Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive6

=General discussion=

Archiving request
There's a longish discussion on the main RfAr talkpage regarding the Vintagekits-Kittybrewster-BrownHairedGirl motions. That probably ought to be archived somewhere along with the motion itself, rather than wind up in the main talkpage archive. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Help needed
WP:ABF is flying thick here. Can we get some clerks? rootology ( C )( T ) 17:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion to unblock A Man In Black
Ping: This needs to be done so he can participate. rootology /equality 18:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving needed
Please archive these from RFAR (clarifications, etc) asap:
 * Ireland article names
 * The Troubles
 * Collect – mathematically impossible to be accepted, should archive within a day or so
 * and the 3-4 enforcements that are completed.

Thanks.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Two ireland articles are done and the enforcements are also done. Will do Collect tomorrow.  MBisanz  talk 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement of involved party moved to talk page for RfAr/ADHD
I was named as a party in this arbitration but my comment was moved to the Talk page as if I were a non-party. Not a big deal, but I'm moving it back, if that's wrong, someone please revert me. --Abd (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Close Scientology
Scientology can close at 01:00 27 May UTC.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closed. AGK 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate amendment motion passed
The amendment motion in RfAr/Midnight Syndicate (on the main arbitration page) has passed. Would a clerk close the motion, archive to the Midnight Syndicate case page, notify the proposer of the motion and the primary affected editor (I don't think it's necessary to track down all the parties to the original case from 2+ years ago), and make a notation on the article talkpage or talkpages? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect RFAR
Archive this pls. Mathematically impossible to be accepted.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)a
 * ✅ - Please see my question on the mailing list. Tiptoety  talk 17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Keeping Template:ArbComOpenTasks updated
Is maintaining the content of this template the job of the clerks or of the general editorial populace? Template_talk:ArbComOpenTasks suggests that the former is the case, and if so, could you (collectively) pay a little closer attention to the requests for amendment/clarification? A/R was listed at WP:A/R nine days ago and has only now been added to the template. If all editors are encouraged to maintain the template, do let us know so that we can get on with it. Thanks for all your hard work in keeping things running smoothly,  Skomorokh  13:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Does nobody know the answer?  Skomorokh 21:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the former; the clerks should be handling it (as well as the arbs if they're modifying something - though the clerks should be moving/adding things) Wizardman  22:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for clarifying that Wizardman.  Skomorokh  22:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We've implemented a bot—with thanks to smoddy—that automatically notifies the mailing list when a request to amend a prior case is added, so we should have less problems with outdated information on ArbComOpenTasks. I would apologise for any disruption caused as a result of our tardiness; the clerks are all a little too busy for our own good! Regards, AGK 20:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to assist an admin with adding a block to a case log
Hi folks, Moni3 has made a block that should probably be logged under the recently-closed Scientology case, see her message on my talk page here. Could someone please walk her through the process of logging this in the appropriate place? Given the recent changes, and the fact that I don't think I've ever logged a block myself, I'm more likely to mess things up than get them right. Thanks. Risker (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this matter is, —AGK 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking - Implementation notes
In the Implementation notes, I don't think Remedy 1 is passing (7 oppose, 3 abstain, 0 support) - WP:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision. --RexxS (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies for double posting - the link at the top of the Proposed decision page opened an edit window on /Noticeboard - which now redirects here. --RexxS (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Similarly with Remedy 21 (8 oppose, 3 abstain, 0 support) - WP:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Both of these have since been fixed. Paul August &#9742; 15:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Macedonia 2" count errors
Pertaining to case Macedonia 2, I've changed some vote counts here. Please review, thanks. Paul August &#9742; 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that Paul. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty count error
Pertaining to case Tang Dynasty, I've changed a vote count here. Please review, thanks. Paul August &#9742; 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This would suggest that you are, as always, spot-on. AGK 22:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking "Final decision" and "Proposed decision" numberings do not agree
Although the "Final decision" sections notes that All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available., the numbering used for the Date delinking final decision does not agree with the numbering used on the Proposed decision. Can this please be fixed? Note this is of particular importance for the code I've written which does "Final decision" error checking, and is in accord with past discussion for example here. Thanks, Paul August &#9742; 17:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way I'd be willing to help fix the numbering as long as no one objects. Paul August &#9742; 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite unsurprised that, with many tens of proposals to sort through, I got the numbering wrong on at least one. Paul, from your numbering script, could you specify which entries in the final decision are incorrectly numbered? AGK 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lot's actually. I've actually made a copy of the case page and made the changes on a user subpage of mine here, so you can use it for comparison. If you are in agreement you (or I) can replace the case page with my sub page. There is also a count error on F37 "2008Olympian". Paul August &#9742; 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a rolling error: I've misplaced one count, and every count thereafter has been wrong. (I say that only because I don't imagine I'd get so many counts wrong!) AGK 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm talking about the numbering of the decisions, not the vote counts (except for the one I mentioned above F37). For example the principle titled "Dispute resolution" is numbered "7" in the "Final decision" while it is numbered "7.1" in the Proposed decision. Did you look at the my user subpage, mentioned above? See this diff to see what I'm talking about. Paul August &#9742; 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I renumbered the proposals for proper numbering. The numbers at the start of every entry in the final decision isn't supposed to correspond with the proposed decision subpage, insofar as I'm aware. AGK 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This has always been the practice, and this is why the "Final decision" sections notes that All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available. Also see here where this was discussed recently. One of the virtues of having the numbers match is that it is much easier to match up a decisions with the corresponding proposal, particularly when there are lots of proposals and lots of alternative proposals, as is the case here. The reason I'm particularly interested in our maintaining this practice is that my error checking code depends on this agreement in numbering. If we decide to abandon this practice, It will seriously compromise the ability to provide double checking of the accuracy of the Final decision. It will also make it much more difficult to maintain the  "Proposals" section of the "Statistics 2009" page. (I would probably have to give up doing it) I will go ahead and make these changes. (Sorry if I'm being a pain in the butt ;-) Paul August &#9742; 22:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Paul August is correct. The Final Decision always matches the numbering on the Proposed Decision page. The Final Decision section has included that wording explaining the numbers for years. It makes it easier to find the arb votes with the reasoning for supporting the proposal. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In all my time clerking, I can't say my renumbering has ever been a problem! I note that Paul seems to have fixed the numbering (many thanks to him), so I suppose we've resolved the outstanding problems? AGK 13:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe so. Using the new numbering my software found no other problems. Considering that there were a record 186 proposals with 100 passing, this is especially remarkable. So good job AGK! Paul August &#9742; 14:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you in return for catching what errors there were. ;-) AGK 14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama articles needs implementation notes
Obama articles Proposed decision needs implementation notes. Paul August &#9742; 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Updating now. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left some questions regarding implementation. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mailer. Questions answered. Paul August &#9742; 16:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom for Mattisse
Per the suggestion of Newyorkbrad, I am emailing each member of my Arbcom committee, now that there is a decision.

My plan is linked to the Workshop page. It is at User talk:Mattisse/Plan, along with the associated suggestions at User talk:Mattisse/Plan.

I have tried to reflect the consensus opinion.

I have not had contact with my mentors/advisors for over a month. Some of them are on wikibreaks, so I will leave them off the list. I have the following list of editors who have provided significant interaction with me regarding advising/mentoring me. They have productively advised me in the past. I trust their judgment and I trust that they have Wikipedia's best interest at heart. I believe that it should be my responsibility to solicit and obtain advice in the manner most comfortable to me and to each adviser.
 * 1) Salix alba - admin
 * 2) Philcha
 * 3) Geometry guy - admin
 * 4) SilkTork - admin
 * 5) Fowler&fowler
 * 6) RegentsPark - admin
 * 7) Ling.Nut

This plan has been submitted to arbcom according to instructions. Please advise me if there is something more I should do.

Regards,

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've notified the Arbs of this post in case it gets overlooked. Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 00:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I also emailed each one, as Newyorbrad said to do. One did not have email enabled, but the others do. Also, it has been posted on the Workshop page for the last month or so. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the future, you can also email them all at once using the ArbCom mailing list: <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 00:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where can I find that email address, other than here in case I cannot find this page again? Are there directions somewhere for all of this? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:AC. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would feel really uncomfortable sending an email to anything that has a lists at the end of it. I would rather send individual emails. I have not an idea where something to a list goes and who sees it. I would rather just publish it publically. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * arbcom-l is restricted only to current and former arbs in good standing (and possibly Jimbo), all of whom are listed on the same page I showed you. As a clerk, I can't even see the emails sent to that list, nor can non-arb checkusers or oversights who are given access to private information restricted to other users. I can assure you that anything sent to that list will be kept private. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 02:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is way more individuals then I would prefer. I would rather just post  something openly (which is what I did here, thinking it was an email! That is how stupid I am.) At least this way, I know who knows - everyone. No false sense of security.  Thanks anyway. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 02:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, Mattisse. As Hersfold said, e-mails to arb-l are better when aiming to contact all the arbitrators at once. One correction to what Hersfold said: formers arbs are now on a different list (and have been for several months now). The only people subscribed to arb-l are sitting arbitrators and Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales. Posting something on a page on Wikipedia, and then sending a note to arb-l to notify arbitrators, is usually the best method. If you send to individual arbitrators, it can get confusing and difficult to keep track of things. One other point: you've linked twice to the talk page of the 'plan' page above. The first link should probably be to the page itself, with the second link to the talk page. The main thing to do now is to get a finalised plan sorted out, but that is best discussed at the case pages, which I will go and look at now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black
FYI: I corrected a count here. Paul August &#9742; 03:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The ACA template never got substituted on the proposed decision talk page. Can someone please fix this. Thanks, Paul August &#9742; 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh, I removed the ACA template, rather than substituting it. I've reverted myself and substituted. Thanks for pointing this out (and also for correcting that count.) AGK 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but your substitution didn't work (since the ACA template has been edited to remove A Man in Black). Paul August &#9742; 02:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Paul is right. Could someone pull up the version of ACA before it was edited to remove AMIB, and copy it and paste into the PD talk page? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Or revert, subst and re-revert, whatever takes your fancy.
 * Done. AGK 13:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Paul August &#9742; 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Dibs on next case...
...whenever we get one. I've yet to clerk a case the whole way through, and with my absences lately it's probably well past time I take up a case. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 02:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue resolved. Hersfold's wish was granted with the opening of Abd-.... AGK 14:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

weird archiving
I think that after the recent restructure of arbcom pages, there is an issue with the way the bot is archiving discussions. Or something; I'm not real sure what needs to be done.

At the top of Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, the archive box is linking to pages named "Requests for arbitration", with Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 23 being the latest.

But the bot is currently archiving discussions to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_21. Note the page name is different, and we have gone backwards from RFAR 23 to A/R 21.

Enjoy, John Vandenberg (chat) 11:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is the Miszabot archiving code that reading


 * What should it be set to?  MBisanz  talk 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * John, what would you like done with this? AGK 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that the old and new archives would stay together somehow. Why did we go backwards from 23 to 21 ? John Vandenberg (chat) 13:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because your settings for Miszabot creates a new archive when the old one would reach 250K (so they would only stay together by chance) - you'll need a date-based archive setting to keep them together. --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For this configuration, MiszaBot archives to the page WT:Arbitration/Requests/Archive {counter}, where {counter} is X in <tt>counter= X</tt>. Archives 22 and 23 have been manually created (i.e., somebody has trimmed old threads from the talk page and created a new archive with them), but MiszaBot has continued to archive to 21. Changing the counter to 23, or whatever the most recent archive is, and ensuring that it is updated if somebody creates a fresh archive in the future, should prevent further archive mishaps. AGK 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration statistics - half-year summary
Through the first half of 2009, the Arbitration Committee considered 111 requests, voted on 41 motions, publicly heard 19 cases, and drafted and voted on 928 case proposals.

There were 59 case requests, open on average for five days, with 63% declined, 29% accepted, 7% disposed by motion and one withdrawn. There were 52 clarifications and other requests, open on average for 11 days. Motions were open on average for four days, with 61% passing. Cases were open on average for 60 days, with the longest being open for nearly five and a half months.

With respect to case requests, Wizardman had the highest voting percentage of 93, followed closely by Casliber with 89, against an average of 61, and a low of zero. Coren and Stephen Bain shared the highest accept percentage of 53, and Vassyana had the highest decline percentage of 80. With respect to clarifications and other requests, Vassyana commented on the most (32). Overall, Carcharoth could be considered to have been the most active, with the lowest DNA (did not act) percentage of 18, against an average of 47 and a high of 86. With respect to motions, John Vandenberg had the highest voting percentage of 79, with many arbs following closely behind, against an average of 59 and a low of 18.

Wizardman drafted over a quarter of the cases (five) with Newyorkbrad drafting three, while John Vandenberg drafted the largest case, as measured by number of proposals (186, 100 passing), and Rlevse drafted the second largest (132, 98 passing). Six arbs were virtually tied for the highest case proposal voting percentage: Carcharoth and Sam Blacketer, (with 94) and FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, and Wizardman (with 93). Arguably, Rlevse was on average the quickest to act on case proposals, with Casliber second.

Comparing Apr-Jun with Jan-Mar, the number of case requests declined 36% and the percentage of cases accepted declined 15%, thus the number of cases accepted was almost halved. The number of clarifications and other requests increased 74%, the number of cases closed more than doubled, and the number of case proposals considered increased by more than five times.

