Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's change to the confict of interest clause
I've performed the following change (shown in bold):


 * In any case, no clerk should have anything to do with a case in which he or she is a participant, except to the extent that he or she participates as a participant. Clerks who wish to make a statement in a case, or provide evidence, must refrain from acting as a clerk with respect to that case.  This does not prejudice his right to perform cosmetic refactoring of evidence and workshop pages, as is the right of any editor.  In unclear situations, the head clerk or the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.

Editors, whether participants or not, can reorganize evidence and workshop pages. An editor should not be forbidden to carry out such cosmetic tasks simply because he is both a participant in the case and a clerk. So if X is involved in a case and as a clerk cannot act as a clerk, this doesn't stop him, say, renumbering proposed findings of fact in the workshop, or changing links in an evidence page to correct diff links. Such editing should always be done with care, whoever does it. . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ay. Theres the rub." Wm. Shakespeare. I'll be working on some kind of language addressing this and any other relative points. Stay tuned... Hamster Sandwich 01:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as long as you remain aware that a recused clerk must have the same editing rights as he would have if he were not a clerk. --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

new template
placed on talk page since I am not a "official clerk" and it is unclear whether other people are allowed to post even comments on the main clerks page
 * The new template looks nice but since it seems to linebreak after each usage (can't be used directly next to a previous one) so it's screwing up the currentasks template, I'm sure there's an easy way to fix it so it allows one to be placed next to another so that it works correctly but I don't know how. Jtkiefer T   23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Jdforrester's change to the arbcomopentasks template to put it into it's own column seems to work well to make it work. Jtkiefer T   23:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Are we expected to recuse from cases we're provoding evidence in? I've been trying to restrict myself to summarizing other's, or was there a Sekrit Cabal order to search for more?--Tznkai 07:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would certainly hope that any clerk would automatically recuse themselves in such a situation. Unfortunately it appears that Johnleemk is clerking a case in which he has presented evidence. I'd encourage The Mighty Clerks Office to find Another Clerk for that case. -Splash talk 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm. That is bad-looking. I passed up that case due to past conflicts with Ruy Lopez on the 2004 Election Controversy cesspools, so I assumed he would as well if he's presenting evidence. Have you tried leaving a note on his talk page asking him about this? Phil Sandifer 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the feeling he's presenting evidence as part of his clerking, and not declaring it as such.--Tznkai 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He presented evidence before being named as a clerk. But again, why are we debating this point instead of taking the straightforward, good faith approach of asking him? Phil Sandifer 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thats just my confusion. I'll ask when he's back off vacation--Tznkai 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just asked him, but his userpage indicates a lack of internet at present. I'm inclined to think also that the presentation of fresh evidence is not part of a clerks job; they're not detectives after all. (They can present fresh evidence of course, but should then recuse as a clerk.) -Splash talk 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the clarification of unclear evidence and spotty evidence seems an important part of the job. After all, the arbcom is not a game to be won by whoever is most adept at presenting evidence. If there's something massive that the evidence page is obscuring, part of the task of the clerks is to make it clear to the arbcom. Phil Sandifer 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say if you're presenting evidence you're involved in (as I am in KDRgibby) you should recuse, but thats me.--Tznkai 23:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. To my mind, our recusal standards are the same as the arbcom's, and certainly nobody would fault the arbcom for looking at something that wasn't on the evidence page. Phil Sandifer 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You'd have to tread a little carefully. It seems different for an Arbitrator to go sleuthing after the Truth than for a clerk to do so: the clerk could finish up prosecuting the case when they weren't actually involved in the first place, as well as trying to clerk it. That doesn't apply to an Arbitrator in the same way. That said, if a clerk is patching up the evidence a little "oh, and look, there's this editor apologising over here", that'd be different. -Splash talk 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reasons for clerks to be concerned about presenting new evidence in a case they are clerking as long as they have no conflict of interest. It's part of our job. Of course, some users will always complain that it appears to be a conflict, but there's nothing we can do about that, and we shouldn't let the users with the biggest tinfoil hats dictate policy to us. --causa sui talk 09:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm inclined to agree. We shouldn't unnecessarily restrict our powers of evidence-gathering and presentation, and thus risk a bad arbitration decision, where there is no conflict of interest. If we are in doubt we should consult the head clerk and the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think a clerk who gathers evidence is by definition wrong, but if his gathering evidence casts doubt on his neutrality in the mind of an involved party, he should recuse and be replaced by another clerk. Remember that involved parties have nothing to gain and everything to lose from being a vexlit, so if someone vexlits away all possible clerks he's only shooting himself in the foot. Or hand, depending on what he types with. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The arbitrators or the head clerk can direct a clerk to recuse, so if there is a complaint and a request to recuse it shouldn't normally be a matter for the clerk at all. --Tony Sidaway 09:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaargghhh, I'm really sorry I couldn't attend to this earlier. I noticed Tznkai recused himself from cases where he had presented evidence just before I lost internet access for good, but I was very rushed and only managed to tackle a limited number of tasks. Anyway, long story short, I think Radiant has got it right. The guidelines indicate that an ex-arbitrator does not have a conflict of interest in cases where (s)he has voted in, so I naturally assumed presenting evidence or proposing stuff on the workshop would be no different. If there's an obvious conflict of interest (for instance, if Everyking was hauled in front of the arbcom again), I would naturally recuse myself, and present evidence in a non-clerking capacity. Johnleemk | Talk 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway
As a party to this case, I urgently request clerical help, The case has not been properly opened: the request is still on the main RFAR page, and discussion is still going on there. The participants have not been officially notified. Material that belongs on the evidence page is being misfiled under FIndings of Fact on the workshop page. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And lots and lots of cases struggled along just fine without clerks. The presence of clerks will only add fuel to the fire.  Please show some restraint and let this stagger along on it's own.  There is nothing "urgent" about any action here.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  11:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, am I supposed to seriously believe you don't want to douse this one with gasoline? Phil Sandifer 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look as soon as I can. --causa sui talk 11:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sure even Aaron would admit that it would be silly to have an arbitration case without officially informing the participants. --Tony Sidaway 11:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have completed the opening (I think). Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos angle
Regarding, although there are 7 acceptance votes listed, that includes Mackensen, who has resigned from the arbcomm. So for the moment I only see 6/12 acceptance votes. Am I missing something? Guettarda 00:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, any four votes is all that's needed to open a case. And I do believe that Mackensen's votes will stand, in any case, and aren't subtracted. If it isn't opened by tomorrow, I'll do it myself when I have the time. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop
As a participant in this case, I request that a clerk restore the following proposed remedies which were removed from the workshop by a non-participant.


