will get away with it, and I can expect to have to endure it so long as I volunteer here. So when I come asking for help, and am told not to bring disputes here as if I were some nationalist edit-warrior like them, that too makes me upset. Thanks for explaining though. I'll see what happens ... Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Re:Warning
Now, once I've looked up the meaning of the word sycophancy, I realize that I have chosen too strong a word, I had other meaning in mind, and for that I apologize. I do however stand by my statement that the editors are to answer to the community as a whole for their misconduct, not just to the ArbCom. (Igny (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Fair enough. The content was fine, just not the tone. I will withdraw the warning. Manning (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Warnings - at least ask him to provide some diffs. My head hurts from this.radek (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Igny: Apology accepted. I am sure you wanted to say something else. About answering to the community at large: certainly, but not within the framework of this case. There are several drawbacks if I answer to the community at large on the ArbCom case pages: 1) I'd break the rule clearly indicated by the ArbCom at the beginning that there are no parties of the dispute (as in plural), but a single investigation. 2) I would obviously defend something, those somethings could be interpreted by others as God knows what, and a flaming discussion could ensue. But we (all who read those pages) were told loud and clear: be very careful about flaming. 3) Guilt by association. We can not answer as a group, we did not edit Wikipedia as one user, each answers for his own WP activity. See also (*) for more details. As long as the case is going on, I cannot behave differently. But I am always, continuously prepared to answer to the community for my on-wiki activity.

(*) I was (and still am) part of a [mailing list that discussed a lot of topics], from politics to economics to science to computer stuff to Wikipedia. Which is more we occasionally discussed private stuff (this is why we are so pissed off about hacking; the personal stuff - some have to change phone numbers, everybody has to change passwords for fear they might be guessed from private info, our emails are suddenly flooded with spam, we have to worn relatives in case some crazy person decides to phone in the middle of the night). I personally viewed the part about Wikipedia as an occasion to "loose the steam", so to say, but I did not see by far as the central thread of the mail list. If I got frustrated on a particular day (and this only happened 2 or 3 times in a whole year), I could comment on the mail list "that idiot pisses me off", to which I might or might not get "yeah, yeah, that is indeed an idiot", to which "should i try to expose his a**, or should i try to devise a devilish plan to get rid of him? how would I do, i'd need 4 socks, no, 5", to which "now we are talking. get him, get him. although you know, can we get him before i have to go home in 5 minutes? no? then ok, forget it", to which "forget it, but it was such a grand plan, only i, the most intelligent person in the universe, could devise it". Of course, this is a stupid discussion. But when both participants get back to edit the next day or next week, they have already forgotten it. Battleground mentality? Yes. Any concrete damage on wiki in an article? No. It was like football, cheering up for anti-Soviet and anti-Putin. You can scream "goal!", you can be very passionate, but when the match is over a few minutes later, all passion disappears. Now, please do get me right: I don't exclude the possibility that these types of non-sense discussion could have ultimately resulted in some damage on wiki, through enforcing battleground mentallity, which could have spill out on wiki. Therefore, diff (or simply a list of articles that need to be reviewed to clear suspicions) were necessary, because they could have answered whether there was any correlation. The people who were so outraged about the mail list existence should have compiled such a simple list. But since they concentrated on reading private information in private emails, what can we do? Such people are not the community. The community is not interested in our phone numbers. There were case of postings on WP "read yyyymmdd-hhmm" supposedly to find some anti-Wikipedia plan, while in fact the email contained an innocent remark about WP and lots of private info. This is why you might perceive us as rigid: because there is an attempt to get to us personally, not to question us strictly as editors. Who perpetuates such things is not the community. The community would not want to get to us personally. Therefore I (personally) chose to focus on the Committee, because ArbCom is the only one I can trust in this situation that can show respect to private information. Dc76\talk 13:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Block of NE2
Hi there,