Comparing the first half of 2009, with the first half of 2008, the number of case requests dropped dramatically from 105 to 59, continuing an apparent trend, and the number cases heard dropped from 27 to 19, while the average case duration nearly doubled from 32 days to 60.

For complete details see: Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2009.


 * Cross posted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Paul August &#9742; 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Question about ArbCom election pages on WT:AC. Y'all might want to chime in.--Tznkai (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Request at /Matthew Hoffman
Would somebody mind taking a look at the editprotected request at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman? It has been there for a few days and appears clerky in nature. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is currently being discussed on the clerks mailing list. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 02:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Has it been resolved, but? I don't see any replies to that thread sent earlier than 4 days ago. AGK 18:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dibs on a case coming up
I'm pretty much in that same situation as Hersfold was. I've had a lot of absences lately (yay for summer), but I'd love to be active on a case again. <font face="times new roman"> hmwith τ   15:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing OS candidacy
I'm not sure if this is the right place to alert you guys to this, but I wish to withdraw my candidacy for the oversight elections. I've placed archive boxes on my vote page. I'm not sure if there's anything else necessary, but if so, can the Clerks please do whatever it is? (-: Stifle (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  MBisanz  talk 20:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-clerk help
Howdy. If any clerks need help from a non-clerk, I'm willing to help out.--Rockfang (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Temporary case clerk need to cover Abd-WMC case
Could one of the active clerks please volunteer to cover the Abd-WMC case until the case clerk (Hersfold) is active again? Thanks. Please let me know if you need bringing up to speed, but there is a current dispute over a block carried out by WMC and a ban that may or may not be active for Abd. If order could be kept on the case pages while this is discussed, that would be helpful. Please see the proposed decision page and its talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll cover it. I may need brought up to speed. I'll let you know. <font face="times new roman"> hmwith t   16:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Need assistance
I'm still not sure exactly how to act concerning certain clerk issues. Guidance would be much helpful in my learning process. If anyone could take a look at these and offer some advice, it would be wonderful: Thanks in advance, <font face="times new roman"> hmwith t   16:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop
 * WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop (there was concern regarding the collapsed off-topic comment comment by Abd & whether or not it should remain)
 * Nevermind. It's been taken care of. Ryan Postlethwaite gave me some guidance. Cheers, <font face="times new roman"> hmwith t   18:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting clerk review
Clerking requested for appropriate compliance with the WP:LINKVIO clause of the WP:COPYVIO policy. David Gerard's blog published a complete email from another person without that person's permission. Three editors have linked to that from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee, the first of which was indefinitely blocked for disruption shortly afterward.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/I_am_not_Paranoid] I delinked all three, citing policy. In principle this is exactly the same as delinking pirated YouTube hostings, which gets done routinely. Two editors have reinstated the links, one with a profane edit summary. Although I referred Privatemusings to policy talk, he has initiated discussion at AN instead: AN. The reinstatements would seem to be a clerking matter; I do not wish to edit war. Please review for appropriate action. Durova 371 01:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is trolling. Durova (whom I called out for similar drama-causing activity recently), refactored my post on a silly pretext, didn't tell me, and now runs to mother when I got angry with her. The policy stuff is nonsense. 1) I'm sure David Gerard knows copyright and would not break it (see WP:AGF). 2) He's entitled to re-publish a letter to himself, last law-class I attended. 3) This isn't our problem anyway. 4) It is not unreasonable for me to link to a public blog-post in an edit refering to that blog post - that's fairuse (even if there were copyvio concerns). Now, can we move on.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be obvious looks like it may be fair use to me. LINKVIO should only be used in cases of obvious infringement. ⇌ <font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Jake <font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Wartenberg  02:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my statement after further research and correspondence. ⇌ <font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Jake  <font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">Wartenberg  22:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, fair use rationales normally apply to excerpts of texts rather than entire emails with headers included. At The New York Public Library, for instance, librarians limited photocopy reproductions to maximum 1/3 of a total text of any length (large or small). Has some new principle come into play of which I am unaware?  If so, will amend practice in future.  Respectfully requesting Scott Mac moderate his tone as expressed here and elsewhere; it hinders collegial conclusion.  Durova 371 03:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, per AGF: "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either.  Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate."  Durova 371 03:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The policy is designed to prevent us linking to copyvios like rip-off on you tube. It is not designed to prevent us commenting on a blog, where the blogger may (or may not) have incidentally breached copyright. The link was not to copyright breaching material, nor to comment to such material. The link was to the blog, and was to comment on the content of the blog (authored by DG). This is a misapplication of a policy to cause drama.--Scott Mac (Doc) 03:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the republication was a breach of copyright then a direct link to that republication brings WP:LINKVIO into play. Editors' obligation to justify copyright is proactive, not reactive.  Policy is not to retain dubious and insufficiently documented image uploads unless they can be positively demonstrated to be copyvio; instead we delete them pending proper sourcing.  It would be possible to confirm this positively via email contact with Mr. Landeryou (whose address is conveniently provided at the blog post in question), but that would possibly be impolitic under these sensitive circumstances.  Furthermore, to the best of my nonexpert understanding WMF's servers are governed by US case law where the Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service case precedent is pertinent.  Other than the additional factor of privacy violation (which makes it more weighty rather than less), copyright applies equally to music videos and personal correspondence.  Durova 371 03:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to block you for personal attacks. You are accusing David Gerard of illegal activity. Have you asked him? You know where you can contact him? Stop lawyering, you are not one.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scott, you're involved, please don't block Durova. I'm going to ask someone who knows more about copyvio to get involved with this. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the principles as I see them. First, all personal correspondence (including e-mail) is protected by copyright of the original author -- even if it is addressed to you personally, it is still owned by the sender. Second, It can not be republished in its entirety without the author's permission. It can only be briefly quoted and attributed -- in the same manner as any published source.


 * By the precise letter of the law, the David Gerard website might be in violation of copyright. (When there is no apparent permission, we will usually assume that none has been given). However, in general practice, a civil lawsuit would never occur in a situation like this because that letter appears to have no commercial value. Therefore, there would be no monetary damages. It is whether the correspondence has any practical commercial value -- like a poem or essay -- which is the greatest determining factor here. In a case like this, the most that would be gained in a lawsuit would be to force the David Gerard website to reduce the publication to simple quotes with attribution. (In fact, Gerard does attribute the entire letter to the source as well as sets in a clearly different font which has the same effect as quotation marks.)


 * So how does that effect us? In principle, Durova was correct to cite this as a WP:LINKVIO. The suspicion of a breach of copyright does exist. In practice, though, it is a case which would have little merit in an actual courtroom -- seeing that it has no real world infringement upon the original author. This is one of those gray areas where, although it might meet the letter of the law, it doesn't violate the spirit of the law. I would allow the link on Wikipedia to exist. I am also neither a lawyer nor an expert on copyright law -- so this is only my opinion on copyright law. (Sorry for windy comment, that is probably my only lawyerly aspect.) —  Cactus Writer |   needles  10:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is complex. :) I agree with Cactus Writer |  that this is almost certainly a copyright violation and that we have to treat it as though it is. I also agree that  Durova  was correct about its being a WP:LINKVIO. It's appropriate to remove it pending some resolution on the question of context. (The example that WP:LINKVIO cites (a film review with stills of the film) is certainly clear cut—almost to the point of being useless for guidance.)


 * Is there compelling reason for the link to be used? I think the purpose and the placement matter here. Its use as adornment or in a "Hey, check this out!" manner would certainly be inappropriate, as would its use in article space where it might affect downstream users. If it is an essential part of a necessary conversation, then our link to it is far more likely to be fair, also keeping in mind the non-commercial nature of the work. I know we apply more limited standards than fair use, but while NFC permits quotes of copyrighted text it also doesn't offer context on when such a link might be appropriate. (It is worth noting, I think, that there may be a complicating factor here in the private nature of the correspondence. According to what I've read, while courts are traditionally more liberal with non-commercial work, they are more likely to take concerns over private correspondence seriously than letters to a mailing list or other wide audience. (Please don't make me dig up a citation on that. I read it about six weeks ago, and I can't remember where, and I have so much else to do today.) Generally unpublished works receive more rather than less protection, and letters to a single recipient are evidently regarded as somehow being closer to unpublished than mass communication.)


 * I might also allow the link to exist outside of article space if we treat it like non-free content in general, use it sparingly and for good reason. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think including the link is ethically bad. It was inappropriate, in my opinion, for David Gerard to publish private correspondence without the author's permission, and doubly bad that he identified the real life author and included the author's email address and IP information. I don't think it is right or good for Wikipedians to be drawing additional attention to that posting. So, I would say that linking to that post should be avoided on the grounds of respect for the personal privacy of the email's author, even without considering copyright.

On copyright grounds, I believe Durova is technically correct. Like all people the email's author has an automatic copyright on anything that they write, and a fair use defense is unlikely to apply to someone posting the entirety of a private correspondence (fair use arguments in general are very hard to sustain if the original author has never made the content public). So it would appear to be a copyright violation, and hence LINKVIO would apply. Though let's be honest with ourselves. This isn't valuable creative content, and it is extremely unlikely that anyone would litigate the copyright issue in a case like this. So, while it may meet the letter of LINKVIO, it is different in spirit than the typical case. That said, I would still lean in favor apply the delinking policy in this case. Durova appears correct that this is technically a copyright issue (though one where it would be very unusual to see a case made out for infringement and even more so for secondary contributory infringement), but for me I would still say that the personal privacy issues are a more compelling reason not to be linking to that post. If we really believe that what David Gerard did was a significance lapse of judgment, and personally I do believe that, then why would we compound that by drawing greater attention to it? Dragons flight (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll second that this is worth considering. I am only very vaguely aware of the circumstances here, pretty much just noting in passing that it seems to have affected somebody I respect tremendously. Hence, I don't know if the link is an essential part of a necessary conversation, but there are other factors than WP:LINKVIO and its implications to weigh. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted the complete email on my blog because it was a threat, from someone who spent quite some time seriously stalking people online (using Wikipedia and other editable websites) - some of the victims still won't post in public online, and I got thank-you emails from them for posting it [and yes, I know I just said "the lurkers support me in email"] - and therefore struck me as a threat to take seriously. In such circumstances, fair use may well be up to 100% of the original work, being clearly in the public interest. Should the original author claim a copyright violation - which has not happened yet - I would certainly claim that the 100% reproduction was quite solidly in the public interest. So yes, I claim the blog post quotation of 100% of the original email is fair use, rather than a copyright violation. FWIW - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This first arose in the context of this post by an account whose past missives included this and which was indeffed shortly afterward for disruption. I posted a policy note onsite with the delink.  Afterward two more people reproduced the link in their own posts.  The definitions of fair use may differ somewhat in the UK and US; the individual in question is highly litigious and US case law has the Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service precedent: WMF servers are governed by different laws than David Gerard's blog.  So it appeared prudent to delink.  The intent was neither to silence discussion nor to offend.  Durova 371 22:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this still an outstanding issue, or have the links been removed? If it is, then clerks: what shall we do about this? AGK 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we, as clerks, can do much. Personally I believe that DG's post shouldn't have included the full message header (as it's definitely made the original sender's information accessible); rather, he should have withheld some information for privacy issues. Of course, since the post is off-wiki, we have no authority over it and therefore I don't think there's further things we can do. I do support the de-linking, though, as it was one of the reasons that John Vanderberg stepped down as ArbCom member. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 03:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like a petty, technical copyvio, one of a sort that probably many sites are guilty of, so it smacks of "BADSITES through the back door" to invoke it to suppress links to one particular site that's the subject of an internal wikipolitical fight. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And given that the person protecting copyright didn't even have the grace to point out her concerns to the alleged violator, it all smacks of wikipolitics, bad-faith assumptions, and drama-whoring to me.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Still available for help
Back in August I posted a notice here saying I'm available to help out with any tasks a non-clerk might be able to do. This is still true. :) Rockfang (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that we've just taken on a new batch of trainee clerks, so we probably won't be looking to take on any more trainees for at least a few months. However, we do maintain a list of editors who are interested in becoming trainees. I will suggest to the other clerks that we put you on that list. Thanks for volunteering! AGK 12:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was pointed out to me that I may be misinterpreting your request as a willingness to become a trainee clerk, so I make a point of asking: are you willing to be considered as a trainee, Rockfang? If not, then, by all means, do jump in wherever there seems to be a need for input or assistance (although you probably ought to read Arbitration Committee/Clerks before diving into any "clerky" tasks.) Regards, AGK 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am willing to be considered as a trainee. But if the program is currently full, or if there is no need for new trainees, I can wait.--Rockfang (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've asked for you to be added to the list of candidates to be considered at the next intake of trainees. In the meantime, please do volunteer where you can around the various pages that fall under the prerogative of the clerks (where your input would be appropriate). Regards, AGK 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Display problem with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
I posted a message about a display problem with Arbitration/Requests at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Header. Lankiveil took a shot at making the change but now it looks worse than before. If you would kindly drop Arbitration/Requests/Header down to semi-protection for a few hours I would be willing to fix it. I have access to Windows, Mac OS, IE, Firefox, Safari & Opera, so I can fully test it. I'll even download Chrome if needed. Also, is there some reason that you want the case summary box to the right of the TOC? I'm sure that people with laptops aren't happy about having to scroll over to it, if they even know it's there. I think it would look better centered above the TOC, but I won't move it unless you agree with the change. Thanks! UncleDouggie (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you let me know when you can be online to fix it, I'll be happy to drop it down to semiprotection for you to work with it. I'm a bit wary of just unprotecting it and leaving it though, since it's a reasonably high visibility template on a page that tends to attract controversy.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC).


