Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

cs interwiki request

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english wikipedia has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Wikipedia (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo ⁺ 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo ⁺ 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the [[ru:Википедия:Арбитражный комитет]] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo ⁺ 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

• One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo ⁺ 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Slimvirgin-Lar

A few weeks back I pointed out out that a case had been reported as closed with a sanction passing when there didn't seem to be enough supporting votes for that sanction to have passed. I expect this has been resolved one way or another but I'm a little concerned that the findings in that case seem to have been used as contributory factors in remedies in a later case. Does anyone know whether this situation was properly resolved? Thanks 92.39.200.36 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks incorrect to me. Thatcher 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Matthew Brown and Jpgordon don't seem to have bothered to have shown up at all even though they were listed as "active", so in reality the "active" number should probably be 9. There probably needs to be a better way to determine who's "inactive" and "active", though. 96.15.121.254 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrators have a responsibility to declare if they intend to have nothing to do with a particular case. There is no precedent for the clerks to declare non-voting arbs as "inactive" or "recused" after X number of days of non-voting. Thatcher 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a new standard be applied retroactively, but that going forward a better system might be more appropriate. It seems paradoxical to require some action to be be deemed "inactive" and no action to be deemed "active". Would the reverse not be better? Perhaps the arbitrators could demonstrate their active status by actually being active. As a first approximation those who vote to accept/decline a case, participate in workshop and/or vote could be deemed active, and the rest inactive. 96.15.121.254 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Thatcher's comment that it "looks incorrect", almost everything about the case was "incorrect". It needs to be heard again, in the open this time.

Evidence was presented (and should be presented again in public)

1. that SlimVirgin went through private channels to no avail before the issue came to the mailing list, and that it wasn't she who brought it to the mailing list in the first place;[1]
2. that Lar received an email from me saying that I couldn't see how the check was justified (and none saying that it was), but then went ahead and posted on the private CU mailing list that I had admitted to him that it was justified;[2]
3. that Lar justified his passing on of my personal information to his wife by claiming that his wife had had a history of communication with me and a role of offering me advice and counsel, based on statements I had made to both of them,[3] when in fact I had had ZERO encounter with her and had never sent her a message or received one from her.

They cannot abuse the "need for privacy" by pretending that this evidence did not exist. They have forced me to out myself, by ignoring my private requests for clarification, and by using my privacy as a pretext for not dealing with the case on-wiki. Okay. I have outed myself. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important keeping safe. There's no longer any pretext to hush it up. Let's have the truth! ElinorD (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel in an awkward position here. On the one hand, I want to take the desysopping on the chin, because doing otherwise is somewhat cheesy. On the other hand, if this had happened to anyone else, I'd be speaking up for them.

My concern is basically that the Lar case was a real mess. Evidence was heard in private and was kept back even from the parties so that none of us knew what was being said. We couldn't check that other evidence submitted was accurate, and no "cross examination" could take place. Then FT2 posted a decision about me that was factually incorrect. My recollection is he said I hadn't taken any dispute-resolution steps other than to write to the mailing list — but I had and I also hadn't started the mailing list thread. I wrote to him correcting it. He didn't respond, and so far as I know didn't correct the finding. I tried to post a defence of myself on the talk page, but it was removed, as were comments from other editors who'd expressed concern, and the talk page was protected.

I gave up, because my faith in ArbCom was at an all-time low, and I decided just to let the findings stand and try to ignore the whole thing. I didn't even look to see whether it had been closed properly; I'm now concerned to read above that it wasn't.

Because FT2 used that case a few weeks later as the backdrop to his arguments to desysop me, and because he himself wrote the inaccurate finding, I'm starting to think it ought to be reheard in public. I don't think anyone who saw all the evidence would agree that it was handled fairly or appropriately. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are too many flaws in how this was handled for any result to be recognized as legitimate. Direct questions were never answered; some of the arbs misused the result in the recent de-sysop; and now the closing was done improperly? Sorry, not a huge surprise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - as stated, your logic here is incorrect. When considering a case, the question "was warning given to change, and that warning apparently ignored" is relevant. It was - in a remarkable and highly unusual four separate arbcom cases. It is not necessary to re-open the cases, and re-open the decision-making in them, to ascertain "was the user told formally that their conduct was seriously substandard and needed improvement". You have been told this on 4 occasions now. The conclusion is, telling alone was insufficient. Apparently the sitting committee felt that too, since they decided upon the remedies they did. You've had this concept explained several times; I'm happy to keep on explaining it if you cannot fathom the idea yet.

