Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive2

Word length enforcement
Can the Clerks please begin enforcing the 500-word limit on WP:RFAR statements? Any excessively long statement should be removed, and a note left for the user inviting them to submit a shorter one. Thanks! Kirill (prof) 05:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing; I'll keep an eye out for excessively-lengthy statements.
 * A number of statements have already been placed into collapse boxes—rather than delisted—by Ncmvocalist. I'm not sure that's something a non-clerk should be doing, but that's a topic for a different discussion.
 * AGK 13:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made some comments relating to this on Ncmvocalist's talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Moratorium on accepting requests
A decision has been made between the current and incoming Arbitrators that no case should be accepted or declined during the transition interval (from now to Jan 1), effectively "freezing time" for a few days. It would be appreciated if the clerks could make a note to that effect and be particularly vigilant during this period as the longer exposure on RFAr may lead to inappropriate argumentation in requests that are on hiatus. Thanks. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted a notice by means of an Mbox on the WP:RfAr header, noting this suspension. AGK 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aiiie! No!  We're just not going to accept or deny cases until after the delay, but new requests can still be made!  Sorry I wasn't clear.  I'll go tweak the message.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a quick fix to the message to clarify the intent. Sorry again if I was being unclear.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. :-) Thanks for the clarification; I'm with you now! AGK 21:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

EditNotice
There is little in the way of guidance for editors using Requests for arbitration. An edit notice—text which appears when editing a page (there's one in use on my talk page, see [ here], by way of an example).

Should we look into having some basic advice appear when editing RfAr? For what it's worth, it could adjust the head levels of the page downwards at least a notch of two.

I've prepared an example at User:AGK/A. Thoughts and comments on this proposal—and that specific example—welcome from clerks, arbitrators, and lurking/observing editors.

AGK 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "" won't work because the : breaks down to a new line, unless that was intentional. Daniel (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, by placing a colon between the response and the header, the response is placed on a new line and indented. It just looks a little prettier. :) AGK 13:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It has the Win Nature. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ending: Thanks for the input, all. I'll go ahead and ping the Committee and offer to put this live. AGK 13:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it, too; I did just fix a typo and tweak a color. Web-wide, colours not listed here should be coded with numbers; not all useragents will support an extended set of names and the rendering may vary. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Such is the curse of being educated in British English. Damn Americaniz ation . ;-) AGK 14:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Noah Webster recast English for late eighteenth century farmers who stopped going to school at about 12.


 * See Web colors, too; for most cases, use numbers; Remain civil should be Remain civil
 * (sucks, I know)
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Webster made sense—at the time. :-)
 * Would it be a huge problem if we used colour names rather than hex colour codes?
 * AGK 15:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything beyond those colors is non standard and doesn't pass validators, which look for invalid code; browsers try and make due with whatever shite they're thrown. Mainstream browsers support a lot of non-standard colors; no guarantee that they'll come up with the same color, though. Many in the developing world have old hardware and browsers that do rather worse. (nb: I'm on the latest version of Firefox and have all the usual browsers install; Chrome just got out of beta today). Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Replacement Clerk discussions
←As Coren sated above, he has approached me and asked if I was interested in serving the Arbitration Committee as a clerk trainee. After a short period of thinking, I feel this could be a good opportunity to expand my areas of contribution along with knowledge base and accept his offer. Thanks Coren and the rest of the clerk team. I look forward to working with all of you! Tiptoety talk 02:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great; I'll let the mailing list know. I expect we'll pull together final appointments of fresh trainees when the remaining editors in the handful we're approaching let us know whether they are willing to come on board or not. Watch this space. AGK 11:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to chime in here. In a similar way to Tiptoey, I've been approached by Ryan Poslethwaite and asked if I would be interested in helping the Arbitration Committee as a trainee clerk. I've considered the offer carefully, and I'd be happy to lend support and assistance if desired. Many thanks, and I hope I can help out.  Gazi moff  19:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to hear; thanks for getting back to us.
 * I expect we'll discuss appointing some trainees a week or two after the new Arbitrators have formally taken their seats.
 * AGK 12:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That won't be a problem, just plan away.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated on my talk page, I am currently on vacation (and will be until after the first of the year) and will not be online much (unless I can find an open computer like I have now). If anyone needs to get in contact with me, email is the best way to do so. Happy holidays, Tiptoety  talk 22:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gazimoff and Tiptoety for accepting this mostly boring job! John Vandenberg (chat) 23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also been asked by Penwhale if I would be interested in helping out helping the Committee as a trainee clerk. I'm glad to be able to assist as much as I can, to the best of my ability. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! ty MD. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay. Daniel (talk) 10:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