 * 3) Tony Sidaway to be desysopped
 * Proposed by me
 * 6) Userboxes limited
 * Proposed by David Gerard
 * 8) Tony Sidaway banned
 * Proposed by me

Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Got diffs of the removed stuff that you want restored?--causa sui talk 18:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * They're all here. --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm requesting that they not be restored. There is no ownership of a proposed remedy, and when you edit it says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.  The fact that these have been restored neither by any of the other contributors to the page nor by the arbitrars is telling.  There is clearly no chance that these remedies will pass.  We should not be facilitating melodramatic gestures that impede serious discussion.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you want to be a participant in the case?


 * Why are you claiming that there is no chance that I will be desysopped or banned? I assure you that I know no such thing.   You may mistake the proposals for "melodramatic gestures", but I on the other hand made them as serious proposals to the Committee.  --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Find me three other editors in good standing who believe that either of these proposals will get a single "support" vote and I'll restore them myself. Since clerk fetishism is apparently the order of the day, find me one unrecused clerk who will state they believe either of these will get a single "support" vote and I'll restore them myself. -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  23:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, it doesn't matter whether we think they will get support votes. The point is that they are proposed. The proposed remedies page is for proposed remedies. You suggested that it should be removed, and then you just did it before anyone responded. I'm putting it back. --causa sui talk 05:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Woefull.
 * It's a workshop page, and a collaborative work area. If one editor refuses outright to work with others, that shouldn't be facilitated by "clerks" or anyone else.
 * I'd note that I suggested it's withdrawal and that no one other than Tony wanted it in.
 * Can anyone, anyone suggest a real reason for this going into am already bloated page? Other than Tony wants it in, of course, and I'll just point to WP:OWN on that.
 * brenneman {T}  {L}  22:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're now claiming that I "refuse outright to work with others". Why must you repeatedly defend your actions with blatant falsehoods? --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