As for interpretation of what is likely, possible, probably, and appropriate going forward in the SV-Lar case, as I think I've said, we may need to agree to differ. If problems recur, we would of course reassess with this case in mind, but if they don't, it's more likely historical. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me which sentence from which email (you've seen them all) from me to Lar admitted that the CU was justified. Not only did I not say that, but I said the opposite. And he didn't post just that he believed I accepted the check, but he said specifically that I had admitted to him that it was justified. If you refuse to point out the relevant sentence, please admit that you and the other arbs know that Lar's claims (on the private CU list which he knew I couldn't access) were untruthful, and that you don't have a problem leaving untruthful people in a position of access to extremely confidential and sensitive information.

When you have answered that, please state whether or not SlimVirgin submitted evidence that she had tried private resolution to no avail before going public (and that in any case it was David Katz, not she, who brought it to the mailing list), and whether, in that case, the public findings that state or imply the contrary are inaccurate and unjust.

Those two questions are so simple. Can you answer them? ElinorD (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are happy to be rid of that case. I didn't follow it but I think it ran for a long time. If so, why didn't you present your evidence then? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The case was to be heard "in private". So I presented my evidence in private, to the committee. I couldn't have known that they were going to ignore it. When I tried publicly requesting explanations for Lar's false statements, finally realising that the committee intended to pass over them, I got criticised for doing so when Lar couldn't answer because he was protecting my privacy. (He could have answered by private email, which I had originally requested.) Then I waived my privacy, as did the other two affected editors. There were still no answers. The case closed, and I wrote to the committee asking that since they had chosen not to address the issues of Lar's false statements, they would please inform me of which parts of the evidence had made them satisfied that the statements were not false. I got a reply back from James Forrester, saying that they were still discussing it and that hopefully I'd get a reply within a day or two. That was a month ago, and I have heard nothing since. ElinorD (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Experienced users will note that the only other things most will ever submit "in private" are their secret board-vote ballots. At least for that one gets some form of encrypted receipt to confirm that their vote is being counted. Here, nothing. — CharlotteWebb 18:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If there was a clerical mistake, then clearly it should be corrected. Otherwise, I would simply ask the committee to settle these claims, which continue to be brought across multiple forums. I assume that the committee did not ignore ElinorD's contentions, but heard them and considered whether they warranted a finding. All the same, it seems that something is needed to clarify whether editors should continue to argue these points, or if in fact the claims have now exhausted Wikipedia's final stage of dispute resolution. Until that happens, I will note that the merits of these claims were most recently discussed here. Mackan79 (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds do you assume that the committee "did not ignore [my] contentions"? Do you really think that I would be raising it in public like this if they had answered my e-mails. Before I went public as Wikitumnus, I wrote and begged them not to put me in the position of attracting unwanted attention, but pointed out that the findings were inaccurate and unjust and that I would be obliged to come forward if they left them to stand. I got no answer. I've been forced to out myself, but I went into this with my eyes open, so perhaps people could now stop claiming that answers can't be given because they're "protecting [my] privacy" - as if they couldn't have answered in private, which was what I originally requested. ElinorD (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume it basically because if ArbCom doesn't review evidence that is submitted to it, even after it was requested, then a new case won't be of much benefit anyway. One thing I don't question is that ArbCom is uncoordinated and ineffective when it comes to communication, and in fact I think they should have done much more to address your concerns for your benefit and for others'. The failure to do so is in my view careless and irresponsible. However, that doesn't make your claims correct. Incidentally, I would still appreciate the ability to email you about this as I believe your actions here are unfair to others in ways that you do not realize but which are much better discussed by email. Mackan79 (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the response for most of this, as before, was "asked and answered" [4]. Cla68 (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No Cla, it was not. Nowhere does Newyorkbrad deal with the issue of Lar lying to his fellow CUs by stating that I had admitted to him that the check was justified, when I had said exactly the opposite. I asked for clarification from the committee in private emails. No attempt has been made to explain it. If I really did say that to him, or if I really said something that could have been misinterpreted that way as an honest error, they'd find it easy (as would Lar) to identify the relevant sentence and point it out to me. Cla, do *you* think Newyorkbrad has dealt with the issue of Lar lying about my views on the check? If not, do you think that he (or someone else) *should*? If a CU carries out a check which other CUs find somewhat iffy (to say the least), receives an email from the affected editor saying that she doesn't see how the check could be justified, then posts in response to questions on the private CU list that the affected editor admitted to him that the CU was justified, is that or is that not a problem? ElinorD (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NYB said in his comments, "My review of the correspondence reflects that this is not a matter of lies by one side or the other, as some have characterized it, but comes down primarily to a matter of miscommunications—regrettable, but not venal; unfortunate, but not actionable." Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that, Cla, and do not feel it deals at all with the issue. And I might gently suggest that if SlimVirgin, rather than Lar, were the one whose honesty was being questioned, you would certainly not accept Newyorkbrad's unexplained statement that it was "miscommunication". I wrote to the committee just after the case ended, asking that someone would explain to me (even in private) which parts of the emails submitted in evidence had led them to adopt that view (a view which I do not believe they sincerely adopted). I received a reply about five days later, saying that they were still discussing my email and I would hopefully get a reply within a day or two. I am still waiting. That was over a month ago.