Please see my comment regarding your block of User:NE2. I am about to unblock, since a one-week block from the entire encyclopedia is excessively harsh for those comments. Your topic ban remains in effect. kmccoy (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Arbcom have already contacted me to say they are reviewing my actions. Perhaps you should wait for their verdict. Manning (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What will be the harm to the encyclopedia if NE2 is unblocked while waiting, assuming he abides by the topic restriction of avoiding arbcom pages? kmccoy (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Brigade"
I feel highly offended by all comments which alledge our mailing list was a web brigade (that also involves terms "brigadiers" and such). Could you refactor those or ask for them to be refactored? PS. The term is specific to alleged Russian government-affiliated teams; as such it is also either incorrectly used or is an attempt to slander us by drawing a connection between us as KGB-like "official" teams. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Piotrus - I've struggled at length with this term already. On one hand it could be interpreted in the (offensive) way you suggest, but on the other hand it can be taken quite innocently as simply meaning nothing more than "an organised team" (which is how I originally read it). So if I take action I risk starting a lengthy debate over how the term "brigade" should be interpreted. This could get very ugly and be difficult for me to control.


 * Anyway, I've emailed ArbCom to get their take on it - if they declare the term "brigade" is pejorative then I will be able to act with firm authority. Manning (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerking actions
I'm not too happy with your clerking actions on the proposed decisions talk page. You seem to be focused on censoring negative comments (such as criticism of editors), while leaving all the positive ones (such as the "I love Piotrus" -kind of messages) untouched. This creates a bias. Everyone should be allowed to express their opinions, even if they are negative. Offliner (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I believe I've tried to be fair but you are entitled to your opinion. I don't allow personal attacks but have allowed considerable negative discussion. I allow actions to be criticised, but draw the line at ad hominem attacks. Anyway, please address your complaint to ArbCom directly, or initiate a discussion on the forum. Criticism of ArbCom and clerking is certainly permitted, as long as it is civil. Manning (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
Which kind of archives does the Arbcom use in the debate, I need to point to a mail as part of my evidence. Is there some link I can use ? I see others are using some kind of dating numbers which I don't understand.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never even seen the archive, so I'm unable to help on that front, sorry. Contact Coren or Newyorkbrad as they are the drafting arbs. Manning (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your warning
Could you please explain what is deliberately provocative about this statement "I appreciate your efforts, but I strongly disagree with your striking of my rhetorical question to Piotrus. But let me rephrase it in form of a statement, and not a question: Fact is, Piotrus said that a ban or topic doesn't work because editors will circumvent the ban, encourage them to participate in secret cabals and will further radicalize them. All nice and well if Piotrus would speak on behalf of other editors under the threat of a ban, but here it is Piotrus who is under the threat of a topic ban."? I am asking in all honesty, because I think that this is an important point directly related to the proposed decision that deserves future discussion - in light of Piotrus statement about the consequences of a (topic) ban. Pantherskin (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * IThe net effect of the statements was to provoke. This one was the least offensive of the three, although I found the "All nice and well" to be smarmy. Manning (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity
Hello, Manning Bartlett. Since arbcom clerks volunteer to spend their time for ArbCom related affairs, I've always assumed that arbcom clerks want to have the extra tools and duties, so I'm asking this question to you; are you going to run for the ArbCom 2009 election? --Caspian blue 00:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Non. Nyet. Nein. Hayir. No freaking way. :) Manning (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a more serious answer, my decision to clerk was my personal compromise between my deep desire to serve the project more, and my lack of desire to have to deal with the profound ugliness that is inherent in the ArbCom position. Manning (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw this one, so wanted to ask you about the question. Thank you for the reply.--Caspian blue 00:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That was then :) Not getting elected in 2007 is something I feel quite happy about in hindsight. I may change my attitude next year or the year after that, but for the moment I have no intention of running. Manning (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
I wanted only to clarify inconsistancy in some of Jehochman reporting on the page. Now that I have I will withold from further discussion per your general advice.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Question
As to your comment that I went "over the line"-may I know where I did. I don't think I made any incivil comments-just pointed out that this should be seen in wider context of Skapperod's repeated attempts to ban users he engages in content dispute which was noticed by administration, and that sources used in the article contested were not reliable as claimed. I certainly can't agree with your assertion that my post constituted an attack, the information provided I believe a informative context. I would be greatefull for your description how should the information about warnigns from administration and the fact that the "sourced information" contains author described by his own university as polonophobic should be phrased in properly manner. Thank you and sorry for the trouble. Ok thank you for the answer-although I don't agree with your assesment with the situation(also rememeber that I can't post at ArbEnf). (Btw-accidently or due to some reasons you deleted Loosmark's comment). Goodnight and thanks for the reply.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)