a helpful hand
Hi, folks. I see you lost a few clerks recently ;) I'd like to help out in behind the scenes ways as described at WP:CLERKS . I'm well aware of the sort of things to avoid and would focus on nuts and bolts type stuff. I've read the rather long thread nearby about acting like a clerk, and will certainly avoid that whole issue. I know my way around this family of pages and see needful things. I'm thinking non-public stuff like the template tweaks, not things like workshop pages; an AC:Gnome, if you will. I'll certainly keep leagues away from any cases where I have any history or perceived interest. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack, I appreciate your interest in helping out, and, um, I know you certainly have a familiarity with the workings of the arbitration pages and process, but I have to express my opinion that in light of your history with the project, a heavy involvement with ArbCom-related matters may not be the best role for you to aspire to right now. Template tweaks and the like are fine, I suppose, but your caveats are necessary, and verbum sap. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Clerks are people who have shown they are full of clue and have restraint in spades. I suggest you follow NYBs advice and steer clear of "helping out" which keeps you in the limelight where you will unavoidably find people annoyed with your involvement irrespective of how well-intended it was, due to past problems (e.g. the issue that was raised on my talk page recently).  If the clerks need a hand, they know where to find you.  If you do want to help, I recommend that you pick a case where you are completely uninvolved, and help as a community member in the Evidence and Workshop process.  And during this year, try to have a mainspace:other ratio of 1:1. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec w/John) Brad, I certainly understand the concern. I by no means intended to imply an interest in heavy involvement. It is things like the template tweaks I worked out with AGK that I have in mind. I will certainly not do things that bother the clerks or the AC (or spook the public or case parties). Maybe linking to the 'helping out' section was wrong; as discussed before, I'm not seeking to be a clerk or a trainee. I'd like to help fix things. This is the sort of tweak I mean; note the removed
 *  {| class="toccolours" style="width: 100%; border-top: none;" 
 * and the table-close, too; that was a low-level issue that simply needed to be fixed. See also;
 * MediaWiki talk:Common.css
 * a change request that was accepted; it affected hundreds of thousands of pages (and still needs to be fixed on most other wikis).
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * John, I'm really not talking about involvement in cases per se; I said 'behind the scenes'. And I'll work on that ratio ;)
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You did say "['I'd like to help out] in behind the scenes ways as described at WP:CLERKS" (emphasis mine). ;-)
 * I think so long as the code of the pages works, it's fine as it is; we're not building a piece of commercial software here, which I suspect your skills would be equally as well-suited towards! If you'd like to do some improvements, I don't really have an objection; do try and balance those improvements with some backlog contributions or encyclopedia additions too, though.
 * Thanks for offering to help; I think your attitude has been great since your ban was released.
 * Regards, AGK 11:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I struck that a moment before you saved ;)
 * This is a world class site. MediaWiki is a complex, sophisticated piece of work. It is true that a lot of the content of the database leaves a lot to be desired; no one editor can fix that. I believe that issues should be fixed on sight if the editor is able to do so; it's a very wiki-concept. I know I have a history, and I opened this thread to get feedback. I should not have linked to that 'helping out' bit; it gave you all the wrong idea.
 * So, my take away from this, is to say way away from public things, but that tweaks to the workings of things are ok and that for anything beyond trivial tidying-up, I'll have a talk, first.
 * nb; 'behind the scenes' means out of sight ;)
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The implications of that "helping out" link wasnt what concerned me, as I understood what the types of edits you would be doing. The problem is not so much with the helpful edits, it is with the "hovering", even if "out of sight" (which it wont be if you make helpful edits as a consequence of your hovering .. this is a wiki :P ).  This will cause problems like the one on my talk and will cause a problem similar to the ones in the current request - i.e. I dont believe you that you can avoid the "acting like a clerk" problem - I've watched that develop over the last year; I dont want to watch you slowly dig a hole for yourself, like you are currently undertaking.  This area of the project is far more social than it is technical, and it is highly charged - it would be better that it is technically below par than to have those template tweaks at the expense of allowing social issues to slowly develop.  This is about the choices you make - where you wish to edit during this first 12 months, and the implications of that - your skills are needed everywhere; choose wisely. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll leave this space be (I did just fix the weird margins). This is simply too high a profile an area. All the problem editors are here and dramas will ensue... FWIW, I thought NCM was a clerk; he was the the editor who tossed out some good tweaks to these very same templates; Reading the current bit clarified that.
 * I goez do Balinese art nowz... Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ('choose wisely' was used in one of the Indiana Jones movies; he did.)