 * I for one have no problem with dropping the protection on a temporary basis. As Lankiveil says, however, I'd rather that this was done only for periods where the code is being adjusted; so UncleDouggie, please give one of us a shout on our talk page, and the protection will be duly amended (for, say, three hours?). Oh, and thanks again, Douggie, for your help. AGK 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Already sorted :-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Procedural questions
Here are some questions I have. Feel free to add or comment. Manning (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1 Who sets the deadlines for evidence, workshopping etc. Can clerks formally request the establishment of deadlines?

2 How do we cope with changes to effective Arb numbers during a case? Should we maintain of log of status changes? Related examples:
 * An arbitrator elects to recuse midway through a case. Do prior votes still count or are they refactored as comments?
 * An arbitrator reclassifies as "inactive" midway through a case. Do prior votes still count or are they refactored as comments?
 * An arbitrator resigns. (This case has already been clarified, all votes on unresolved matters are refactored as comments)
 * An inactive Arb returns midway through a case. Can their vote alter the outcome of temporary motions that otherwise were resolved?

Motions

(1) In regular cases clerks do not become involved in tallying until a motion to close the overall case has been passed. However with the new "single motion" framework, the time for action is not so clear-cut. So when should a clerk get involved in tallying? Possible suggestions:
 * At the moment a motion has achieved a definite pass/fail result
 * After a predetermined period has elapsed since a motion achieved a definite result (eg. 24/48 hours)
 * When an arbitrator leaves a note instructing a clerk to close the motion.

(2) What should be the "elapsed time" conditions for closing motions, (if any)?

(3) Should each motion have a clerk notes area? (Currently the notes section falls at the end of a group of motions).


 * Manning: I think all of these were answered on clerks-l, but if any were not, or any responses were unclear, then please do speak up. We want to make sure that our newcomers are exhaustively trained! AGK 10:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite
A discussion is currently being held on clerks-l concerning the return of Ryan, a former clerk who retired earlier this year, to active service as a clerk. Contributions would be welcome. AGK 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With the discussion on the mailing list having finished, I am happy to say that Ryan Postlethwaite has returned to serving as a Committee clerk. AGK 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Note
Hope I'm allowed to post here - it this belongs elsewhere, feel free to move to the proper venue. That whole RFAR request/case (the "Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA" one) really needs a clerk. There's some folks posting outside their own section that's making it a little jumbled. Just thought I'd mention it to you guys. Cheers. — Ched : ?  17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you are allowed to post on here! Thank you for bringing the situation to our attention, Ched. I've slapped the thread into place, so everything ought to be back to normal now. Do please let us know (on this page or elsewhere) if any more instances of wandering comments arise. Regards, AGK 23:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Updating of clerking procedures
I am working, armed with some suggestions from Carcharoth and my own ideas about how the page could be improved, on an update of the current procedures page. My progress to date is at WP:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures/S. All are welcome to contribute or comment—and any suggestions would be particularly welcome. Thanks, AGK 22:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Workshop/evidence editnotice
Could somebody please make use of their superior-to-my-own parserfunction knowledge to adjust the arbitration space edit notice to only display on the main requests page (and not also on evidence and workshop pages, as it currently does). Thatcher brought this up some time ago, but it never was looked into. The template is here: Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. AGK 22:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Improper tally at Case/Speed of light
The injunction tally shows only 4 support votes and no abstentions. The table shows that 5 votes are needed to carry. The argument is made that a 24 hour wait with no response is tantamount to abstention. Thus the claim of 4 net support votes; however, that interpretation of "net" is not consonant with the table. Inasmuch as I myself have often been incommunicado for several days or weeks, I do not see this action as fitting correct procedure. Either an abstention is obtained or another vote in favor, or the action is not carried. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * An injunction (different than a motion) needs only net 4 votes to pass. After the waiting period (usually 24 hours) the injunction passes since it has 4 supports and 0 opposes. I hope that helps. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk attention needed
The situation with Brews ohare is continuing to deteriorate. I draw your attention to my remark and expect you to do something about it. I will not stand for being called a lyncher. You already blocked somebody for calling other editors Nazis during the case. These people are on notice that such behavior will not be tolerated. Do something about it. Jehochman Talk 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But this has nothing specifically to do with Brews' arbitration case. In fact, you can see here that some soapboxing that this Arbitration was trying to end is still going on, but Brews is behaving in an admirable way here. Why not raise the case at AN/I or at the noticeboard for incivility? Count Iblis (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jehochman - People get a lot further in this world using "please" and "thank you".
 * Count Iblis - this page is for alerting the clerks as to potential issues, not for discussion as to whether or not a complaint has merit. Manning (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Manning, I've already gone quite far in the world. Let me give you good advice: when your neighbor cries for help, help them. Don't lecture about please and thank you. Jehochman Talk 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Jehochman - I am sympathetic to off-wiki factors at present which may be increasing your stress levels. I also note that I immediately addressed the issue you raised by getting an arb to intervene. I simply noted that no-one ever appreciates being ordered around. We are all volunteers, and basic courtesy never hurts. Manning (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We're all volunteers, and none of us should have to put up with stick. That includes both being called a lyncher and unfairly demanding messages. I would at this stage proceed to address Jehochman's grievance, but it seems that Risker already has done so. AGK  23:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, AGK, you lost me. How is calling somebody a lyncher equivalent to omitting the word "please" in a request for clerk assistance?  Over many weeks I've been polite and patient, yet they still roam the wiki casting aspersions at me and others. Yeah, I'm peaved and it shows. (Manning, thank you for doing something about the problem. I appreciate it.) Jehochman Talk 00:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem Jehochman - always happy to help. Congrats on the bub. Manning (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations from me too on the new arrival. I did not say that both instances of maltreatment were as severe as one another. I did say that both being called a lyncher and receiving a blunt and unwelcoming message are beyond the levels that a volunteer should be expected to suffer. If your patience is at an end, then you have my sympathies, and I—and every other clerk, I am sure—will do everything we can to assist you; but treating us like crap is in no case a good way of soliciting our assistance. AGK  20:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche
Could somebody ask this editor to consolidate their comments? I went to read what that case was about, and instead I am feeling like this editor needs to be restrained from making any further posts until they clean up the mess they've made. Jehochman Talk 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What comments? I'm not being lazy; I'd like you to cite the diffs that contain conduct you object to, for the avoidance of doubt. AGK 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See the wall of text at Arbitration/Requests. You might want to hit Greg L with a trout while you're at it.  His statement is also excessively verbose.  Posting a wall of text is not beneficial to development of consensus, and frequently is perceived as disruption. Jehochman Talk 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In both cases, I have taken action. Thank you for drawing attention to the length of the statements. AGK 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

General questions announcement
Could someone please post to AC/N?--Tznkai (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean the general questions on ArbCom elections? The community advertise that where needed. The ArbCom elections are not official ArbCom business, and my view is that ArbCom as a body does not get involved in ArbCom elections, so announcing it there would not be appropriate. The Signpost, and the village pump, and various policy talk pages and noticeboards would be better places to announce this, in my view. What should be announced at WP:AC/N (the arbitration noticeboard) is the fact that some arbitrators are standing down at the end of their terms, and that the normal annual election is being held, and the new arrivals (when the process is done). I'll suggest that now. Carcharoth (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Need a clerk for a recall effort
wants to initiate recall proceedings against me. I'm standing for recall under Lar's criteria, so I need an impartial clerk to certify the petition. Anyone feeling particularly neutral at the moment?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed to clerk this. It doesn't seem to be anything requiring an ArbCom clerk, just someone neutral. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
At Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision

"That such conversations can, or are, done in secret "

Should be:

"That such conversations can be, or are, held in secret "


 * Rich Farmbrough, 06:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC).


 * I have emailed ArbCom about this issue. Thanks for raising it. Manning (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Although only arbitrators and clerks are supposed to edit the proposed decision page, I think that blatant, obvious, incontrovertible typos may be fixed by any editor. (Before I was an arbitrator, I would use an edit summary such as "fix typo, no substantive change" so that people with the page watchlisted wouldn't worry why I was editing it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:a/r error
Could a clerk please take care of this? --Tznkai (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the material and contacted the OP to determine details such as the involved parties, attempts at other forms of DR etc. After that either the OP or I will resubmit. Manning (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cross post please
Cross post on AC/N please: --Tznkai (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 18:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbComOpenTasks upd reqd
There are new amendment and clarification requests which are not on ArbComOpenTasks. Could a clerk add them. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 00:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The TOC of Arbitration/Requests/Amendment looks really weird. Where did this "Further discussion" section heading come from ? John Vandenberg (chat) 00:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A "further discussion" section has been part of the amendment request template for a long time. Would you rather it were removed? I've updated the open tasks template ask you asked. AGK 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont want it removed; I am sure there are good reasons for your improvements back in June - I might have even sung its praises at the time. ;-)
 * What struck me was that we are seeing a lot of "Statement by yet another editor" as opposed to comments specifically about the first proposed Amendment, and SirFozzie has added what may be considered a separate amendment. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone please doublecheck the dates? I'm certain that the Troubles elements have not been open for a month. --Elonka 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the date. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Elements, plural (look in the amendments section). The date is wrong, and the link is red. --Elonka 06:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Elonka: Oops, that was my mistake. I've fixed all the errors. Thanks for catching that. AGK 11:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but now the case isn't linked at all, even though there obviously is a case. Would anyone object if I just went in and fixed it myself? --Elonka 17:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and fix it. KnightLago (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The trick is that when dealing with a case with the newer naming system (Requests/Case/Name), the <tt>/interim</tt> template should be used, but when dealing with a case with the older naming system (Requests for Arbitration/Name), leave the "interim" part off. At some point someone may wish to update the template logic to be able to tell which naming system is being used, and adjust automatically (or if you're planning on moving all cases to the new naming system, that would work too).  In the meantime I've updated the template docs, to give a tip on whether to use "interim" or not.  Also, I noticed that the template by default has the Clarifications and Amendments "collapsed" or hidden.  This may be one of the reasons that Clarifications & Amendments take so long to get arb attention, because of the "out of sight, out of mind" problem.  To adjust things so that the default state is open, rather than collapsed, I believe this is the page that needs to be tweaked: Template:ArbComOpenTasks/6.  But that's more of a workflow question, so I'll leave it up to the arbs on whether they want it hidden or not.  If you do want it tweaked, and no one's sure how to do it, let me know and I'll go fix.  :) --Elonka 22:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, so that's that interim means… I had presumed that where the arbitration case corresponding to the clarification/amendment thread was listed using the old naming format, we simply made do with no link. That's why I considered changing the entry to have no case link to be "fixing" the problem. I have no problem with editors in good standing making helpful changes to pages that are typically classed as "clerk (and arbitrator) only." In most cases, it means less work for me :). AGK 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment
Calling attention to a call for a clerk by Durova: Note my comment's in there, too, pointing at the same issue in: The past discussion of this is at:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack_Merridew_one_year_unban_review/mentors_page&diff=prev&oldid=328170974
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive51
 * Wikipedia talk:Harassment

Nutshell: page needs terminology adjustment re 'stalking' as an inappropriate word.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (who pinged Durova about this on her talkpage;)
 * See also: Robert John Bardo


 * I'll contact people asking them to change it themselves and go from there. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * nb: it's a concern about the *talk* page, not the main one; WP#AE/Archive, too. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 15:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:WIKIHOUNDING "To use the older term "Wikistalking" for this action is discouraged because it can confuse minor online annoyance with a real world crime." Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vulgar section of Arbcom
Calling attention to a call for a clerk.

Editor Eusebeus called my edits "scary shit". which prompted Casliber to ask him to change this.

Durova responded with a section, "A search for the four letter string "shit" brings up 22 occurrences on this page, including variants..." 

Jack Merridew replies with a picture of a fly on shit. Jack Merridew already stated: "Have I called you a troll, lately? You *are*. See you at RFAR." He crossed out the You *are*. after an admonishment from John.

I would kindly ask that a clerk remove this irrelevant vulgar section, or ask the editors too. I would think admin Durova would know better than such vulgarity. Ikip (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleted. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope none of us have to come here again. I hope the editors will stops arguing with you about the hounding thing. Ikip (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction - Durova added the picture of the fly . - Josette (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It gets even more bizarre
After the vulgarity, above, now a supporter of Jack Merridew made this proposal on ANI, instead of coming here:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This is unprecidented in my experience, has an opposing editor ever stopped another editor from commenting on an ongoing Arbcom?

Since I didn't know this was possible, I posted this:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Isn't the first the responsibility of the clerks, and the second the responsibility of arbcom?