KJV
Can someone intervene in this mess? Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop. There has been no clerk appointed and -Ril-, who has a history of messing up AfDs by taking possession and refactoring to suit himself has already been moving submission to where he thinks they belong. Here he moves my submissions of principle into the 'facts section' because where I've put them 'breaks up' the flow of his case. The workship is becoming a mess. This problem user requires tight supervision. --Doc ask?  23:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please can somone intervene. Once again -Ril- refactors and relegates a 'finding of principle' to the end of the facts section, because it interupts what he has written . Ril is taking WP:OWN of this workshop. --Doc ask?  18:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorporating clarifications in Netoholic 2 Arb

 * Was originally placed on project page. Copied here. --Tony Sidaway 05:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've twice asked for clarification from the Arbitrators as to the namespace and revert restrictions I was placed under. I'd like someone to take on the task of adding the Arbitrator's comments onto my Arb page at Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2. I think doing this will help me avoid blocks due to literal reading of my sanctions, since the Arbitrators that commented tend to agree that I should be able to work without the literal sanctions, so long as I am not "disruptive". Here are diff links from when the clarifications were de-listed - 1 2. I don't know if you think it'd be best to quote the clarifications, or work out some wording which gets the points across. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 09:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't believe this would be appropriate: 1) Only a few arbitrators actually commented on it, and nothing was formalized with a vote. 2) I believe it would be wise to allow for a period of discussion followed by a vote (basically another RFAr) before making any clarifications to your existing remedies. 3) In the case of the first diff link, significant changes have occurred making those comments out of date; (WP:AUM is no longer policy (at least not developer-mandated policy), and is currently being rejected in the straw poll being conducted there. It would be best to open a new RFAr I think. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to comply with this request. The arbitrators who did comment know what they meant and it won't hurt Netoholic to have those clarifications copied to the decision page.  If other arbitrators want to add more, they can do so. --Tony Sidaway 06:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I recall, some ArbCom members said that if his changes were clearly beneficial and not disruptive then a "common sense" exception could be made to not block him. That doesn't really seem like a 'change' to me... such exceptions are always made. The mystery is why it keeps getting brought up as a 'defense' of his clearly harmful and disruptive edits. He has repeatedly run bots which haven't been approved (or even discussed), at rates faster than is supposed to be allowed, to make changes to templates on dozens of pages... which have caused many of them to break and massive disruption as people then try to change things back or use the rewritten template the old way and find it no longer works. Yet he has never been blocked for this... despite it being a blockable offense even without the ArbCom ruling preventing him from working in template space at all. He keeps fighting to preserve the 'hiddenStructure' method of handling conditional text despite the fact that it provides no real benefit over other methods and simply does not work for users in a number of different minority situations (blind users, text browsers, non-English Wikipedias, et cetera). Yet whenever he gets blocked for that it is quickly overturned by one of a handful of admins who seem (by their statements) to be affronted at having been over-ruled on the WP:AUM issue. We shouldn't be going out of our way to make Wikipedia harder for people to use just because some people are upset to find that they were wrong about a developer/server issue.
 * The use of these vague 'do not block him if he is being helpful' statements as cover for actions which would normally be blockable even without an ArbCom ruling is a 'bad thing' . --CBDunkerson 12:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with this case, but if any of that is true, you shouldn't need an Arbcom ruling to justify a block anyway. Just block him as disruptive and be done with it. Also, the Clerk's office is not an appropriate place to discuss this sort of thing. Maybe WP:AN would be better. --causa sui talk 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course the original ArbCom included a mentorship period in which he was not to be blocked for regular disruptions, and he likes to twist things around so that the blocking admin is acting outside of policy, only acting out of bias, etc. etc. It would be good to have an official word on what, exactly, he can be blocked for.  (Although ideally, his ban against editing templates at all would be put fully back in place, as being disruptive about templates seems to be the only thing he does here.) — Omegatron 15:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker
I'm recused from this current application because I've recently blocked a person involved in the dispute (Leyasu). Unfortunately Deathrocker and Leyasu are bickering a lot and Leyasu tells me that Deathrocker has interfered with his (Leyasu's) statement. I'd appreciate it if some uninvolved could intervene and tidy things up a bit. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk's initials on ArbComOpenTasks
My view of the clerk's initials is that for opened and closed cases, it should be the clerk who opens or closes it, in case the parties have questions about the open (where did my statement go?, etc.) or close (what does "probation" mean?, etc). It might be a good idea to have the opening clerk be the designated contact person for that case--i.e. watchlist the case pages, refactor botched evidence pages, respond to procedural queries on the talk pages, and so forth. We haven't specified this yet, though, and making it standard procedure might result in clerk burnout the next time we have a case like Seabhcan or Hkelkar (although often the best response is not to). Thoughts? Thatcher131 05:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my confusion with the edit I made (and hence the revert and await clarification). My non-clerk opinion is that the person who opened the case should be listed as the clerk even after it is closed, no matter who closed it. They have (or should have :P) been watching the case, and may possibly have a better knowledge to answer potential questions. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the opening clerk should be the designated contact for the case. However I feel that changing the initials after closing should be left to the discretion of the clerk performing it. If he feels comfortable enough to answer any queries that may come his way, I see no problem in it. The advantage in this is that it will be apparent which clerk actually performed the closure. However if the clerk isn't sure that he will be able to handle the queries, listing the original clerk will be prudent. But since coordination and communication between clerks is well established here, I don't think either option will pose any major problems. --Srikeit 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming the close is mostly clerical, we can leave it the "clerk of the case" even of someone else closes it. However, if we are going to have an official "clerk of the case" we should make some provision for trading off; Eagle has four concurrent cases because he was available to open them.  If that's too much to watch we should be able to trade off through coordination here. Thatcher131 06:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just say, the only reason I haven't committed to offering my services in an opening/closing capacity as yet (ignoring the fact that they may be denied anyways) is because I don't want to have to deal with 3+ open cases at once and still train and clerk at RFCU. Of course, if there was a couple more added to the roster as clerks, I'm sure the kind of situation that occured earlier today - with a clerk only being assigned to an open case just hours before it was due to open - and the fact that there is basically two people running seven-eight cases (which is an extremely high volume by ArbCom standards, I must admit), would occur less.
 * Because of the procedural and non-subjective act that is closing a case, I think that Srikeit's idea has probably the most merit so far. If the closing clerk feels comfortable answering all the follow-ups, and knows the sort of questions that may be asked by reading it quickly, then I see no problem with them being allocated. If they have doubts, leave it to the clerk who has done it all along.
 * Further to Thatcher's last comment, I believe there should be a "clerk of the case", and in most situations they should be the one to close it, for continuity. However, in the situation that they can't be online for a while after it's due to close, co-ordination through this noticeboard could be done to have someone else close it. If the "clerk of the case" is merely absent due to timezones or a small wikibreak (one day), then I see no problem with them retaining the initials. If they're gone for a week after the close of the case, the Clerk who closes it should assume responsibility for dealing with any post-event questions.
 * Just my thoughts. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to open a dispute but canot after wasting a lot of time. Although Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased but it is not. it does not allow anyone to add anything to give another side of the picture. i have tried that many time but again and again I have seen my contributions were erased out. I refer to two specific cases related to India both of which are terribly biased ( Kashmir and Poverty in India). I have contributed a lot of additions to make these balanced but all these are now erased out. Thus, Wikipedia is a seriously defective dictionary, as it is giving a biased, and wrong picture in most cases. I have also made additions to pages on Collectivization of agroculture in the Soviet Union, and Black Booi of Communism. both of these two pages are nothing but propaganda. that is true about most of the materials you have in Wikipedia.

