Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Why a clerks' office doesn't cross the streams

I posted this above:

The AC has used unofficial clerking before. This is establishing a bunch of people to do the job as more of a job, i.e. to make sense of crap. No-one on the AC objects who's been through the job of being an arbitrator, you'll see - it's more like "OH GOD YES PLEASE! HELP US WITH THIS CRAP!" and picking people they have a good idea will do a good job of it ;-)

I wouldn't see a clerk as doing anything that anyone couldn't do on a /Workshop page; the difference would be that the AC is saying "Right, here's some crap needs handling. Please do it." Giving them opening/closing is also safe 'cos that's a mechanical task. (When it isn't, they're bright enough to ask.)

The AC has talked about having a function like this for a few months, and the proposed setup is basically least disturbance to the way things are and shouldn't lead to crossing the streams we think. - David Gerard 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite literally I've seen arbitrators state "OH GOD YES PLEASE! HELP US WITH THIS CRAP!" and they've been more than happy to have all the help they can get. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Omg evil cabalism!!!cos(0)!! Right. Anyone who thinks that clerks are t3h evil should volunteer to make some sense out of some overly verbose evidence pages themselves. Radiant_>|< 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I did volunteer for that reason. My objection isn't to the idea of clerks, but to what I feel is insufficient community input into the process, and the selection of individuals who were specifically rejected by the voters. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The community has never had input into the internal deliberation procedures of the arbcom. The formation of an arbcom listserv and IRC channel were not run by the community. The decision to keep former arbitrators on said listserv was not run by the community. This is no different from either of those. Phil Sandifer 00:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • (After edit conflict.) You're drifting into personal attack territory at this point, because any way I can think of to interpret your remarks it comes out as an underhanded accusation. The voters never said that anybody wasn't qualified to help out the ArbCom, they only voted on who would be on the ArbCom; if some people thought they were doing something else, they were mistaken. So do you have specific users you think would make bad clerks, or do you just think there's a big ArbCom cabal oppressing you? Either way, you're missing the whole point of the job. -- SCZenz 00:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I think that Kelly Martin, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all far too controversial in the Wikipedia community to be involved with the Arbitration Committee in this capacity. I have no doubt that these individuals have been, and are, acting in good faith and doing what they thought was right, and I realize that many valuable Wikipedians - people whom I respect - support them. However, it is clear that a large number of other Wikipedians, perhaps a majority (see the Arbcom votes) have serious concerns about the judgment and discretion of these individuals. Why choose people so controversial when there are many others who don't generate this level of discord among the community? I don't see how this constitutes a personal attack, any more than an "oppose" vote in a request for adminship or in the ArbCom elections constitutes a personal attack. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Because you're arguing that the arbcom is compelled not to trust or listen to people on the basis of the community's tendencies. Such that the arbcom elections become not only an election to arbcom, but a negative election to the Wikipedia Leper Colony. Phil Sandifer 15:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, I think he is arguing that people who have been rejected as arbiters should also be considered unsiutable as arbiters assistants. That seems quite reasonable and in accord with how a reasonable person might view things. A more thorny issue would be whether some form of positive affirmation is necessary before becoming an assistant arbiter. It does depend upon whether clerks would have a real input into the decision making process, but from all that has been written here, they can not be useful as described unless they do. The issue is not that an arbiter is entitled to ask anyone at all to help him (which I would judge he is entitled to do), but that this person is given an official position and status. That is the tricky bit. Sandpiper 01:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
          • No, it isn't. ArbCom has the right to its own internal procedure. Its authority comes from Jimbo, not the community. -- SCZenz 01:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, they wouldn't be assistant arbitrators, more just like court clerks which entirely falls within the arbcom's power to appoint themselves without outside approval... Unless Jimbo or the board where to intervene and veto it. It is also true (to a certain extent) that the arbcom derives it's power from Jimbo and the board not from the community even though they rely on community support to implement any decisions they make and Jimbo at least this far has allowed community involvement in the arbcom selection process. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