Thanks. Ikip (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the community sees fit to place a restriction on a user, then that restriction goes into effect. While the clerks can request a user be banned from participation in a case, and ArbCom can ban users, the community has full authority to do the same (and virtually whatever they want) through consensus. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 04:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Though, I will say this is not recommend as it only creates drama. Tiptoety  talk 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

threaded discussion in Arb section
In re Alastair Haines amendment and clarification, Kaldari is commenting in the Arb section. Arbitration/Requests/Clarification -- John Vandenberg (chat) 18:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * fixed by a bold non-clerk (maybe what these pages need is someone with clerk experience, who's recently left a couple of committees, and might have a bit of spare time on their hands and a propensity for being a glutton for punishment? know anyone, john? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for hopping on that Privatemusings. Much appreciated. Tiptoety  talk 22:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to a case
See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration, do you want to implement this ? I feel it could be useful. Cenarium (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While I don't see any reason not to (looks like common sense to me), I would like to hear from others first before implementing it. Any Arbs have opinions? Tiptoety  talk 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would love to have that. My watchlist is cluttered with case pages. KnightLago (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I was planning to set up some recent changes pages for us clerks (and Arbs) to use - these would have included cases, templates, etc. with some sort of grouping. If we do this, then all I need to do now is set up the other pages - I've been trying to decide how to group them but keep getting sidetracked and forgetting it. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've detailed there how this could be done, you just have to agree on a format, for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Changes/ . Cenarium (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding cases to the IRC channel
Should Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures/CVP and Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures/CVP/a be added to the Procedures page? Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin threat and wanting to comment in an ongoing arbitration
There is currently an ongoing arbitration for Jack Merridew. I would like to comment in this arbitration on this talk page:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Motions

During this arbitration there were two ANIs opened about Jack Merridew's behavior by two editors which I commented on, as a result, User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise wrote:
 * "I would like you to take note of this formal warning to cease following Jack Merridew around with accusations and attempts to get him sanctioned. If I see you needlessly inserting yourself into negative threads about Jack again, you will be blocked for disruption"

This threat was followed by User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise making jokes with his sockpuppet on Jack Merridew's talk page.

User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise has unilaterally attempted to silence the strongest criticism of Jack Merridew.

Other than refactoring my comments a lot in this arbitration (thus the high edit count), I have done nothing which break our rules, whereas Jack Merridew's supporters have violated WP:CIVIL repeatedly in the arbitration itself. I have remained civil, despite being called a "troll", my edits have been called shit by three editors, (which was deleted by a clerk), a cancer, "transcends mockery", and an obsession. Bali Ultimate was blocked for 48 hours partly because of the "hounding" and personal attacks against me in this arbcom. (edit diffs if necessary)

Again, I would like to comment in this arbitration on this talk page: Motion to amend User I will continue to remain civil and I would ask that other editors do the same. Thank you for your time clerks, I will respect any decision you make. I am thankful to have gotten aquainted with a couple of the clerks in this process.

I am not sure if I should contact other editors about this posting. Ikip (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll put on record here that Ikip failed to notify me of this posting (I was informed of it by another editor). My warning against him stands, and as far as I am concerned it also extends to behaviour on the Arbcom pages. Ikip has made their opinion of the case abundantly known already; I don't see how at this point they could still have a legitimate interest in commenting further on the issue that wouldn't be a continuation of his very obvious wiki-hounding campaign. If he really needs to say something that hasn't been said already, I'm sure the arbs will be happy to hear it by e-mail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody give you the right to decide who has "legitimate interest" in commenting. If Ikip wants to express his opinion he has every right in the world to do so. I'd also suggest you stop with your practice of issuing intimidatory warnings and threats. Dr. Loosmark
 * What part of Hound have I violated User:Future Perfect at Sunrise? Posting on an arbcom case followed by WP:ANI is not "stalking" (the old term).  The last sentence of WP:HARASS, part of WP:HOUND: "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly."  Ikip (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop beating a dead horse. After reading the thread, I conclude that regarding the signature, we all need to either have a better sense of humor or to not let ourselves get worked over small things. Ikip's failure to notify is noted, but I'm pretty sure that I'd strongly recommend leaving Arbitration pages alone in the sense of letting the ArbCom do their job (as we are all aware of the fact that behavior on arbitration pages can and often factor into decisions.) Future Perfect at Sunrise should know that ArbCom generally prefer comments be written on wiki for transparency. What exactly do you two want us clerks to do here? - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 16:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who, me? I certainly never said I wanted you clerks to do anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Future Perfect at Sunrise, your "personal attack" is noted, since, like other Jack Merridew supporters, you can't support your baseless hounding accusation. Since the arbcom is pretty much finished now, there is no action needed. Ikip (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthering the dispute at ArbCom related pages would not help either of you two. Besides, I personally believe that due to the complexity of the matter, enforcing your warning should at best be left to others, Future Perfect at Sunrise. As neither of you wants anything done at this time, may I suggest both of you to take a step back as well as a deep breath. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 23:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing cases & the templates
Carcharoth has posted this on my talk page but I thought I'd bring it here so we can decide how and if to revise the Procedures page. "ACMajority is the template used on the proposed decision page to indicate the majority. ACA is the template used on the proposed decision talk page to list the status of arbitrators. The former is only needed during the case, and what is needed when the case is closed is effectively a copy-paste of what it says at that point. After a case closes, the ACA template needs to be substituted to show who voted on the case and (importantly) who was recused. This is important when additional motions are later proposed during requests for clarification and amendment. In my view, substituting dumps unnecessary code and extra bits on the page. Copy pasting the relevant bits does just as well for both templates. The important thing is that the page is preserved in the state it was when the case closed. If the templates are left as they are, then future changes to the template can change what is displayed, which is not good." Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Implementation of the recent Matisse clarification motions
Just a note that some of the motions of the clarification of the Matisse case, including motions 10 and 11, have yet to be implemented. <font face="New York"> Skomorokh 12:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅  MBisanz  talk 13:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew motion
copied from my talk page:

Hi. I see you archived this;. Putting the motion at:

seems wrong to me; that whole subpage is about the mentor-review and the proper place for the new motion would be:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page


 * Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review

This would seem to have been FloNight's intent when she skipped this level in the page hierarchy and it would allow the other discussion and the individual votes to be archived on the talk page as was done with the prior motion:


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

The Jack Merridew one year unban review page should also offer a link to the mentors page.

An even cleaner approach would have the page at:


 * Arbitration/Requests/Jack Merridew one year unban review

... with the others tagging along or involve moving the prior motion to:


 * Requests for arbitration/Motions/Jack Merridew ban review motion

I made a few tweaks to the motion text adding wiki-links to the prior motion and to the bot account I had already created. I have also posted the new motion on my user page and on my history subpage. I would like this nice and tidy because it's part of my formal record. Thanks. Jack Merridew 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What's best for this? Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He's posted again:
 * "Thanks. I looked further and see this, which is giving last year's motion that's been superseded, not this new motion. This is a more verbose version of the entry down in the 2008 section. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)" Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just fixed the Arbitration/Index/Motions page to offer the most recent motion. Beyond the above suggestions, it has occurred to me that is might be best to archive all this to new sections at the bottom of the pages:
 * Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion and
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

question for a clerk
could someone look at [] and figure out what to do? my comments have been erased, which removes the context of the conversation. the other editor insists on editing/deleting the conversation. i request that an uninvolved party take a look and decide if tothwolf can delete my comments from the arbcom talk page. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I went an undid that edit, if he wants someone else's evidence changed, he should request it, not do it on his own.  MBisanz  talk 05:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Subsection link broken
Under: ArbCom_election_results

"The number of active Committee members on a given case affects the number of votes needed to reach a ruling. For example, if seven arbitrators are active on a given case, then four votes are needed to reach a majority decision; if ten are active, then six votes are needed, and so forth. More information on calculating the majority is available here."

Links to: Arbitration_Committee/Clerks which is no longer on the main wikipedia page. Someone care to update this? Ikip (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Slight overrun on statement
Just a heads-up for info (no reply needed). There's a slight overrun on the Jehochman initial statement I posted (~595 words vs "about" 500). I'm under the impression that is okay, as it's a fairly small overrun, fairly terse, some leeway is usually given (I just checked with a clerk), and for extra clarity due to the matters in the case.

If it is unacceptably long though, let me know and I'll deal with it, probably by removing the applicable norms and the note above it describing the private evidence. I'd like to avoid the latter for the sake of communal transparency though.

FT2 (Talk 00:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement is fine with me. Thanks for letting us know. AGK 01:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML clerking: request
In the course of the WP:EEML arbitration, user:Molobo was unblocked to participate in the case. The account was indef'd when Molobo claimed he had been hacked, and he was permitted to operate from a new account, user:MyMoloboaccount. That account however has not yet been re-blocked when the case closed some days ago.

Please can a clerk block MyMoloboaccount, thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Molobo account was indef blocked after hacking.My original block is till 31st of May, and not indefinite, which Skapperod didn't mention. While I do not intend to edit till 31st of May, feel free to lock my account till 31st of May if you feel its needed per administrative procedure. However contrary what might be read above I was not indefinitely blocked. The indef block was enforced after I lost control of the account due to hacking.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why it takes only minutes before Molobo showed up here?! Also, the conditional unblock that allowed Molobo to defend himself in the EEML case does not permit him to even be here. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please AGF-this is an Arbcom talk page for clerks and arbitors, not a content page or content dispute.

I already have requested the Arbcom Clerk to reset my block till 31st of May here. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Appears he is correct, the account should be blocked til 31 May 2010. I'll take care of it. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration clerks seeking interested users

 * Do you consider yourself a good communicator?
 * Are you a motivated individual, who is willing to work varying hours?
 * Do you enjoy doing thankless work (you are editing Wikipedia, so the answer is yes)?
 * Are you interested in the inner workings for the Arbitration Committee?
 * Do you want to wear a Fez?

If you answered yes to all the above questions, then Arbitration clerking is for you! And seeing as the clerk corp is currently in the process of vetting new candidates you are encouraged to apply. To do so, simply send us an email at. In this email, be sure to include your username, what you feel you have to offer the committee, and why you are applying for the position.

'' Please note: Non-administrators are encouraged to apply. ''

Tiptoety talk 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Request clerk attention
Could I ask a clerk to remove User:Abd's statement from Arbitration/Requests/Case? Abd is under an editing restriction prohibiting him from commenting on any disputes in which he is not directly and immediately involved. I brought this apparent violation up at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, where Abd indicated that if I thought the statement was inappropriate I could remove it. To minimize confusion or disruption, I'm not eager to remove another editor's statement myself, so thought I would ask a clerk to do so based on my request and Abd's assent. MastCell Talk 01:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks MastCell - I've removed the statement and left Abd a note.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If Adb is not a named party, I see no need for him to comment and consider attempts to retro explain it wiki lawyering.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec, will read note after):Well, just to be clear: my assent refers to my personal response. If the statement is removed, I will not personally respond. Others might. It is not an agreement that removal is actually appropriate. If the statement is disruptive, it should be removed. If MastCell thinks that the statement *itself* is disruptive, my suggestion was that he could, himself, remove it. I think there is much fuss being made over very little. So far, however, the removal and the Arbitration Enforcement thread seem to be based almost entirely on an interpretation of the sanction, which is unclear on this point; I'm already involved in the topic and the situation. The word "directly and immediately" isn't in the remedy. Rather, there is language "originating party," which, in context, probably does not refer to an ArbComm case. Indeed, I'm utterly unclear on the meaning of that sanction and its intention, I've been thinking of asking ArbComm for clarification. And this is totally nuts, way too much drama over a simple statement, so I'm out of here for today. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simple, if you're not a named party, you don't need to comment. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that as a named party I would be permitted to comment, and, presumably, I also could comment as an "originating" party, which was the language of the remedy. However, I really didn't think that the remedy was designed to prevent comment on ArbComm cases, but elsewhere. I'm not aware that ArbComm found a problem with my previous comments in cases where I wasn't a named party, I'm not aware of anything that was in evidence on that. The real problem for me is this: what was the intention of the remedy? If I understood the intention, I'd be much better able to follow it. So I should ask for clarification. However, an RfAr can be time-critical.
 * In the current case, the list of named parties was rather arbitrary, long, and shifting; I did not comment to "defend myself," but to point out that the dispute has been standing for a long time, and I was involved previously, and there was a very specific consequence to my involvement: it explains the otherwise very odd actions of WMC with respect to me, and his resulting loss of adminship over them, and I was involved in addressing the Scibaby situation, and many other aspects of this affair. The purpose of my comment was merely to encourage ArbComm to consider the case, pointing out that it is not a simple and recent controversy.
 * As to your comment, Rlevse, above, about "retro wikilawyering," that's disappointing to see from an arbitrator. I considered whether or not to comment before posting, and I've said exactly what I thought. I was involved, and my statement itself was an assertion of that, so a claim of involvement was certainly not a post-hoc rationalization, it's obvious. --Abd (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Abd, the prohibition extends to "any formal or informal dispute resolution", which of course includes ArbCom cases. Please ask for official clarification if you're going to continue this, but it seems obvious to me that the problem isn't with the wording of the restriction. And I think Rlevse is probably referring to GoRight's attempt to become your "mentor" on the spot and retroactively "authorize" your violation of the restriction, which any thinking person is going to recognize as an attempt to game the restriction. MastCell Talk 04:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Abd, there is absolutely no question that ArbCom cases are unambiguously "any formal or informal dispute resolution" and are thus included. If you are a party in one, or have something directly relevant to contribute, you must request permission to do so from the Committee.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there are two pertinent questions here: At the time that this was all before Arbcom it had been suggested that Abd might select myself (or someone similar) and that for this reason Arbcom should reserve the right to approve his choice of mentors. I note here that that provision was duly voted upon and explicitly rejected. Therefore I see no basis for an objection to Abd selecting me as a mentor. If there is one, what is it?
 * 1) Does Abd's editing restriction make mention of his being allowed to participate in these actions as long as such participation is "approved by his mentor(s)"?  Answer: Undeniably yes.
 * 2) Does the final decision put any restrictions on who Abd's mentors can or should be, or provide any provision for groups that are given veto power over such a selection?  Answer: Undeniably no.