Besides, Newyorkbrad's comment relates to the issue of how well Lar's wife and I knew each other. It does not relate to the fact that Lar told the private CU mailing list that I had admitted to him that the check was justified. When he wrote that (knowing that I couldn't see it), I had emailed him twice (and I never communicated with him by any other means). In the first message I didn't mention my views on the check. In the second, I said that it had been a mistake to revert vandalism on Crum375's page, because that would lead trolls and stalkers to start speculating on my identity, but that it could never have occurred to me that it would lead to a usercheck, because my understanding of the policy was that there had to be a valid suspicion of abuse, and there was none in this case.

Again and again, I ask this question: how could that statement on the CU list have been honest? Somebody from ArbCom, please tell me which sentence(s) of the two emails which you saw from that period led you to believe that Lar could have been justified in making that claim. If I ask in private, I get no answer. If I ask in public, I'm told, tut tut, smack smack, bad form to raise this in public when he can't defend himself without violating my privacy. So what can I do? My privacy is gone anyway. The arbitrators destroyed it by refusing to address the matter in private. Only a few days ago, Morven posted that the problem with that case was that parties were making allegations on the talk page while other parties couldn't defend themselves because of the privacy policy. Morven, you have my email address; you have copies of the emails I sent Lar. When I get a satisfactory answer in private, I'll certainly be able to stop raising it in public. I waited seven months before going public, and only did so after a heartfelt email to the committee BEGGING them not to force me was ignored. ElinorD (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ElinorD, in your post here as Wikitumnus, you claimed on one of the case pages that one reason you thought I had emailed Lar was because you had seen me "trying to get SlimVirgin sanctioned for blocking Wordbomb." I have pointed out that this is incorrect and unsupported by any comment that I made, but you have not corrected yourself or apologized for this false statement about my actions. In light of your comments above, I wonder if you will clarify which comment I made that made you think this, or if there is not any, whether you would characterize your comments as honest.

Personally I don't conclude that you were lying, as more likely you made the comment without stopping long enough to think about it. In fact, there are many reasons a person could say something inaccurate, without "lying," or in a way that would not be actionable. As I have said above and I will say again, I think the committee's failure to respond here reflects badly on the committee, but I believe these are points that you should stop to consider. Mackan79 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

user:Peter Damian II

Has been blocked almost immediately for editing mainspace in contravention of the agreement with Thatcher. I'd like to make a request to Arbcom to lift Peter Damian's restriction on mainspace - some may have issues with his behaviour, but his content contributions are of benefit to the community. Is this a sufficiently public forum, or should I make a formal request on the project page? Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably cleanest on WP:RFAR so the arb-comments don't mix in with the non-arb-comments and get confused. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

File it in WP:RFAR under requests and other clarifications, list me as a party.--Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by user:Peter Damian II

[Please note I am apparently not allowed to edit the main page of this article. Why is this please?]

First, I apologise for contributing to the confusion over what were the terms of my unblock. There were originally two versions of this: one was the 'enough rope to hang with' version originally proposed by Thatcher. This was the one I had thought had prevailed until tonight. I honestly did not notice the new 'terms' proposed on my very busy talk page when I came home last night. Why would I return to Wikipedia otherwise than to edit articles?