Prof.Dipak Basu Professor in International economics Nagasaki University Japan.

(Comment copied to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration) FloNight 11:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New cases
Is it just me or is there an unusual lack of cases to open and close? :D Cowman109 Talk 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Shhhhh. They'll hear you. Thatcher131 19:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like everyone filed last month to beat the rush. :) Newyorkbrad 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Some questions on Voting/active status, and a suggestion
It is my understanding that new arbs (like me), are presumed recused for all cases opened prior to January 1. However we may "unrecuse" ourselves by adding "voting" as I have done so here and Kirill Lokshin and FloNight have done here. And thus for example Blnguyen's explicit recusal here is unnecessary. Is that everyone else's understanding? What is the voting/active status of arbs whose terms ended January 1? Have all these considerations been correctly taken into account when calculating the number of "active" arbs and the corresponding "majority" required given on the Proposed decision pages? I think it might be helpful to actually list the "active" arbs for each case. By the way I think "voting" is a better term. My thanks to all the clerks for their excellent work. Paul August &#9742; 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All that should be on the proposed decision talk pages for the individual cases. If you want to add yourself to a case, make a note on talk:proposed decision, or just vote (we'll get the hint), and someone will fix the list and check the math.  Listing voting and non-voting arbs on the talk page is something we could do routinely, although we haven't in the past (and in fact, I haven't adjusted yet for Dmcdevit's break). The general rule we follow when arbitrators become inactive and active is here. Thatcher131 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Re "active" vs "voting"; most cases are closed with bare majorities, rather than wait for everyone to get on board. "voting" might raise expectations among the groundlings. Thatcher131 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Thatcher. Paul August &#9742; 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion?
I would like to know what the clerks opinions are on this edit. Paul August &#9742; 21:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My non-clerk opinion is that people cannot pick and choose whether they are a party; if they're involved, and someone wants their behaviour arbitrated, and AC accepts it, then they're a party. Daniel.Bryant 21:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you have to watch me like a hawk
See: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. Paul August &#9742; 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A simple case of edit conflicts not working when they should, no?  Daniel Bryant  21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what it looked like to me, too. Newyorkbrad 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes apparently so (but mathematicians never like to take things for granted, see User talk:Paul August). Still watching me like a hawk is probably wise, you never know when dementia might set in. Paul August &#9742; 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Dug this out...
Maybe it's just me, but the BDJ case had one part that gave me a chuckle:

Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.
1.2) badlydrawnjeff is cautioned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * ...about what? Excessive typing? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 14:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Put me down as firmly opposed to the precedent that excessive typing is sanctionable. :) Newyorkbrad 15:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision
Normally I'd chat to David Mestel (who has clerked this arbitration) about this, but he's apparently away now. I did what I thought was a cosmetic edit on the above page in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration, but it's been reverted by Violetriga. Oops! Sorry, I should have left it to the professionals.

Since David is away and it certainly looks as if we have at least 5-1 and probably 6-1 to close, would someone check with the arbitrators to see if they're finished? --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe David is back now. Why don't you post to his talk just in case he doesn't see this. Newyorkbrad 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence
Could a clerk view my recommendations at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stefanomencarelli/Evidence and, if appropriate, correct them? I'm not entirely familiar with the Arbitration process... Thanks, Iamunknown 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Will take a look. Picaroon (t) 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :)  --Iamunknown 00:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Peacocking in section headings
Over time the arbitration page has become a little cluttered, much like the conduct RFCs that some editors may take it for. A particularly unhelpful aspect of this is the insertion of ridiculously longwinded peacock terms ("mostly formerly almost uninvolved" and the like) which make the statements more difficult to follow and the proceedings almost impossible to take seriously. As my recent edits to remove this nonsense from section headings on the page have proven unexpectedly controversial, I would like to ask the clerks to consider doing this.

Of course the involved or uninvolved status of an editor is still important (originally only comments by involved editors were made on the page, but that was long ago), but perhaps this would be best done by having a separate section for editors who consider themselves uninvolved but still have an informative comment to make. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree with you here, Tony (btw, I'm not a Clerk :) I've helped out at the Arbitration process recently, and this is one thing that I've noticed: it seems unnecessary. I've seen everything, from "Statement by X" to "Short statement by the peripherally-involved User:X", and it does get a little beyond a joke. If we could, for example, have a level-3 header titled "Statements", and then immediately following the party and uninvolved-editors' posts, each headed with a level-4 titled " Example ". That would make thing way easier... perhaps the official Clerks could look at this, and then we could implement it into the RfArb case template, pending any opposition? Anthøny  19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hrm. In all honesty, I'd prefer that modification to statements be kept to an absolute minimum; certainly, cosmetic reasons don't seem like a sufficient cause for it. Kirill 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not toning down abnormal section headers will just lead other people to go overboard in their headers by causing them to think it's acceptable. I think we should limit them to "Statement by X", "Statement by uninvolved X", and the previous two with "Comment" substituted for "Statement". Trying to be funny with your section headers, or adding your signature, strike me as useless and distracting. What are other headers that would really be of any use at all besides those four? Picaroon (t) 03:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've edited section headers from time to time to adhere to the format. I suggest that we edit only to remove seriously distracting or overlong (semi-parodic) headers and leave the rest alone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing of Privatemusings, ban missing
Please see this notice at Administrators' noticeboard about an apparently missing 90-day ban in the Privatemusings case, closed today by User:AGK.