Now, I am not even suggesting that I should be his long term choice but until the matter is clarified by Arbcom the current decision is what it is, and for the time critical nature of this action I have agreed to act as an interim mentor on his behalf.

MastCell charges that I am trying to "retroactively" endorse his participation. Not so. Abd's comment has been removed and neither Abd nor myself have attempted to restore it, however moving forward he has my permission as his interim mentor to proceed as he sees fit with respect to this case. I have given my reasons elsewhere for why he should be allowed to participate.

It is also worth noting that WP:AE has thus far refused to take action on MastCell's request in this matter AND they have gone so far as to acknowledge the validity of my position on the matter (thus requesting that he close that request and create a request for clarification). So, I ask here, why is Abd being barred from participation in tihs case? --GoRight (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place for that question to be asked and answered. I'm not exactly barred from participation in the case, for the "ban" is contingent, with many ways to properly move around it. Your legal arguments are sound, GoRight, but beyond that, the substance here is that I was involved in the underlying situation, and heavily, and that can be shown. As you can see, you and I are being met with serious wikilawyering, arguing from technical compliance or violations of rules, but not with substance, arguing, for example, that the statement itself was disruptive. If it had been disruptive, and particularly given the sanction, it could have been removed on that basis, directly and with no fuss. It could have been removed by MastCell, without serious consequence, instead of filing an AE report. It could have been removed by a clerk on the basis of itself being disruptive.


 * Whether or not the sanction actually applies, however, is a matter for ArbComm to decide. Protest has been made against you being my mentor. I'm hoping that this will become moot, fairly quickly. Below, Ryan is confidently predicting that I won't be commenting in the case. I wonder what he knows that I don't? But that's all beside the point. This request should be closed, as MastCell and I have requested that the AE thread be closed. It's a coatrack, no longer serving any purpose, just stirring up shit. See below. --Abd (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion on tedder's talk page shows that Abd was trying to circumvent ArbCom to involve himself in the case a few hours after he had read the unambiguous responses of Rlevse and Coren here. Mathsci (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this "trying to circumvent Arbcom?" The unambiguous responses you mention indicate that if he is a named party he may participate, so isn't the next logical step to seek to become a named party?  I have made a motion to have him included as you well know.  Am I also trying to circumvent Arbcom by making the motion?  I think not.  In both cases the merits will be examined and either acted upon, or not, but they are both clearly in line with the responses you mention.  --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion by GoRight concerning Abd in Climate Change RfAr
I am bringing this up here since this seems to be where ArbCom has so far been discussing Abd's involvement in future ArbCom cases. appears to be gaming the system by presenting his motion in the current RfAr. Most of the claims in it are disingenuous. In 2009, prior to his three month ban, Abd did not edit any climate change articles. His only edits have been in 2008 in connection with the defense of his wikifriend GoRight after an RfC on GoRight had been started. Abd has been explicitly informed above that he must seek permission of ArbCom if at any stage he wishes to involve himself in any ArbCom case. He has been explicitly informed above by Coren and Rlevse that he has not been deemed to have been engaged in editing climate change articles. ArbCom voted against mentorship of Abd in the ArbCom case which banned him for 3 months. However, one ambiguous phrase was left in the editing restrictions, which has now led to wikilawyering, gaming of the system and disruption by both Abd and GoRight. When it was pointed out to Abd that any reasonable reading of his editing restrictions precluded him from participating in the ArbCom case, GoRight volunteered himself as Abd's mentor and bent over backwards to encourage him to participate in this case, should it be accepted. It is clear that this chain of actions by both editors has little or nothing to do with improving wikipedia or aiding in its dispute resolution processes. Abd's behaviour shows no improvement after his ban: it might seem that he is intent on creating the same chaos that he has been responsible for in previous ArbCom cases.
 * Could the motion be struck out by the clerks, after consultation with ArbCom?
 * Could there be a clarification (through ArbCom) of the reference to a mentor in Abd's editing restrictions, since it is now being interpreted in such an unreasonable way?

Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mathsci's presentation of evidence here is deluded. My participation in RfC/GoRight began as a totally neutral party, I actually helped the filing overcome a defect, preventing its deletion, to GoRight's dismay. Then I read the RfC itself and was horrified by the blatant bias and clear ownership of the articles by a group of editors and administrators, including those filing the RfC, Raul654 and William M. Connolley. I presented my findings as formal evidence, and this evidence was accepted and supported by a series of uninvolved editors, including two who eventually ran for and gained seats on ArbComm, as I recall. It was opposed by the clique of editors who owned the article, the same clique that is currently heavily involved. I then did start to edit the article, but it had nothing to do with any defense of GoRight; to my recollection, he wasn't editing it then. I stopped editing because working on an article toward neutrality is far too difficult when there are a dozen or so editors and administrators who own it and the latter are not shy about using tools when it serves them.


 * ArbComm did find for one sanction that requires the approval of "his mentor" for intervention in disputes where I wasn't an "originating party." However, when that was proposed, there was a mentorship proposal as well, for binding mentorship, which was rejected. So the meaning of "approval of his mentor" is unclear. I did discuss mentorship with GoRight before the current case was filed, so his comment wasn't out-of-the-blue, post-hoc wikilawyering, it was substantial. Sure, there are problems with such a mentorship, but if we want to move beyond wikilawyering and technicalities, what's the substance here?


 * The substance is that I was very much involved in the dispute that is now before ArbComm; I'd contend that my eventual 3-month site ban and the rest proceeded quite directly from that involvement, it established a conflict between myself and WMC (and others who heavily supported banning me long before the eventual excuse appeared) over his usage of tools with Global warming articles and editors. The substance and the welfare of the project require that an involved and experienced editor, knowledgeable about the issues and the history -- including a prior study of the Scibaby affair, discussion of which (off-wiki, with functionaries, as well as on-wiki) may have helped lead to Raul654 being confronted privately and resigning as checkuser --, participate, at least peripherally, in the case. I believe that, when asked formally, which I don't have time to do today, ArbComm will support this. If not, it's their decision, of course.


 * It was disruptive for Mathsci, who wasn't involved to my knowledge, to protest my statement before ArbComm on my Talk page, which then apparently attracted and motivated MastCell to file an Arbitration Enforcement request, over a strict interpretation of the ban. After the request there and here was mooted or fulfilled by the deletion of my statement, he continues attempting to blow this up with the presentation of insupportable assumptions, claims and accusations, a continuation of the disruption. As far as i can tell, Mathsci's interest here is purely partisan and inflammatory. He should be asked to stop. --Abd (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * GoRight can put up all the motions he wishes, but the fact is Abd won't be commenting on this case. There's no real need to remove the motion as it has no effect and it certainly won't be actioned.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, then there's no need for any further discussion. Happy New Year again. :) Mathsci (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to close
The basic request here has been accomplished, and leaving this open just serves as a coatrack for perpetuating disputes without resolving them. Please, will a clerk or other administrator close this discussion? --Abd (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As you wish, I concur in the interests of minimizing any further disruption. --GoRight (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding parties?
What are the rules about adding parties to already filed and voted on requests? Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume you refer to an open RFAR. If the editor clearly ought to be listed as a party, it is usually fine to add him or her yourself. If you think the addition may be disputed, start a new section within the Arbitration request thread and propose that the user be listed. It is better to do this as soon as you are able, because once the case is opened the list of parties cannot be amended except by motion, and so editors cannot be added to the case unless they voluntarily do so or another editor formally proposes so. As a rule of thumb, approach the listing of a new party with common sense, and seek the arbitrators' opinions if you're unsure; and if you're wrong, the Committee will have a clerk revert you :). Please note that as this aspect of procedure is not codified anywhere (though as it probably should be, I've noted it at ), this constitutes advice from me in an individual capacity; others may beg to differ. AGK   14:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Could a clerk please take a look at this statement
Arbitration/Requests/Case – I do not feel that point three is an appropriate statement for anyone to make, and I would appreciate it if a Clerk could help out here. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate comment removed Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits to RfAr request by Captain Occam
has edited Rvcx's RfAr request on the case page five times to add and remove parties. He has informed the parties he has added about the case. I don't know whether this was done by prior arrangement off-wiki with Rvcx. Here are the diffs. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've discussed briefly with a fellow clerk, and unless another clerk or an Arbitrator thinks otherwise, I think we can leave these changes as is for now. My rationale on the diffs are as follows:
 * link 1 adds three parties to remove one of them in links 3 and 4 (which are identical diffs):
 * User:Ncmvocalist (added then removed) has commented (noting as uninvolved);
 * User:Varoon Arya has commented as a result of notification;
 * User:Victor Chmara has not commented.
 * link 2 adds the link to the mediation case: that seems appropriate;
 * link 5 adds the notifications of the parties in link 1: two of the three parties have since commented.
 * If you or any of the parties object to them being added, please let me know, and I will act accordingly. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator Steve Smith - Active on Race and Intelligence case?
Hi, just a quick question... I noticed that Arbitrator Steve Smith is listed as presently Inactive, yet he voted in favour of accepting the Race and Intelligence case. Does this make him Active for the purposes of this particular case, and if so, won't the size of the majority required for motions and the decision have changed? I just thought you might need to update the PD page and its talk page. EdChem (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My fault, I missed that. I'll correct in a few minutes. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