I am happy to return to editing on the condition that FT2 and I are able to tread entirely divergent paths. That was what I thought I had agreed with Thatcher earlier, anyway. That includes FT2 not leaving sanctimonious and patronising and self-praising messages on my talk page. It is my view that he is an unmitigated disaster for Wikipedia, but many other people are now beginning to see that, let them carry the torch, I shall step aside from the madness of Wikipedia politics.

I am not interested in a public debate with FT2, as I have already stated on my talk page. I just want him to avoid me entirely. That includes not banning good editors such as Headley (I am happy if Thatcher or some other disinterested admin can look after that matter). It also includes him not interfering with my work on articles related tangentially to linguistics such as Neurolinguistic programming. Can I simply point out my PhD is in a linguistics related area? Peter Damian II (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The main page is currently semiprotected due to vandalism. Your current account is not yet auto confirmed because it isn't old enough so you can't edit semi protected pages yet. I have moved your statement to the appropriate spot. Viridae^Talk 10:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Viridae. Peter Damian II (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has been editing Neuro-linguistic programming since 2004. If PD can show he's been editing it longer than that I suppose he might "claim" it. Otherwise it appears that FT2 got there first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cross-project evidence

Would the Arbitration Committee consider evidence from a sister WMF site if that evidence establishes a pattern of policy abuse?

That's come up at the Scientology RFAR. So before anyone fetches diffs, block histories, etc. let's find out whether this type of material would help the case move forward or not. A few words now from the Arbs could save a lot of time for everyone, since it looks like the RFAR is moving toward acceptance and some editors are mentioning Wikinews. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The small part in the arbitration policy says:

Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves. Such evidence is usually only heard by the Committee if it has come from easily verifiable sources - primarily in the form of Wikipedia edits ("diffs"), log entries for MediaWiki actions or web server access, posts to the official mailing lists, or other Wikimedia sources.

That is sufficiently ambiguous to require a clarification for this case, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that implies that Wikimedia sources are considered reliable when making a case related to misconduct on Wikipedia. I think it is a given that Wikipedia arbitration is a Wikipedia remedy; it is not the place of this panel to judge the behavior of Wikipedians on sister projects, those sister projects having their own analogous mechanisms. Therefore any material brought over from sister sites should not be intended to show "actionable" offenses on those sites or even to show a pattern of behavior cross-project but should be limited to supporting a specific allegation of misbehavior on this project. To do elsewise elevates this forum to "Wikimedia arbitration", which it clearly is not. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Pruned statements from Scientology section

Comment(s) taken from main RfAr page

Q: I have encountered User:Jossi as somebody, who does not take the crap from the usual anti-cult crowd, which -- just like pro-Scientology editors -- draws mainly on non-scientific sources to make their point (New York Times articles are almost the best either side can muster, Penthouse and Operation Clambake and similar crap are more frequently used, scientific articles, while not being argued away totally, are put en par w/ Scientology nonsense). Does that make Jossi an unsuitable Admin in this matter? Fossa_?! 20:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed, no apparent relevance, in another user's statement.--Tznkai (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user talk. Durova^Charge! 04:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman appeal: 1.3