User:Mercury spotted the apparent error, and has altered the final decision and blocked. To me it seems to be in order, but please check it. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Willing to Help
I am willing to help maintain WP:RFArb. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bluemarine editing outside unblock conditions
has been editing mainspace and talk pages in violation of his unblock condition, "specifically to participate in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine; report other edits to WP:AC/CN". Thank-you, R. Baley (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He has been reblocked until 21:44, 12 January 2008 by User:Penwhale. I have advised Bluemarine to only edit the arbcom case when it ends. —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your advice to Bluemarine is correct. Penwhale restored my 7 day block (a reduction from the original indef one). When that block expires, surely he should be free to edit (non-disruptively) any page he likes. WjBscribe 16:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a misinterpretation of the conditions surrounding Bluemarine's current status, regarding this ability to edit. Up until the block immediately prior to his being unblocked for participation in the BlueM. case, he was under a restriction, in that he was not permitted to edit outside of the Arbitration case pages. Since that block, should it still stand, would not have expired at this point in time, the restriction on his being permitted to edit only the Arbitration pages still stands, no? Thus, he has not, apparently, been issued any incorrect advice: he violated the conditions of his unblock, and thus the remainder of his block has been restored. Perhaps I've missed something here, but that's my initial supposition. Anthøny  17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * After going into more detail, I've noticed WJB's complaint: Rlevse, you've cautioned against editing after that block expires. However, as I explained above, the restriction would have expired at that point, and thus, as Will says above, he is able to edit outside the Arbitration pages. Anthøny  17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AGK and WjBscribe are correct, when the block expires, Bluemarine is not under additional restrictions. Thatcher 17:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood. I've noted the correct ruling on his talk page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 17:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries ;) Anthøny  17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One would think that for failure to follow the instructions not to edit anywhere else, that the block would be extended even further than the original week by WJBscribe, if not to indefinitely. -- ALLSTAR  echo 17:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems punitive rather than preventative, does it not? One week should be enough to prevent any further disruption, through violation of the temporary editing restriction, and any longer really isn't necessary in short-term purposes. Just my thoughts. Anthøny  18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that people are blocked in increments for failing to follow rules, his editing outside the restrictions placed on his unblock is nothing more than repeated policy violations in a long history of violations. Had this been reported at ANI, it surely would have received a much longer reinstatement of the block. It was reported here however because editors were told to report it here if they found he was editing anywhere else. But I digress. I just think that for someone who couldn't even follow the restrictions of their unblock, he isn't going to follow show any restraint of this restored for the same amount of time block when it ends in 2 days. -- ALLSTAR  echo 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) Perhaps, but then again this is, theoretically, only a "re-block": the user violated the restrictions issued on him once, and so the block was reset. Measure one. I sense that, should he undertake further disruptive behaviour, post-the expiry of the block, then the gradual incrementation you discussed previously would, I imagine, be implemented. I simply hold the view that slapping anything more than a reinstatement of the block or (going a little further) a reset of it would be a little hard-handed. Then again, this is not the most beneficial editor we have ever experienced, and his behaviour has demonstrated disruptive habits and tendencies: I do not defend that, by any means. Anthøny  18:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But for the instruction, ". . .report other edits to WP:AC/CN," I most likely would have placed this at ANI (My only pause is that there are some 70 other incidents on that page already). Also if memory serves, there were 4 incidents concerning BM, which were independently filed at ANI just prior to the Arbcom case.  R. Baley (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your last comment, I imagine that the location for reporting such violations has shifted to here simply because they involve an active Arbitration case. Anthøny  18:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not complaining 'bout the locale. Though I have to say that I was a little confused at first about where to put it at first (main page or talk page).  There are no instructions, but I suppose that's because this page is mainly used by clerks for clerking.  R. Baley (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The user has been blocked again for making legal threads and for editing User:Wjhonson‎. The user has requested that the article be removed. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the block is to prevent the user terrorising other users with legal threats, especially on user pages. The block is indefinite (not infinite) because Matt hasnt cooperated with the boundaries set out, and before he should be trusted to edit freely, he needs to explicitly acknowledge that his edits did violate WP:LEGAL and that he will not do them again. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Infinite and indefinite, as far as blocks with the MediaWiki software are concerned, are the same thing. Infinite is what is used when making blocks with MediaWiki; some users have simply tweaked the system messages so that indefinite is used in its place. They mean the same thing: no specified expiry time. Anthøny  13:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what, his 3rd legal threat against Wikipedia not to mention the one made against Wjhonson on Wikipedia? Even if he does explicityly acknowledge that his edits did violation WP:LEGAL and that he will not do them again, didn't he acknowledge that and say he wouldn't do them again the last 2 times? Site ban him altogether and let's move on. He's playing everybody and wasting our time. He has no intentions on going through this Arbcom case civilly and regardless of the outcome, he's not going to abide by even that unless forced to, ie: banned and can't do nothing about that. ALLSTAR  echo 14:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If Bluemarine wants to contribute to his case, he can email Arbcom or a clerk. Other than that, this is not really the place to discuss the block. Thatcher 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the subject's request, I would recommend simply deleting the Matt Sanchez article. I also support the block of
 * I also recommend a block of the account to prevent further disruptive behavior.  It was Wjhonson's recent post, where he provided a link to his off-wiki site with an enormous amount of personal information and further defamation of Sanchez, that provoked Sanchez's latest outburst. If Wjhonson wants to collect that kind of dirt on people on his own time, that's fine, but he shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a way to get the word out about a URL with so many privacy violations and speculative defamation. And especially if Sanchez is considering a lawsuit against Wjhonson, I think it's a bad idea for us to be hosting links to Wjhonson's site. --Elonka 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The deletion is not up to us, and if you are concerned about Wjhonson, add evidence to the case. This entire discussion is really outside the scope of this page. Thatcher 01:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Case participant behavior
Clerks working on cases involving unduly obstreporous participants may find solace in this principle from a recently decided case, and have occasion to cite it from time to time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One assumes Brad meant to link to here? If so, that is indeed comforting :) Anthøny  19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. The final version is even nicer. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse quit/break
Some of you may have noticed Rlevse's talk page and user page where he says he's quit wiki. That ANI thread seemed to be the last straw, but there were other things. I actually know him, in the real world. I've talked to him about this. He's very upset and frustrated. I don't know if he'll come back or not. He did say he really enjoyed being an arbcom clerk; that's why I've posted here, I wanted to let you know that. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. That is indeed very unfortunate, but I think Rlevse needs some room to breath, at the moment. Anthøny  14:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he appreciates your support. I'll tell him. He's apparently responding to emails if anyone wishes to contact him. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, tell him to take as long a break as he likes &mdash; he deserves it. I hope to see him back here whenever he feels ready.-- Phoenix -  wiki  16:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rlevse should also understand that he can resume doing the clerking without getting involved in the enforcement side of things, which is much more stressful. As Thatcher reminded on ANI yesterday, they really are very separate functions, although sometimes the same people tend to get involved with both. Anyway, I hope he is doing well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've emailed him telling him to take as long as he wants off and he might come on IRC in the meantime. I'm sure he has enough emails telling him to come back.-- Phoenix -  wiki  16:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse said "arbs and clerks are the ones most likely to work the issue", so I'm sure he's aware any admin can work AE cases; he did not say "arbs and clerks only...". But it does appear mostly those who work AE are those already involved in arb cases. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. I would like to continue clerking if that's okay. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you are back :) FloNight (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Rlevse.