 * Wow, all this while I was asleep. Well, Jack certainly knows his code. So far I've only seen Jack edit code on arbcom pages. I've not seen him updates votes, change case status in the templates etc. Those are things that would cause concern like Jayvdb is referring to. I think that if stays to code tweaks and helps someone with evidence in a case he's not involved in, it'd be okay. He should also work on content of mainspace articles.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do get what John is saying; and I believe him when he says he sees problems with my doing much of this. If I see something serious, I'll talk to folks. I have other things to do, too (and I already got most of the issues I've noted in AC-land). See User talk:Swidagdo where I may have just gotten us photos of the collection of an art museum. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

New clerks
I would like to welcome and  to the clerk team! Tiptoety talk 04:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I already have this page watchlisted. I'll be lurking, maybe even commenting from time to time. :)  hmwith τ   13:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too! KnightLago (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Full clerks
Tiptoety Clerked

The Committee would like to announce that Tiptoety is confirmed to now be a full clerk.

Our congratulations to him, and our thanks to you all for the work you put in.

&mdash; Coren (talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mailer diablo and MBisanz clerked

It looks as though Mailer diablo and MBisanz were both fully clerked, as well (Clerk page diff). Congrats!  hmwith τ   23:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations to all three of you. Now get to work training!--Tznkai (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats! KnightLago (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Resigning
As announced I've been appointed to the Audit Subcommittee, so I think it is the right time for me to end my tenure as a clerk. I believe that its best to make a clean break between these roles if possible. More than that however, I have been impressed with the new group of clerk and clerk trainees who have volunteered to help out. I am confident in the dedication and ability in each and everyone of the clerks to do the job better and faster than I ever did. Effective immediately, I am resigning as a clerk. It has been a privilege.

--Tznkai (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your new appointment, and thanks for the long dedicated service in ArbCom clerking! - Mailer Diablo 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, congrats from me was well. I know you will thrive in this new position. Also, I want to thank you for all your work clerking for the committee. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 05:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and we'll leave the light on for you.  MBisanz  talk 06:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tznkai, thank you for your work as a Clerk, and welcome to the Auditing Subcommittee. :-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tznkai. You were a great mentor. Will anyone be able to pick up where TZ left off? I may need help with Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria.  hmwith τ   17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats, Tznkai! Hmwith, I mentioned on the mailing list that I'm able to do it if you don't mind having a total newbie on board. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hersfold, I'm a newbie too. This is my first case, & I haven't really done much at all. <font face="times new roman"> hmwith τ   22:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, then, I'll add myself when I open the Abd/Jzg case later tonight. I've been reading up on it some already. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Images in case statements
There is a growing tendency to add irrelevant images to statements. These are attention seeking and serve only to reinforce the writer's POV. I've removed one just now. Please remove any others as and when they appear. Thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 07:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus
I was perusing the arbcom case and noticed that the 1 year ban for piotrus ended up at 4 supports and 3 against, while 1 arb stated that they were abstaining. This means that there was one undeclared abstention (i.e. an arb didn't vote in any direction), meaning the motion passed (2 abstaining arbs means 4 is the magic number)? Or is a non response considered a vote against rather than abstaining? More a procedural question to further my own understanding than anything else. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 19:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not voting is the same as opposing since we tallying the number of supports to figure if a motion or proposal passes. An abstain vote must be actively noted by voting since it reduces the majority. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Superb :) Thank you very much! -- Narson ~  Talk  • 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting of guide
Clerks, I am trying to copyedit the guide to arbitration for clarity. User:Penwhale asked that I place a notice here. The edits will concentrate on clarifying and simplifying the language; please let me know if I make inadvertent changes that you would consider a problem. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd Jack Merridew motion
Hi. There were two full copies of my last motion; one on the page and another on the talk page, and also duplicate copies of the prior motion in the intros to the new motion. I noticed that the motion had been moved per the discussion last month and went to tidy-up the link to it from my history page and I have cut the duplication for clarity. The only substantive change is a change of the word 'following' to 'above', as I made the second motion link to the original just above it instead of repeating it. I have linked to the copy of the votes and discussion on the talk page as was done for the prior motion and also added a link to the statements from my mentors and myself. It all seems much clearer to me this way.


 * Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion
 * User:Jack Merridew/History

Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

request help from a clerk
Tothwolf, who's involved in an arbcom case with me, has decided to mark himself as retired in his user page. As a final bout of incivility, he's written a farewell post on his talk page which links to diff that includes a semi-attack on me. please see []. I've tried to remove the wiki link to the attack, but he's come out of retirement to restore it. could someone remove the attack diff from his goodbye? the diff consists of uncivil language such as "Theserialcomma, you aren't fooling anyone here either." "due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system." "considering that you've taken to harassing and wikihounding multiple editors (too many to name) and even administrators" and "heserialcomma, let me also be quite blunt with you: I'm not afraid of you or your bullying. Try as you did to find my identity and information about me to use to out, bully, and threaten me, you failed to find anything (although you certainly left quite a paper trail during your efforts)". i dont think he should be allowed to leave this soapbox, rambling nonsense personal attack against me as his 'farewell' to wikipedia message, since the arbcom results did not find anything he is claiming Theserialcomma (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This does not relate to the enforcement of guidelines for conduct on arbitration pages, so there is little a clerk could do for you. Might you have more luck at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents? AGK 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration clerks
The Arbitration clerks welcome the following users to the clerk team as trainees:

The clerk team as well as the committee would also like to congratulate the following clerks who have been confirmed as "full clerks":

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety talk 04:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this
 * Just a note to the clerks, I believe there is an error with my time zone listing. I am not in the Pacific Time zone, but the Central Time Zone (Americas). I have been unsuccessful with getting the template to accurately work since it appears that I am the only person in this time zone currently. -MBK004 04:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * - I had to make a tweak to the time zone template because it appeared yours was not included. Anyways, welcome. Tiptoety  talk 05:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to the selected trainees. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconding the congratulations. Perhaps there should be an official Arbitration Clerk Song Contest? :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 05:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to the three trainees who have shown their mettle through challenging times, and are now full clerks: Good work!.  And congratulations and welcome to the team to our four new clerk trainees. Glad to have you all aboard; I will look forward to working with all of you. Risker (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

tothwolf, again
i was told that this was not an arbcom enforcement situation and to bring it to ANI instead; however, i believe it's crossed into arbcom enforcement territory. tothwolf, per the arbcom ruling, has been (or will be) warned not to make any further bad faith accusations against other editors. when the arbcom voting began, he decided to "retire" in order not to face the enforcement. however, his talk page consists of a vague, soapboxy personal attack against the editors who were found not to be harassing him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tothwolf he links a diff which is nothing but a direct attack on me [], and serves no purpose but to cast aspersions and negativity on me. i tried to remove only the diff, and tothwolf then came out of 'retirement' to start more drama. someone please look into this. the arbcom case filed against tothwolf is, if anything, going to admonish him for his bad faith accusations. they should not be allowed to continue as a soapbox on his talkpage. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * it feels like tothwolf has "retired" because he didn't like the outcome of the arbcom situation. fair enough. but on the other hand, he wants to go out with as much drama as possible. is it really necessary for him to have his soapbox farewell message link to a diff stating "... Miami33139 and JBsupreme due to your wikihounding, harassment, collusion, and gaming of the system" and "Try as you did to find my identity and information about me to use to out, bully, and threaten me, you failed to find anything (although you certainly left quite a paper trail during your efforts)." this is craziness that does not help build the encyclopedia in anyway, and it undermines arbcom's proposed decision which is supposed to stop tothwolf's false allegations against others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision#Allegations_against_other_editors . he's also been admonished for his decorum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Proposed_decision#Decorum . can a clerk please modify/remove his message so that it complies with arbcom's finding on decorum and false allegations? Theserialcomma (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The case isn't closed yet (soon I believe), so your only recourse is in fact ANI as you asked on my talk page. You can also add it to the evidence. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Speed of Light amendment
Could a clerk please place the current size and majority figures on the speed of light motions?--Tznkai (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification - I do not understand the instructions
I see the template and can fill it out. But what do I do with it then? I do not see where to file it. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 00:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "where?" Are you seeing the full instructions in the edit notice when you click edit on Arbitration/Requests/Clarification? ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (u • t • c) 14:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Amendment
has been notified about this but has not yet responded. Could someone remind them that their responses would be welcomed please? Thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
Excuse me as I learn my way around. If I have a question about process/protocol, may I ask it here? (I'd left a note for Ryan on his talk, but realized I should perhaps ask this to all the clerks.) Proofreader77 (interact) 04:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation of mentors
ArbCom remedies in Tang Dynasty imply a multi-step process, e.g., restrictions "... to begin when a mentor is located and approved by the Committee." However, no process was established.