It's now been over three weeks, and this proposal has 5:2 support, with one recusal and one abstain, making there a total of ten arbitrators who could possibly have voted. Can we consider it passed, and implement it, so that all of us can move on? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Arithmetic isn't my strong point admittedly, but I think that as it stands, the motion falls if closed now. There's 11 active, minus one abstention on this motion, means that 6 are needed to pass it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would it be calculated that way? I thought arbitrators could choose whether or not to be "active" in a case, so after three weeks, we can presume those who didn't respond are not active. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, always been (since I've been following) that arbs must consciously note somewhere that they are recusing or abstaining for it to lower the threshold. MBisanz ^talk 17:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing looks moot to me anyway. The "remedy" doesn't do anything. However, the time has dragged on here, and that's poor. I suggest if it matters to you, the best course of action would be to nudge the remaining arbs to opine. I guess there should be a statute of limitations on these things, but any default if arbs are inactive would have to be to the status-quo. --Scott Mac (Doc) 18:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is very poor that arbcom stalls when arbitrators take three weeks just to decide whether or not to be active in a case. Very poor indeed, and not likely to inspire confidence. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I've posted to the mailing list a couple of times reminding of pending motions, and will again tonight if necessary. The Alastair Haines/Abtract matter is also aging rapidly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm right in recalling that excessive delays, and the negative impact they have on the arbcom's relationship with the community, were something about which concern was expressed in the recent RfC. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Excessive delays have been a problem with the Arbitration Committee since it was created, quite frankly. Almost all candidates run on a promise of trying to reduce delay ... I won't repeat what I've said about this in various forums at other times. Hopefully voters are considering candidates' levels of availability and commitment in connection with the ongoing election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you want to ping directly the arbitrators who haven't commented on this case, they are Deskana, Charles Matthews, Jpgordon, FayssalIF and YellowMonkey. YellowMonkey rarely comments on motions. Avruch ^T 19:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Matthews has said he's recused. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Further, Deskana is necessarily inactive on this request - if Deskana became active, the majority would increase to 7. The only arbitrators that can vote, and need to (in order for something to pass) are Jpgordon, FayssalF and/or YellowMonkey. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, if Deskana is inactive, then the motion passes: WP:ARBCOM lists 12 active arbitrators, including Deskana. Subtract Deskana, Charles (recused), and Thebainer (abstained), and we get 9. 9/2 = 4.5; 5>4.5 Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No. There are 13 arbitrators in total as listed on WP:ARBCOM; 12 active ones with 1 listed as inactive - FT2. However, for the purposes of this particular appeal, FT2 is active (evidenced from his voting on the motions). At the time when this appeal was made, Deskana was inactive and remains inactive. Together with Charle's recusal and Stephen's abstention, this reduces the active arbitrator count for the appeal to 10 - a majority of 6 is required. I was partially mistaken in my statement above (however); if Deskana became active on the case, the number of active arbs would increase to 11, but the majority support required would still remain at 6. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I should point out that I've seen quite a lot of less formally set-out motions for clarification pass with far fewer arbcom comments, including one in the Matthew Hoffman case itself (the request for clarification on whether an RfA was possible had only five people comment in support of the retroactive change of the text to exclude RfA, with twelve active arbitrators at the time). Given that, how was I supposed to know the count would be applied rigidly here, when it wasn't on the last motion related to the case?

It's not worth going into that Request for clarification further, but I mention it to point out that the rules being applied seem to be chosen arbitrarily, using whatever the Arbcom feels like at the time. Can Arbcom kindly set out some standards that the Arbcom agree to consistently use during Motions for clarification, etc. Ideally, these should not allow cases with a supermajority of support to stay on the page for weeks waiting for arbitrators who don't want to or are too busy to comment on it to do so, instead of presuming they abstained. While that is a sensible and even necessary check in actual cases, it would appear that the Arbcom does not give the same amount of attention to motions, and if the Arbcom cannot reliably deal with them as a complete group, and is seemingly unwilling to insist that members vote or go inactive on the case, as with full cases, then what else can be done? I would also remind the committee that the Arbcom elections close in a few days; I would rather not have to wait for the new committee members to come in and then have to deal with this all over again, as half the votes become invalid.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A clarification on what the present state of affairs is is different from a motion to alter the present state of affairs. The former may or may not require a vote but the latter always will. --bainer (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The motion did, however, alter the state of affairs. No case previous to this disallowed RfA unless that was specifically stated, if Durova speaks true. That motion changed that, citing a secret change of Arbcom policy that had never been announced to the public. I will also point out that the committee additionally saw fit to alter the case so as to require me to make my private health matters public, and this was said to apply no matter how much time had passed. My private health matters were treated as a moral failing, by implying that I have a dirty little secret that shows I was evil - but it's secret so we're not going to tell. I still am very upset about that, as it forced my hand, making me reveal my private information in the current appeal, simply to prevent that being used as a weapon against me by the committee again. If that was not the intent, then the committee should perhaps be a bit more careful, and have used the numerous private means of communication they have with me to talk about it, instead of insisting on making it all public.