typo in (what I assume) is a subst:ed template
I corrected this typo on the R&I evidence page, but I assume that header is transcluded from some clerking template. If someone has a spare moment, and knows where that template is, well... .  And you thought you had better things to do with your time. -- Ludwigs 2 19:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed by Amory --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested
The special instructions in the climate change arbitration case includes the clause "Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum." For the purposes of the case, does the phrase uninvolved administrator include administrators like BozMo or myself who have been participating in WP:GS/CC/RE without incident? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 07:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I request a Temporary Injunction to remove a user ban for a case?
Is this correct, or is there another faster method? Thanks Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to delete my evidence draft
A speedy keep from a clerk or arb and admonishment towards the nominator, who should know better than to try to delete evidence drafts is requested at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hipocrite/GWCC. Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to Archive?
– It's been quite a few more than 48 hours, and the motion still has not been archived. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This was done 48 hours after this post by Amorymeltzer. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration clerk
The Arbitration clerks would like to welcome User:NuclearWarfare to the clerk team as a trainee! ~ <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 06:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see User_talk:Gimmetoo and ANI. I am objecting to NW clerking. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was certainly appropriate to treat Gimmetoo's claim of being Gimmetrow with a healthy level of suspicion; impersonation of administrators is not uncommon, and it is quite feasible that someone may have wanted to harm Gimmetrow's reputation by getting involved in a heated conflict while pretending to be him. Whether this suspicion needed to be handled with an immediate block, or whether the appropriate investigations could have been carried out while the Gimmetoo account continued to edit, is a question to which different answers might be argued; but, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the block was not a correct response, the Committee is not so fickle as to judge someone on the basis of a mistake made in a good faith attempt to protect the project.  NuclearWarfare retains the Committee's confidence, and will continue in his current role. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Clerks, as there appear to be multiple venues for this discussion, please feel free to cross-post my comment above to any other venue where NW's role is being discussed.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra-long statement
In the current case request: Arbitration/Requests/Case, Blablaaa has just doubled his statement to well over 1000 words now in blatant violation of the 500 word limit. Would a non-recused clerk please notify him of this and if necessary trim the statement accordingly. It is not fair for the rest of us to comply with the word limits while the subject of the request flaunts them. Thanks, -MBK004 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the user's talkpage. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Blablaaa has reduced the statement to just over 500 words by my count (excluding signatures). Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, note that the word limit is not a set in stone policy that must be enforced to the letter. And seeing as Blablaaa is the subject of the RfAr, we have often given a great amount of leeway to such users. The way I look at it is, if the content is relevant and on-topic then I tend not to care as much. Remember the rule was made as a way to prevent too much off-topic (tl;dr) content and to limit the amount of evidence "not-so-involved" users present. Tiptoety  talk 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Offering of my services
I am posting here to let all ArbCom clerks know that I am here and interested in pitching in on any tasks that I can. If there is something I can help with, please do not hesitate to contact me. For the record, feel free to place me on the list of editors interested in becoming a clerk trainee. <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  18:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Please do put me on the list of users interested in becoming a trainee (previous wording left some ambiguity). Thanks, <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  00:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the topic ban of Mathsci did not actually pass
Hello, I just noticed that the vote tally for Mathsci's topic ban (number 6 under the Remedies section) only got 5 of the requisite 6 votes. Under the motion to close, however, it is listed as passing. Maybe I misunderstand something, (I am a newbie) but it looks as though it should be listed under "failed." Thank you, Lo, i am real 19:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching my mistake. I have updated the implementation notes. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm voting on the case this afternoon. I don't think my votes will change any outcomes, but you can double-check me on that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pssst - NW, you were right the first time. Mathsci's topic ban garnered one abstain, so 5 was the required number of supports ;-) Shell   babelfish 19:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Erlag, I'm all flustered now! :) <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything should be clear now. Thanks as always for your help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone close the speed of light clarification?
The vote is 7:0 in favor of topic banning user:Brews ohare for a year, and it would be nice to have that ban kick in sooner than later. Talk pages are exploding all over Wikipedia. 142.167.48.232 (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision
In the absence of the assigned clerk, and because it is quicker to do than to ask other Arb Clerks, I have semi protected the above Proposed decision page. I have sprotected indefinitely, but as I am an involved party I suggest that someone "take over" the responsibility of the protection and the appropriate duration. I have also RevDel one of the vandal edits, but since this is more difficult to assign to another editor I shall desist. I am copying this to all drafting ArbCom members, and the Clerks talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. Risker has protected over you to confirm the legitimacy of your action, in light of you being a party to the case, so this is all settled. Regards, AGK   22:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible influx of POV editing by Israeli settlers
The arbitration case Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying urged editors to forward information about similar instances. There is a thread at WP:AN/I about a very similar case. I think that the committee should be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could a clerk acknowledge that this has been brought to the attention of ArbCom, or if this is the wrong venue, please advise. The thread at ANI has been archived, can be found at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is aware of the issue. Hopefully the community keeping a watchful eye can head off many issues like these and if necessary, the discretionary sanctions active in the area can be used to resolve any behavioral problems.  If this looks like it's going to be an issue of sockpuppets or other similar issues, perhaps giving the checkusers a heads up would be helpful, or at least mentioning the issue if a case comes up. Shell   babelfish 22:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was hoping for a response from a clerk. I am sorry but am IP with only two contributions can't really answer my question. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry - long story short, I'm having problems getting logged out from moment to moment on this computer all of the sudden. Shell  babelfish 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK - thanks Shell. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerking on Climate Change Arbitration Pages
There appears to be a growing concern among some of the participants in the Climate Change case that NW is both aligned with and a supporter of one of the major factions identified in that case. As such it would probably be best for NW to recuse from any further clerking and/or editing of those pages since there are already 2 named clerks assigned to the case. Please consider discussing this point with him. If he has concerns about those pages let him bring it to the attention of the assigned clerks. Could one of the assigned clerks also take over administration of the protection he has set on the main case page merely as a safeguard against future concerns of impropriety (i.e. similar to Risker's actions here)? Thanks. --209.204.73.159 (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the clerks act as a team and although there are two clerks associated with the case, it is regular practice for other clerks to work on and assist on cases, particularly since we all have real lives and peoples availability throughout a case varies and cannot be predicted. The two clerks act as the main point of contact and oversee the whole case but are not solely responsible for a case. A case can occur across a wide number of pages and the more eyes the clerks have to ensure that things are moving forward smoothly the better. There is no need for administration to be passed to anyone in this instance as Nuclearwarfare is not an involved party. I have reviewed his actions and I am happy with how he has conducted himself as a clerk and see no need for him to recuse from the CC case and associated pages. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 17:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, it is hard to take your comments seriously when you choose to edit via an IP to hide your identity username. Tiptoety  talk 17:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And you expect us to take your comments seriously? This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit - not the free encyclopedia that only people you know can edit or else they are "hiding their identity". Until anonymous contributions are no longer welcome, your words are out of place. Additionally, if you have nothing to say about the issue raised then you might consider just shutting up, rather than jumping to attack the person raising the issue. Weakopedia (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have a problem with what is quite likely an established editor possibly involved in the case using an IP address to argue that someone should be recused. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Seddon and Tiptoety, with the slight amendment that athough the clerks do act as a team, recused clerks are considered to be "not part of the team" in respect of the case they have recused from. Having said that, I don't see any evidence to support a claim that NW is not impartial with regards to the climate change topic area or any of its participants. AGK   18:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well as I tried to warn you earlier, things are continuing to escalate regarding accusations of involvement on the part of NW. See, , ,.

While your show of support for NW above is admirable it completely misses the point. The issue is not whether NW actually has or has not done anything improper. That is totally irrelevant to the issue of recusal from a case. Arbitrators recuse all the time and it is never seen as some admission of guilt nor as some scarlet letter on their record. The issue is always about the integrity of the case and avoiding any and all hints of impropriety. So unless there is some significant reason that NW simply has to be a clerk on this case he should recuse and any administrative actions he has performed should be take over by another impartial (as viewed by the participants in the case) clerk.

It is clear that NW has been acting both as an administrator in the CC area (and some claim as an editor there as well) and as such he should not also be acting as an impartial clerk here on the case. He should recuse. And now that the issue has been raised a refusal to recuse will be justifiably viewed with suspicion. --209.204.65.148 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this was brought up on the talk page of the proposed decision as well, I've commented. In short, not going to happen. Shell   babelfish 08:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll echo Shell here: "No."  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
In my statement here. Could someone clean it out? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to say sorry I didn't notice this earlier. I've removed the other editors' comments, left all of yours. Now to see where to put the removed edits (if anywhere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mm goi. Yeah, I wish I'd seen it earlier, myself. By the time I noticed, it was already at the current length. If only we'd caught it after the first comment, it'd have been less confusing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Help needed
We need all clerks to watch Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision and re-establish decorum when things start to get out of hand. Goog faith users including the F-bomb in edit summaries is a sign that the discussion may need to be suspended, or certain participants need to be told to stop their unseemly grave dancing. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi I'd like to volunteer to be a Traineee-Clerk for the ArbCom if anyone will accept me. <font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124; <font color="Teal" face="Trebuchet MS">Champagne?  12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Your request is currently being reviewed internally on the clerks mailing list. We will let you know what the outcome is within a few days. Thank you for volunteering to help. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 06:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Righto, thanks Tiptoety! <font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124; <font color="Teal" face="Trebuchet MS">Champagne?  11:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fridae'sDoom, after a discussion on the clerks mailing list we have come to a consensus that we would like to see you gain some more experience in the area of dispute resolution, and other similar areas before we would feel comfortable offering you the position of ArbClerk. Please understand that we are not saying "no, never", but more of "please try again later." Let me know if you have any questions, Tiptoety  talk 22:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, will do. Thanks, <font color="Red" face="Tahoma">Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124; <font color="Teal" face="Trebuchet MS">Champagne?  08:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change recusals, etc
I note that three arbitrators signaled their recusal from the climate change case. Looking at the Arbitration Committee page I see we have 10 arbitrators listed as active, one of whom (SirFozzie) is among the three who recused. The other two recused arbitrators are listed as inactive.

Also I see that Shell Kinney very recently went inactive so she isn't among the 10. But the proposed decision page says it only has 8 active arbitrators. By my count (take the 10 active and subtract SirFozzie) there should be 9, and possibly up to 11 should both Rlevse and Shell, who have already been very active, return before the case closes.

Could somebody take a look and see if the counts and votes need to be adjusted? I only wanted to see who had not yet voted, but it's too confusing for me to tell. Tasty monster (=TS ) 05:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The list is correct. Shell should have been listed as active on the Arbitration Committee page and I've rectified that. We have two arbitrators who are active generally but not on this case as they were inactive during crucial parts of the case and felt that they should stay inactive on the case even though they are active for new cases. An arbitrator coming back from a break and becoming active only on new cases isn't unusual. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Offering to help
Posting to inform the Clerks that I am available to assist if needed. Please, do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Ronk01  talk  07:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Your request is currently being reviewed internally on the clerks mailing list. We will let you know what the outcome is within a few days. Thank you for volunteering to help. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest in becoming an Arbitration Clerk. After discussion on the clerks' mailing list the consensus is that we would like to see you gain some more experience, particularly in the area of dispute resolution, of which Arbitration is the final stage, as well in as other similar areas before accepting you as a trainee. Your name will be kept on a list of users interested in becoming Arbitration Clerks and your candidacy will be considered again in the future. In the meantime, there is a list of areas where you can help out (which also includes things that should only be done by clerks themselves). Your help in these areas would be useful. If you have any specific questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Autocollapsing expired remedies
Just wondering, what's the market for a template that autocollapses remedies when they expire? I have a sandbox version at User:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox3 if anyone is interested. See User talk:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox3 for examples. T. Canens (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting, but I'm a bit confused on how it would work in practice. Could you show how this would work in a sandbox version of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When you close the case, you wrap remedies that could expire in the template and specify an expiry time (relative time is fine, but if you are doing it afterwards, you need to specify an absolute time or the relative time from the time you added the template). I have some more examples at User:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox4 using the case you suggested. T. Canens (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk assistance requested
Hi folks - Could one of you please post a copy of this section from WP:AC/N to the appropriate other noticeboards? I'm thinking WT:AC, WP:AN, probably a village pump or two. If you have a standard list of places to post, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall post it to WT:AC, WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:VPM, WT:SPI, and WP:VPP. There are a number of other pages that it could be posted to WT:OVERSIGHT, WT:CHECKUSER, and WT:SOCK, but I think this should suffice? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, all of those are a good idea, thanks NuclearWarfare. Risker (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement of uninvolved 67.119.2.101
Arbcom should accept, for reasons given by Casliber, and also per Newyorkbrad's observation that an ANI ban would be appealed here anyway. Georgewilliamherbert's remarks in the ANI thread's uninvolved admin section are also cogent. ANI is not doing a good job handling this so far. Its timescale is too compressed, and it has too little formal structure, for the type of evidence-gathering and presentation needed to get a trustworthy outcome in a dispute like this. The criticism of Stevertigo is coming mostly from those who had past disputes with him or are having them now, and Steve Quinn in my opinion is (in good faith) being a little too aggressive in shaping the discussion. And for whatever reasons, Stevertigo is doing an utterly inept job of defending himself. So there is something of a pile-on by ANI onlookers looking mostly at the arguments of the critics, resulting in an unusually bloodthirsty crowd (compare this to threads about various far more disruptive editors than Stevertigo, who are at ANI repeatedly but have enough supporters to still be left running around loose). I've tried investigating Stevertigo's editing and the past DR a little more neutrally, but that kind of thing is quite time-consuming, so the slower pace of an arb case evidence page is much better suited for such examination.

The most convincing argument for a long-term site ban is Slrubenstein's:
 * ... But if we let him go this time, in a few [m]onths he will settle on some other article - maybe he will come up with his own theory about the etymology for Yom Kippur. Now, how many of you have this article on your watchlist? How many of you will notice it? Probably me and just a few others. And we will bring it up at AN/I and a different group of admins will read over the account of the conflict and say "Well, this seems mild, let's give him another chance." Folks, we have a policy against disruptive editors. Let's use it here.

We've all seen that happen before with other problematic editors. The advantage of arbitration is it allows compiling all the documentation of such repeated disruption into one place. Arbcom can then weigh the evidence and claims and enact appropriate remedies. This is much harder at ANI.

I confess to a sentiment that it's unseemly to boot someone who was around so early in Wikipedia's history through a comparatively sparse ANI thread. There aren't that many of those editors still around (there weren't that many active in those days to begin with). I'd regret losing that much more of Wikipedia's cultural memory, so I think this case is worth a little more trouble than some others are. Stevertigo is under some arb restrictions from the Obama case and as far as I know hasn't run afoul of them (although that's by staying away from the affected articles, so the restrictions may have just moved his antics rather than cured them). He has edited 800+ distinct articles since the amended Obama restrictions in August 2009, and AFAIK the problem editing is in a relative handful of those.

I do believe Stevertigo's heart is with the project even if his editing practices are sometimes in cloud-cuckoo-land. I could never say that of various other editors who have somehow survived these processes and are still busily messing up the encyclopedia. Maybe Slrubenstein is right and Stevertigo really is hopeless, but absent a more formal assessment, I like to think it possible for Stevertigo to continue to participate at some level−through some combination of counselling from arbcom, mentorship from another editor (Maunus has volunteered), editing restrictions, probation, general purpose LART, or whatever.

67.119.2.101 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. AGK   23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change discretionary sanctions

 * This is the substance of a reply I made to Doug Weller in response to a query about articles tagged and not tagged under the new general sanctions. In general those tagged were converted from the superseded community probation that covered the same topic. --TS 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just compiled, from my user contributions, a list of talk pages I tagged. I removed any probation notice as I did these edits.


 * User talk:Tony Sidaway/Discretionary sanctions articles tagged

Here's a list of articles related to climate change that still show up in the whatlinkshere list for the probation template, and need to be converted:


 * User talk:Tony Sidaway/Probation articles tagged

In general those latter articles were off my radar.

There are many articles that technically fall under the general sanctions but have never been tagged. I don't see any sense in tagging them for the sake of it. --TS 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. A clerk ought to take the tagging from here, I think. Regards, AGK   15:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

=Long-term projects=

Workshop guidance
I'm working on a draft at User:MBisanz/Draft for participants to better understand how to use the workshop page in cases. ANy improvements or comments are welcome.  MBisanz  talk 04:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for more information about rejected requests
See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests. Maybe some automation could assist, or maybe it is more effort than it is worth. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Procedures update
The procedures need to be updated.