 * On the subject of the enforcement noticeboard, I recall opposing its being set up in early 2006, on the grounds that the existing adminstrators' noticeboards were adequate for the purpose. Later on, as one of the few active arbitration clerks in mid-2006 I found myself involved in enforcement issues, somewhat against my feeling that the clerk role is incompatible with the enforcement role.  Few other administrators watched the page, that always seemed to be the case.  Perhaps we should consider merging it back to the main administrators' noticeboard. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice case
Does it need closing/archiving? Orderinchaos 04:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done before I even saw this. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Small Inconsistency
I noticed that this statement here on the noticeboard: "This list will be used to set the number of active Arbitrators and the case majority on cases as they open. As of January 25, 2008, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so the majority is 7 for new cases (that is, those accepted after the "as of" date)." I think this needs a tweak, as the list below it has 13 arbitrators. Either the notice or the list must have a problem that someone might like to fix. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for catching. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland: Non-clerking discussion moved here from main page
There is an unblock request by Mantanmoreland. I have suggested a modification of the request that would make it sit better with the community, I think. It might help if an arbitrator or clerk attended to that unblock request, as there would be less likelihood of wheel warring. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Doc Glasgow already unblocked against the developed AN consensus.  Lawrence  §  t / e   13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was community concensus. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not repeat here the discussion ongoing in at least two other places. Clerks please hold off on closing for now pending resolution of the current situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
I think this page could stand some archiving by one of the Clerks. Discussions of permanent reference value should be archived, which those of fleeting relevance long past can simply be deleted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)