I have said I did not want to discuss th previous request for clarification. It was started by someone else, I specifically had told that person I did not want it to be filed, and it ended up revealing private information about me by insinuation. Let's drop the subject, shall we, and move on to the only productive thing that can be done with this case: Vacating it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Durova's assumptions about what was not stated were mistaken. --bainer (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that, by showeing cases from before mine where lack of right to RfA was not stated, and the Arbcom stopped an RfA? Durova provided concrete examples of the contrary, you have not provided any evidence in support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Normal Wikipedian custom is to provide a courtesy notice when calling out a specific editor and asserting that person is wrong. It's a lucky thing I discovered this thread by chance while passing by in search of something else. It's unclear what the context is here, Bainer. Please explain what assumptions you suppose I made which you believe were mistaken. And in future, please think twice before using your authority to undermine the credibility of any other fellow Wikipedian at a thread where that person has not posted and is not present to defend him- or herself. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see a lot of good coming out of this discussion, especially since Shoemaker's Holiday has already expressed regret that certain matters raised have had to be disclosed. I hope that a few more arbitrators will vote soon and we can close the pending motions (particularly 1.3, which I drafted) one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I apologise that I got drawn into discussing that incident, it's probably not worth discussing on the crux of the whole thing becoming moot anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Brad. I share the hope. Durova^Charge! 01:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

EditNotice proposal

Background reading: Proposal on Clerks' noticeboard (permalink). Wikipedia:Edit notice. User:AGK/A.

I propose the addition of an edit notice to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. See User:AGK/A.

I've ran this proposal by the other clerks, and those that have commented seem to readily support the idea. I solicit the opinion of the Committee (and that of any editors reading here); does this seem like a decent idea?

Under normal circumstances I would simply ping the mailing list, but some transparency and public discussion is probably better, methinks.

All thoughts (esp. that of the Committee) welcome!

AGK 14:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

FT2-Peter Damian

This is getting ridiculous. Having had his "excess length" statement removed, FT2 has now set about creating his own version of War and Peace in his user space. ArbCom need to either open a proper case for detailed evidence or ask the parties to restrain themselves - spreading the fight further afield is not going to help. In fact even if a full case had been opened, I doubt that FT2's screed would be considered acceptable for an evidence page - there are length limits there too. 92.39.200.36 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That page, according to Microsoft Word, with all sections expanded, is 6800+ words in length. FT2 has no claim to the NLP articles, neither does Peter Damian. I like both of them, but this is gone past silly with the war between the two of them. Whatever FT2's beef with HeadeyDown, because some banned user tried to do x, which was decruft the NLP articles, doesn't mean no one else can now because it would be advocating some "banned" content position. There's no such thing as a "banned" content position. There's only our content policies.

I think there should just be at this point an enforced silence/recusal of FT2>Damian and Damian>FT2 on admin issues, RFAR issues, content issues, or any other issues and let's keep them both off of the NLP stuff by enforcement. If that happens, then we'll never see a single bit of this ever again. The first one to step over the line gets a reminder block. Sorry, guys.

That would be mutual peace, and then entirely neutral people can work on those articles. If the sock stuff from HeadeyDown is really so terrible, then any number of Arbs or Admins can keep him, himself, off of them. I can't even see how else this would be viable. They're both valuable contributors but are past the point of oil and water; they're napalm and white phosphorus to each other and both are acting completely over the top, but it's more FT2 of late. They should both be simply barred from even uttering anything about each other on-wiki or affecting each other for everyone's collective sanity.

Suggested proposal for the non-recused Arbs is here to accomplish this. rootology (C)(T) 19:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved nor do I want to be but I have to comment on this. This page is made by an arbitrator and it is wrong to allow this kind of page to continue. There is enough drama going on all around. We don't need an arbitrator to have a hate page set up to make a WP:POINT or anything else. He is in a position of respect and power and people listen to arbitrators as they are the ones to have the last word. Why would this page be allowed? If a common everyday editor set something like this up the editor would be warned, blocked or banned. Does this arbitrator have special priveldges to have a page like this and then link it to an arb page so that everyone can go and read all of what he has to say because it was deleted for being too long? I'm sorry but I feel the rules should apply to everyone and that this page should receive an immediate speedy delete. I have been reading this and I am finding that having FT2 as an arb a bit scary that he would go so far as this. I don't think this is what an arbitrator should be doing even if he is only acting as an administrator at the moment, he is wrong in his tactics. Sorry, I just had to say something, I'm gone now, please continue...--CrohnieGal^Talk 19:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Rootology, you and I have butted heads on occasion, so allow me to say I think you're right. For my own thought: this isn't about doing right for Peter or FT2 anymore - who knows if thats even possible. Its about doing right for the project and the rest of the community. We want peace.--Tznkai (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)