New Bot
Bjweeks was working on a bot. Anyone here anything from him recently?--Tznkai (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009

Template overhaul
arbcomopentasks is getting mighty crowded. It is now common for us to have 2 clerks per case, and 1 drafting arb. We are likely to have teams of 2 or 3 drafting arbs, and 2 clerks, and that leaves us with 5 initalisms on a tiny tiny template. RfAropentasks needs to be modified to more easily take arbitration related RfCs, requests, and so on; ACA, I hate with a passion; Arbcomnav is underused. All in all, I think we need to overhaul our templates.

So, who here actually knows how to design those things?--Tznkai (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know a lot of people tend to consider me the template guru - I can take a look once I get some free time. What exactly are you thinking of having done? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 01:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion is on-going at Template talk:ArbComOpenTasks; I'd suggest all input be directed there. AGK 14:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd and JzG errors?
For the recently closed Abd and JzG, the Proposed decision page says that for this case there are "14 active Arbitrators (excluding one who is recused and one is inactive), so 8 votes are a majority", but the Proposed decision talk page lists only 13 active arbs for this case, listing Coren and FloNight as inactive for the case and FayssalF as recused. So which is correct? And which numbers were used to determine passing proposals? Paul August &#9742; 18:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more questions. I'm curious to know how it was determined that principle 2.1 had more support than 2? And a related question, why are there no implementation notes for this case? Paul August &#9742; 18:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To the first question: 14 arbitrators is correct; FloNight has returned to active (cf. ).
 * To the second: principle 2.1 had a lower quantity of support votes, but crucially, (a) it nonetheless met the 8 vote minimum; and (b) was the first preference for two arbitrators. I'd be inclined to agree with the closing clerk that principle 2.1, rather than 2, ought to have passed.
 * On implementation notes: I have no idea why there are no notes, as I'm not the closing clerk. It may be that the case clerk, who is currently on wikibreak due to RL busyness and computer issues (see above), did not have time to author them. That's obviously not ideal, though. I've noticed that, recently, the Committee seems to be voting to close before the implementation notes have been authored; this marks a departure from how they were originally intended to operate, and an examination of whether that's a sensible approach might be necessary.
 * AGK 14:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. FloNight's message above occurred after the case closed. On May 14, Flo, indicates above that she is to be marked away on all cases she hasn't voted on, Sam Korn, marked her inactive on the case on the 15th, the case closed on the 18th and her message above is dated May 19th. So it would appear that she should be considered to have been inactive for this case. In any case the proposed decision page says that there are 14 active, while the talk page lists 13 active arbs &mdash; this discrepancy needs to be fixed.
 * As for P2 vs P2.1, the two "first choices" for 2, would seem to be offset by the two opposes for 2.1 by Carcharoth and Stephen Bain, surely 2.1 was also their "first choice", no? I'd have called it a tie.
 * Paul August &#9742; 15:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was inactive on the Abd and JzG case. I should have been marked inactive on the case since I had not voted on it before leaving town, and did not request to go active again until after the case closed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Response from the case's clerk: Sorry for the delayed response, but I responded as soon as possible from a public computer. I hope that these responses answer your questions. However, this was only my second case, and if there are issues or problems, please let me know. <font face="times new roman"> hmwith τ   17:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There are no implementation notes, because both of the clerks assigned to the case (one of whom was myself) were inactive. I have no computer whatsoever at the moment (mine broke, see my userpage). I made a note of this on the noticeboard (a few sections above this, as AGK notes). I was hoping that someone else would take care of things, but I'm sure everyone else was busy with their own cases, and it didn't happen. However, when I got on a public computer & saw that it was definitely ready to close (and no one else was doing anything), I closed it.
 * 2) As for 2 & 2.1, I noted here (on the proposed decision talk page) that 2.1 supercedes 2, and I don't think there was anything in 2 that 2.1 didn't cover. However, situations like that are judged by the clerk on an individual basis.
 * 3) I don't think that changing from 14 to 13 would change any of the results of the votes (off of the top of my head), so, although there was a mistake, I do not think it changed the result(s) of the case.


 * Thanks for the response, sorry about your computer problems. I think the 14 vs 13 error, occurred when Sam Korn moved FloNight to inactive but forgot to update the Proposed decision page. As you say, I don't think that it affected the results.
 * Concerning P2 vs 2.1, in my opinion, the outcome was essentially a tie, and in situations like that the arbs should be pressed to make the decision clear. What you certainly don't want to do, as you seem to be ("I don't think there was anything in 2 that 2.1 didn't cover"), is substitute your views of the content of the proposals for that of the arbs. I don't think it's a particularly big deal in this instance &mdash; although Carcharoth and Stephen Bain might think otherwise &mdash; but it could be in some other.
 * Paul August &#9742; 17:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it should have been updated. Apologies -- I did every other case!
 * We do need to clarify what "first choice" and "second choice" mean. I'm sure I can't work it out.  By my count, there are three who preferred 2 (Stephen Bain, Vassayana, Carcharoth) and three who preferred 2.1 (Rlevse, Risker, Sam Blacketer) and five who expressed no preference (NYB, Jayvdb, Casliber, Kirill, Wozardman).
 * [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 18:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No apologies necessary Sam, we all slip up (and I know you did the others right cause I checked up on you ;-) and on 2 vs 2.1 your count agrees with mine &mdash; a tie. Paul August &#9742; 18:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, asking arbs to clarify was a bit different than how I was taught to close by other current clerks, who told me that it's pretty much a judgment call with situations like 2, 2.1, etc. when they all pass by numbers. I was told that all would pass if they were independent, and if one supercedes another, both don't need to pass. <font face="times new roman"> hmwith τ   21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You should never hesitate to ask the arbs when things are at all unclear. The implementation notes are, in effect, asking the arbs if they agree with your interpretation of what is passing and what is not. And the purpose of the implementation notes is to avoid situations just like this one. Given two alternative proposals (as here) only one can pass, even if both receive a majority of support votes, in which case one can speak of one of the proposals "superseding" the other. So what you write above is correct &mdash; as far as it goes. But the issue here is, how do you decide which proposal supersedes which? The procedure is to try to determine, taking into account preferential voting, as indicated by arb comments (e.g. "first choice", "second choice", "no preference" etc.), which proposal has the most support. Usually it is clear, sometimes it is not &mdash; in which case you should ask the arbs to clarify. But sometimes, as happened here, the proposals have essentially the same amount of support &mdash; in which case it is up to the arbs (perhaps with a sharp elbow in the ribs ;-) to take some further action before the case can be closed. Some situations can be a bit complicated and non-obvious at times, but judgment (as I understand the word in this context) shouldn't really enter in to it. All issues of judgment should be left to the arbs, the clerks should make decisions based solely on procedural grounds. Does that make sense? Paul August &#9742; 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, since there seems to be agreement that the total number of active arbs should be 13, I've edited the Proposed decision page accordingly. Paul August &#9742; 19:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now that it has been discussed, do arbs, clerks, or other regulars think that should I make any changes to how it was closed? <font face="times new roman"> hmwith τ   17:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RANDARB passes too
passed at 10-0, pls close. Tks. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm clearly not keeping up with the acronyms adequetely; I had no idea what randarb was. Anyway, it's now closed. AGK 20:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He was referring to Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand, and I have ✅ this. Tiptoety  talk 23:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to update Arbitration/Active sanctions accordingly. Cheers, <font face="Goudy Old Style"> Skomorokh  13:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Thank you for the reminder. Tiptoety  talk 04:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of administrator misconduct RFAR
The Allegations of administrator misconduct could probably be speedy closed now. The nominator has withdrawn, and with a 0/6/0/0 tally, it's clear that this case is going nowhere. ( X! ·  talk )  · @741  · 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as such it has been ✅. Tiptoety  talk 18:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientology fixes
I've made several fixes to Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision and to the Requests for arbitration/Scientology. Please review, thanks. Paul August &#9742; 17:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion to amend "West Bank - Judea and Samaria" removed prematurely?
The motion to amend the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case has been marked as enacted and removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment here having received only 7 votes in support even though the majority needed appears to have been 8, see motion. Paul August &#9742; 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but with NYB abstaining that brings the majority down to 7 . Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 22:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With Sam's resignation we now have 15 arbs. NYB recused, which means that for this motion there are 14 active arbs, which gives a majority of 8. Paul August &#9742; 02:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I now see that Fayssal was also recused on the original case, making the number of active arbs 13 for this motion, giving a majority of 7, so all is apparently well. Sorry for the confusion. Paul August &#9742; 02:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification regarding Shell Kinney's Arbcom Case "ban"
Please see User talk:Shell Kinney. I am sorry but I cannot see any conduct from Shell so "disruptive" as to warrant an immediate 7 day ban from an ArbCom case with no prior warning. Manning Bartlett gives very little justification for his action and supplies not a single diff. Shell is a longstanding contributor who deserves better treatment than this and to ban people from cases for expressing forthright views could have a dangerous chilling effect on future discussion.

Normally I would obviously have taken the matter up with Manning in the first instance but as he appears to have left the project - having deleted his user and talkpage and surrendered his admin rights - that course of action does not appear open to me. I do not think Manning's ban can stand if he is not going to be around to justify his reasons for imposing it. Perhaps an uninvolved clerk could look into this and either (a) confirm the ban and provide good reasons why it is justified or (b) acknowledge that Shell may resume participation in relation to that case if she wishes to do so. Thanks, <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the ban. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with lifting the case page ban and was coming here to do it after seeing WJBscribe's comment on Shell's talk page. In the future, I suggest that discussion occur with users prior to giving page bans except for the most egregious offense that would get a page ban on any page. As well, when a clerk gets feedback from arbs and clerks that a sanction is too harsh, I urge them to lift the ban instead of forcing other people to over ride them and do it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Similar thing happened to me, with as little warning and less justification, and it wasn't lifted (ArbCom didn't even answer my appeal). I guess I should have lobbied better. :/ Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom did answer: on 3 November, within three hours of you sending it, and again on 8 November.  Roger Davies  talk 04:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shell did not approach me. I saw the comments on her and Manning's talk page and felt that it needed to be reviewed by arbs. Around the same time, Manning started a thread on the clerks mailing list about the page ban. All in all, Manning has done a good job keeping order on a difficult case. But in this instance, his interpretation of the situation did not match that of most other people reviewing it so it was reversed. That is the way the process is suppose to work. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deacon, surely you had a warning from Rlevse? Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That message was sent a month before about a different matter, and although it was rude and contained lots of nonsense allegations, I heeded it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok, sorry if I've added any confusion. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Flo, I didn't mean to imply anyone here was lobbied directly, 'twas merely away of saying that I'm not up on my wiki-politics. I agree Shell's ban was bad, but no worse than mine (leaving me feeling a bit screwed). In my case I simply complained about a participant's behaviour, misunderstood some clerk "instructions", got banned without warning and then got ignored when I tried to have it looked at. Pure caprice, no? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reread your email, Deacon of Pndapetzim. Based on the wording, I got the impression that you would not be upset if the Committee did not reverse your page ban. So, I'm surprised to see you making this comment, now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's the difference between being treated harshly and treated unfairly, if you understand me. If the setup there had to be strict, then that's the way it had to be, and I'm sympathetic to that. I'm less sympathetic when it looks like it's only strict for me. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Only strict only on you? Riiight. Everybody was treated exactly the same way, strick but fair. Go check the log of the bans. Loosmark (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With the exception of Shell, apparently. --Martin (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shell did not approach me either.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Out right page bans are pretty big deals. I've found suggesting them as motions can work.--Tznkai (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My first thought is that that can take too long if the ban is to prevent disruption. The problem here seems to have been both lack of warning and length of the ban. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerks have a very large toolbox at their disposal. Refactoring, removing,, short term bans, blocks, and plain old pleading and cajoling to name a few,. Long term bans essentially kick someone out of the proceeding entirely: eliminating them as a source of information. How participants and non participants act is an excellent source of information for the committee, depriving them of it should only be done with at the very least, their foreknowledge, if not their consent.--Tznkai (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An additional thought on the matter, it is very helpful to have these things centralized. I don't mean to imply that clerks shouldn't use their discretion to control problematic conduct, because they should. When it comes to booting someone out of the case entirely, its a dramatic step that is best done at center stage with everyone looking over your shoulder.--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - I thought you were including short term bans in your suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Shell's interaction with Jehochman didn't seem to contribute anything relevant to the case, she was basically flaming him. Manning had made clear instructions on how users should conduct themselves on the case pages. Manning's actions, while tough, did preserve order and kept the page on topic. WJBscribe states Shell is a long standing editor and deserves better, but Manning has been with the project since 2001, being user #100. I think my right not to have my case muddied with off-topic comment outweighs Shell's right to flame Jehochman on an issue not directly related to the Proposed decision. It is sad that some members of the Committee did not support Manning and evidently he, a user since 2001, has now quit the project because this. --Martin (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The timing is strange, but is this tiny incident really a reason an editor so experienced and dedicated would suddenly vanish?? What's going on? Manning, please come back - we need you... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidently the Committee believes un-banning Shell from a soon to close ArbCom case page is worth the loss of someone of Manning's caliber. --Martin (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish others gave Manning more credit for weeks of his daily stress over the runaway train called the EEML case. There was no other way to stay on top, but to nip some threads in the bud. All he did was to look at a broader picture, when trying to prevent further developments; and, the sky wasn’t falling because a couple of good people were sent on a short vacation from yet another trap. However, Manning had every right to feel let down when his prolonged and exhausting effort was publicly put into doubt in the end. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there anywhere else on Wikipedia where editors can ban other editors just on a whim?  Majorly  talk  22:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom case pages are not main space. ArbCom cases are notorious for their slug fests. Manning had published clear instructions on the conduct of the case pages and the consequences of non compliance. Shell was flaming Jehochman on the case page in violation of the rules established at the beginning. Manning acted correctly and decisively. --Martin (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So are RfA, ANI, etc. Manning isn't the big boss.  Majorly  talk  23:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ArbCom case pages are different, with different rules. Manning is a Clerk and is responsible for maintaining order. An ArbCom case ban does not reflect on anyone's record. Shell's ban is a petty matter in my view, the real scandal is the apparent preference to see Manning quit the project because of it. --Martin (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Everywhere.--Tznkai (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For example? I thought bans required community consensus (I understand such a concept might be difficult for arbcom to imagine, of course).  Majorly  talk  23:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * People boot eachother out of their userspace all the time for example. BLP enforcement can lead to a nearly endless permutation of bans. Blocks and unblock conditions are essentially done "at a whim" they just happen to be supported.--Tznkai (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) Over years of EE-related proceedings where I have been told, for example, that Latvians were glad for Nazi guns to kill Jews and such offensive comments passed as normal discourse, Manning was the first to enforce decorum. If such enforcement at the EEML case has led to Manning's retiring then it is a searing indicment of WP's conflict resolution mechanisms. I hope other factors were involved. I regret some of the piling up on Manning I see in the conversation above. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 23:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If I am not mistaken (I can not confirm now due to deleted user page), Manning claimed he was an exopedian and made a significant number of contributions anonymously. Hopefully, the project did not lose him completely. (Igny (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