In the absence of specifics, User:Mattisse/Plan seemed arguably relevant as a model. Tenmei's plan and list of proposed mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member. However, protocols for confirming ArbCom's approval of each mentor is unknown. The process will need to encompass notifying each ArbCom-approved mentor; and informing Tenmei will be essential as well.

Mentors have been located. Now what? If this is the wrong venue, what is the more appropriate one?

The explicit core of complaints consists of one item only: Too long; didn't read.
 * Plan

Optimistic predictions about Tenmei's ability and willingness to make mentorship successful arise from the range and quality of those who have agreed to be presented for ArbCom confirmation:


 * John Carter
 * Jmh649
 * Kraftlos
 * Leujohn


 * McDoobAU93
 * Robofish
 * Taivo

This small group, plus an evolving vocabulary, plus tactical planning and tactical methods for avoiding complicated subjects form the crux of a strategy for the near future.

Pre-planning encompassed:
 * 1. An outside-the-box search for prospective wiki-"mentors" and advisors involved (a) rejecting any sort of censor-like/monitor-like/probation officer-like straw men; (b) accepting and valuing meaningful help and coaching.
 * 2. First steps involved contriving (a) a committee structure; (b) venues for working together, including an "Alerts" or monitoring sub-page; and (c) vocabulary conventions for communicating within the group, including shared terminology and catch-phrases like metacognition, anti-pattern, and "soft wiki-pacifism".
 * 3. Learning from failure was inevitable and repeated.

This overview was developed in an ArbCom-imposed limbo-like/purgatory-like context. This summary of modeling and simulation is the result of two-months work. Further assessments on the basis of off-wiki projections have limited utility. This plan will be tweaked on a periodic and an episodic basis in response to on-wiki experiences.

Additional subjects not fully investigated include contrition and/or regret (emotion)/regret (decision theory)/expression of regret. Longer-term objectives are not yet identified. --Tenmei 08:20, 17 February 2010 (text withdrawn using strike-out --Tenmei (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC))


 * You really need to start speaking more plainly. "This small group, plus an evolving vocabulary" – what does that even mean? It would be easier for us all if you concisely and clearly stated what your proposal is, what questions you have, and what you need from the committee. AGK 19:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No plan was requested. The sole requirement is one or more public mentors. The 185-word plan is struck out because it is not wanted. --Tenmei (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ArbCom remedies in Tang Dynasty implied a multi-step process; however, no protocols were suggested. In the absence of specifics, User:Mattisse/Plan was taken as an arguably relevant procedural model.  Accordingly, a draft plan and list of mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member and redundantly posted here. In response to AGK's comments above, I  struck-out the text above.  This does not appear likely to lead to confirmation of the mentors.  I have now posted the following at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Tang Dynasty --Tenmei (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Remedies (relevant excerpts):
 * 1.1) Tenmei is restricted as follows:
 * (A) Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months, to begin when a mentor is located and approved by the Committee . He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion .... (underline emphasis added)
 * Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC), amended as indicated with italics 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 3.1) Tenmei shall be assigned is required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary. While Tenmei is without a mentor, Tenmei is prohibited from contributing except for the purpose of communicating with potential mentors ....
 * Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC), amended as indicated with italics 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 3.2) The mentor must be publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately.
 * Passed 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ArbCom remedies required that I locate a mentor or mentors. This is a list of volunteers:


 * John Carter
 * Jmh649
 * Kraftlos
 * Leujohn


 * McDoobAU93
 * Robofish
 * Taivo

.


 * ArbCom "approval" or confirmation is anticipated.
 *  [29 words] 


 * A. No procedure tells me how to elicit ArbCom "approval" or confirmation. If mailing the list to ArbCom members individually and posting the list at WP:AC/CN is sufficient, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?
 *  [35/64 words] 


 * B. No protocols explain how these mentors will know that he/she has been approved or confirmed. If it is sufficient for someone to post "approved" after each name listed at WP:AC/CN or here, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?
 *  [40/106 words] 


 * C. Nothing guides me in knowing when I may re-commence normal editing. If "A" is sufficient or if "B" is required, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?
 *  [28/134 words] 


 * D. If this is not the correct venue to address these matters, what venue is preferred?
 *  [15/149 words] 

Copy of message on User talk:Dougweller
Hi Doug. I'm writing this to you in your official role as clerk. I have already sent an email complaint to Shell Kinney which I said she could distribute to the rest of ArbCom and the clerks. This user, formerly and multiple other accounts, seems to be using the RfAr page for harassing me and making personal attacks. His latest inference that I somehow enjoyed ChildofMidnight's sadomasochistic remarks on my talk page (see the diffs on RfAr) is simply unacceptable. It is certainly not at all what I wrote at the time, when CoM started getting out of control on my talk page. Noroton is using the RfAr page for making malicious statements about me which are not supported by diffs, as he claims. From what I can tell, he seems to be trying to bait me. I am extremely busy and very upset by his personal attacks, which in normal circumstances would result in a block. Please could you caution him as a clerk and tell that he is not free to make his own inferences on why I might have removed offensive comments from my talk page? If necessary, if he persists, he should probably be blocked. I will also post a copy of this at the clerks page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Precautionary
Per SOC (editing project space) and Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project", please review the contributions of User:Precautionary, especially this evience post. It appears that this person has misread the allowable uses of alternate accounts in the socking policy. The account has only three edits and none of its post evidences any specific behavior by any party in the arbitration; it looks like a screed against the pharmaceuticals industry. The post is over 1000 words words and has zero diffs. Perhaps it should be removed entirely? Durova 412 00:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed it. If they want to submit evidence as an anon, they can email ArbCom. I will let others discuss/decided if a block is appropriate (probably best to discuss on another noticeboard). Tiptoety  talk 03:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I hope this doesn't cover me. ;) Jack Merridew 06:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

a Safari tweak, please
See: Template talk:RFARcasenav. Since it's really a clerk issue, I'm pointing ya'll at it, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ ( X! ·  talk )  · @627  · 14:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks X! Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 03:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Vacation

 * I will be on vacation for about three weeks, and will not be handling any clerk matters during that time. Tiptoety  talk 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be travelling from the 18th to 24th of March inclusive and will have extremely limited access to all Wikimedia projects as well as email. I have already sent a note to clerks-l and will post a notice on my talkpage just before leaving. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I won't be available from the 15th through the 20th of March. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Me fourth! I'll be largely unavailable (limited email and talk page checking) from the 15th-29th. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (u • t • c) 18:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

confusing strike-through in case
In Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong, the probation was replaced with discretionary sanctions. The probation was striken but nobody left an explanation, and an admin was today mislead into thinking that the probation had been lifted and replaced with nothing.

Please, to avoid more confusions, add to that section of the case a text like this:


 * The article probation has been replaced with discretionary sanctions, see the first motion under "motions".

Thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops
I've posted something and goofed about the length. Probably because I was thinking about the 1000 word limit for evidence and did a refactor for length at an evidence page yesterday. Didn't remember that the RFAR length is half that size until a few minutes after posting. My bad: should have double checked an hour ago. What do you suggest? Userfy? Durova 412 20:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not userfy and link to it at the main statement. That said, I think SH has taken it down himself so it might not be a problem.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)