It is with some trepidation I make this post, as I despise drama. But for clarity here I'll summarise some things.
 * My motives at all time were to keep order, without bias or inconsistency. EEML has been an embittered case as most are aware. I'm particularly pleased that this has been confirmed above by some of those who were on the receiving end of sanctions.
 * My assessment of the Shell situation that an editor who had not participated in the case previously had arrived and opened with what appeared to be a flaming statement of another editor over an issue unrelated to the case. Perhaps I was mistaken, but based on past experience this raised huge red flags for me and I acted swiftly. My actiond were consistent with those I had made previously in similar circumstances.
 * A number of arbs and clerks felt my call was incorrect, and I have no issue with that, nor do I have any issue withthe ban being overturned by an Arb. Clerks are deputies for the arbs and it is entirely appropriate that that are free to overturn clerk actions. If my interpretation of Shell's motives were wrong, they they were wrong and I will gladly apologise.
 * None of the above was the cause of my sudden retirement. The retirement was caused by truly hurtful and frankly outrageous accusations of bias made to me offline. We all make mistakes, and if I misread Shell's intentions then I am truly sorry - I was merely trying to maintain order in what has been an truly difficult case to manage. However I have never been motivated by bias. Criticism is fine, but to have my basic motives cast into disrepute by people I had otherwise trusted was simply too outrageous for me to tolerate.
 * On an unrelated note, but out of an honest desire to clean up at least one loose end - Deacon felt aggrieved that I applied an "Arbcom wide" ban instead of a simple case ban. My reasoning at the time was that I felt because of the ban Deacon would try to "spread drama" throughout ArbCom space. In hindsight (based on Deacon's conduct since the ban expired) this was a total misjudgement and I would like to sincerely apologise to Deacon for that.

I would be grateful if there is no further discussion here, as drama is not what this project is about and it is certainly something I have never courted. I wish you all well. Manning (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I know Manning doesn't want anybody to make comments but I just can't keep silent on this. I have not always agreed with Manning, in fact we disagreed many times but I always found his conduct highly professional and totally impartial and with time I've learned to appreciate his no nonsense approach to things. I also think he did a great job clerking the case under the most difficult of circumstances and in fact I am pretty sure that almost everybody shares my opinion. So I'd just like to say one thing: shame on the person who accused Manning offline and didn't have the balls to address him publicly. If you have any honor make a public apology to Manning. Loosmark (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Loosmark, it is wrong for you to speak of "shame" and "apology" when you don't know the facts. Perhaps the criticisms were just? Perhaps there was a misunderstanding? Perhaps Manning is being over-sensitive, and is over-reacting? Perhaps he is exaggerating? You've only heard one side of the story. And as for a lack of "balls", discretion does not mean cowardice. Are you suggesting there is no place for private criticism? Not knowing the facts means you are not in a position to judge these matters. Paul August &#9742; 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be placing all the blame upon Manning, like he is not deserving of an apology. Being a user since 2001 indicates to me he is not overly sensitive, one has to have a thick skin to survive around here. I really have to question the sense of perspective of some who think maintaining Shell's unblemished "record"and an Arb case ban is really of no consequence anyway, it's just a mechanism to maintain order is seen as more important than the reputation of long standing users of the calibre of Manning. --Martin (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * re to Paul August: That's exactly what am I saying. The off-wiki acusations against Manning were completely out of line. Everybody who ever interacted with Manning knows that his impartiality is beyond any doubt. Loosmark (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone. What I'm saying is that no one should be passing judgement without knowing the facts of the matter. Paul August &#9742; 21:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why doesn't the person who acused him off-wiki explain us "the facts"? I find it appalling that he/she keeps quiet even after Manning left the project. Loosmark (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue could have been resolved quietly, and the ban lifted without fanfare. Manning was a spokesman for a team, and should have been supported by them in public, because he helped them stay on track. This is sort of like EEML members who trusted not to be betrayed by their own kind. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  23:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we don't know all the facts and I certainly will not ask Manning to reveal anything, I would suggest that whatever was the mechanism that brought about the offline accusations be dealt with so we don't continue to lose valuable long-standing members of the Wikipedia community whom all&mdash;at least publicly&mdash;have thanked for their dedication and objectivity. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 23:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Manning has disabled e-mail, and I would myself feel really stupid leaving a message on his page with the "retired" template in place, but I do think it would be a good idea if someone who could contact Manning did so, so that we could determine if there would be any way of dealing with similar events in the future. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Manning's retirement is a great loss to the project. Hopefully he will reconsider his decision. Wishing him the best. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A sufficiently strong off wiki accusation to cause this might well count as an attempt to interfere with an ongoing arb com case, and would seem to me one of the few circumstances that might merit disclosure of the email to arb com; I hope that has happened & that they find some way of taking it into account. .    DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with DGG. Also if unaddressed this could lead to a dangerous precedent on how to put pressure/eliminate clerks during cases. Loosmark (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The criticism was not made by a party or other interested third party to the case, so I don't think that we need to worry about anything from that angle. AGK 12:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you know that? Loosmark (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is the party responsible? It's no secret that Shell Kinney was flaming me when Manning banned her.  I very much regret that Manning has now left.  The person responsible ought to step forward and take ownership of their actions as this might help convince Manning to return.  In the past I've disagreed with Manning, so I do see why anybody would accuse him of being biased in favor of me, but you never know what makes some people tick. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Manning has apparently left Wikipedia, and has shut down the email account by which his colleagues and the Arbitration Committee were in contact with him. Therefore, we are unable to ask him to what he is referring in his statement above. We have had no indication or information that he was being unduly pressured by any parties to this case. Should Manning choose to return under his registered account in the future, we will make inquiries; however, like every editor here, he has the right to leave and we need to respect that he has chosen to disengage. Speculating on the intent of his words is not helpful to anyone. Risker (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely concur. However, if the offending party is known per AGK, they bear responsibility for grossly uncivil behavior at the least. Being how freely everyone has shared the personal Emails at the EEML proceeding to indict editors, it would be hypocritical to state that the instigator of Manning's departure is immune because it was off-Wiki contact that precipitated events. Let's not play double standards here. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 15:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. It's been my observation that egregiously uncivil behavior results in a summary one-year WP ban. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 15:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you check that it is not one from your group who did that? Would you keep pressing this issue if that was indeed one of you? Manning did not leak the identity of the alleged offender, so it is far from being double standards. (Igny (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Of course I would keep pressing. The double standard is in using personal off-Wiki communications to initiate on-Wiki actions in one case, and not in another (potentially, here), plain and simple. My point is that the precedent has been established. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle, and if that is a cause of consternation for some, they should have considered the unintended consequences of their actions.
 * Lastly, if I were the individual responsible for Manning's leaving I'd ban myself. I hope that is clear enough, and I regret your implications that one of my "group" might have somehow been responsible and that I play favorites in my expectations of proper conduct. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that you came to a completely wrong conclusion with respect to the EEML case. If you think that case allowed everyone to go around waving the case findings and decisions and demand that someone disclose what he/she wrote in private email to someone else, that could not be a proper conduct in any circumstances. Indeed, the precedent was established not to ignore leaked private correspondence if it is considered (by someone) to be hurting Wikipedia and that has to be decided on case by case basis. That does not mean however that the privacy is no longer important for Wikipedia. (Igny (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Dear Igny, privacy is  not a case-by-case matter , either it is upheld in all cases or it is meaningless. Off-Wiki correspondence of an allegedly egregious nature is admissible, or it is not, period. And in the EEML case, "leaked" intead of "hacked" is in the eyes of the accusers and justification for (IMHO convenient and more importantly necessary to protect Wikipedia) contentions of acts of conscience. If there is a recognition that the genie ought to have better remained in the bottle, then there's a simple first step, and that is to consider the EEML case only on the basis of on-Wiki edits and conduct. If there's not enough evidence on-Wiki to ascertain improper conduct in the absence of the purported EEML archive, then the whole EEML archive is just one big red herring. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Vecrumba, please do not instrumentalize the unfortunate retirement of Manning Bartlett to advance your point about the inadmissibility of mailing lists as evidence. There is enough drama already at the EEML arbcom case pages, no need to have it here on this page, too. Pantherskin (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I got your point, Vecrumba, and I understand your request for that person to step out of the closet. However the issue here should remain between Manning and that other person. And if ArbCom has any information on that, it should deal with that using same discretion as with respect to the correspondence between the EEML members and ArbCom in the EEML case. And I agree to Pantherskin that this debate does not belong here. (Igny (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Please not another round of the EEML debates. The situation here is quite clear, Manning was attacked off-wiki with "outrageous accusations of bias" (his wording). Whoever did that, it was improper. Period. Since an Admin hinted somewhere above that he has more info I think it would be good thing to share it. The community wants to know who bullied Manning out. Loosmark (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I am in no way intending to create drama, only to arrive at the following point: if privacy is appropriately upheld, then whatever Email precipitated Manning's departure is not admissible, and there is nothing else to do in this matter and it is closed, regardless of our personal needs or wants to find a scapegoat or to punish someone. The only option is that the person responsible freely steps forward themselves. (While I agree with Loosmark's sentiments directly above, privacy is the more important issue.) If we continue to disrespect and violate privacy, then the drama here over Manning's departure and other events into the future will continue. As long as ArbCom does not state that personal privacy and private Emails are inviolable (as they are, legally) regardless of circumstances , WP will be subject to drama as well as, in my opinion but I am NOT a lawyer, violating U.S. and other laws. My professional work includes data privacy and security, the landscape of laws and regulations in force now is far different and far more stringent than a decade ago. Enforcing privacy or not is no longer a choice, and I hope someone at the Wikipedia Foundation wakes up to that matter before the house comes crashing down one day. I'm not creating drama here, I witness the panic in corporate board rooms over data privacy and PII (personally identifiable information) protection issues. Or does no one here actually care whether or not Wikipedia volunteers may be putting Wikipedia in legal jeopardy?
 * This is purely selfish, I wish to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. The question is not whether or not to ban me as the result of the EEML proceedings. The question is, whether or not I am so banned, will there be a Wikipedia to continue to contribute to? <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 17:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Casliber has asked for publicity and notices regarding the dash proposal
Please see this request by User:Casliber that the finalizing of the dash proposal be broadcasted far and wide to noticeboards by clerks or uninvolved editors. I made a post 'Dash proposal has been finalized for voting (though July 14)' at AN to get the ball rolling. He also requested that individuals be notified (I assume, the participants in the RFAR of May 5 and maybe some other discussion). If any clerks are around, perhaps they could read Casliber's request and do any needed follow-up to individuals. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a list somewhere of who should be notified? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the RFAR did not complain about named people. No sanctions were requested against individuals, so I think that placing notices on various boards should suffice. Most likely an announcement is needed at WT:MOS. Let's hope that people have seen the injunction against "..article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange". It looks as though Casliber has already notified User:Tijfo098, who opened the RFAR. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Remedy update under consideration
There is an omnibus motion to update older remedies to be in line with the new standard discretionary sanctions under consideration in my userspace; everyone is welcome to comment but clerk input in particular would be valuable to see if there are any glaring holes or problems with the current draft. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions motion
Hi, we have a new motion at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. It would be good to notify a few places to ensure this doesnt surprise people. Thanks, John Vandenberg (chat) 20:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dropped a note on the talk page of every affected case as well as WP:AN. I think that should suffice. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Please
Can someone help resolve the issue of removal of sources from this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipa_Moniz_PerestreloColon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)