And somewhere I heard a denial that WIKI is a social experiment? Arbcom is there because it has to be there, jimbo has no choice but to delegate. But what comes (is coming) next?Sandpiper 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Arbcom is there because it has to be there, jimbo has no choice but to delegate. - Things are like they are because they have to be that way? No, sorry, I think not. Jimbo delegated to the arbcom because he was overworked (and for the benefit of those who were not around prior to the arbcom - Jimbo intervened in VERY FEW cases - fewer than a half-dozen per year). Now, two years later, with almost 100-fold more users, and FAR more cases -- we're saying we are overworked. Somehow, I think we (the ones actually doing the work) are in a far better position to judge how necessary this is than you are. Raul654 02:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt that Arbcom is overworked. One need only look at the current case load to see that. My objection is specifically to the method of selection and to the decision to select extremely controversial individuals rather than those editors who have more widespread support in the Wikipedia community. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No matter whom you pick, they are going to be controversial. There are disagreeable people here who will oppose everything and any time there is change there will always be someone who runs around screaming about how the sky is falling. I'm not so convinced that controversy itself is a reason not to do something. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
May I ask which you'd prefer, good clerks or popular ones? If it's the latter, then you have entirely the wrong idea about what Arbitration is on Wikipedia. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Setting aside all speculation as to who might fit the bill of being "popular" (or indeed, "good"), I think it's fair to observe that not being "extremely controversial" is a different desideratum entirely. Alai 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The arbcom have the right to choose whoever they want to assist them. They could choose MSK for all we care. If the arbitrators' actions permit the clerks to push their own POVs, then we can vote them out in the next election. We elected the arbitrators because we trust them to make the right decisions. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That first statement would appear to entirely correct, the second entirely false, and the third and fourth each only partially or qualifiedly true. Alai 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Pray, why did you elect the arbitrators if not because you trust us to make the right decisisons? Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It's the "vote them out" and "elected" parts that I think require the qualication. Alai 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes we would care if they chose MSK as a clerk but we'd have no recourse since as mentioned before it's entirely up to the head clerk and the arbcom to decide who the clerks are. I also trust the arbcom to appoint good people as clerks and to strip any one abuses the position of their position and if needed the right to edit arbcom pages at all. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with the second statement -- if the arbitrators really feel MSK could be of service to them as a clerk, they could appoint her. As for the third statement, there are clearly going to be elections in the foreseeable future where we can vote out arbitrators whose performance has been less than satisfactory (obviously by not voting for them, or voting oppose if we still use the RfA style system). And as for the fourth system, it's correct that technically arbitrators aren't elected, but rather appointed by Jimbo. However, clearly the recent non-binding referendum/plebiscite/whatever has a major impact on his decision, seeing as the top eight candidates were all appointed to the arbcom. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd hate to point out the obvious, but if a new process is started in this manner, the Arbs could have seen reactions such as these coming from a mile away. By which I don't mean clerking is a bad idea, but that I am surprised that the Arbs didn't seem to have expected or anticipated this kind of response. Radiant_>|< 19:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
They probably did but that doesn't mean they have to do anything about it and they are under no obligation to act on this criticism since appointing clerks is well in their power. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure they could've seen that reaction, but since most of it is based on unfounded assumptions about what clerkship entails, I don't think they have any special reason to react in other way other than by demonstrating that they are right. I mean, there was actually someone up there who didn't realize that clerk briefs are going to be submitted publicly. And so far I've yet to see any of the objectors acknowledge that if they wanted they could prepare such briefs themselves. Nobody realizes that this is just all about shoveling manure. Of course somebody's going to jump up and complain that they weren't offered the shovel. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Preaching to the choir, guys. I fully agree that they are under no obligation to react differently. As to people who want manure to shovel but weren't given a shovel yet, might I kindly point out this heap? That should keep people busy for the next century or so. Radiant_>|< 21:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, either tonight or tommorow night I'm going to have to knuckle down and go through the entire TFD backlog for category moves and deletes and cut those down. Thank god AWB will make my job a little easier when doing category work. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • AWB? Why haven't I heard of that before? Ooooh, shiny! Me want! Radiant_>|< 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an arbitrator's position in all but name

Assuming good faith is really great, but let's be frank: We're supposed to think it's a coincidence that this position is created right after Kelly gets the arse, and the the first person to get the job (and beavering right away, thank you very much) is Kelly? It's a crock of shit and it stinks, and no amount of calling it powerful fertiliser is going to change that.

There are eight pages in any ArbCom, if someone wants to help "reviewing and summarizing evidence" then let them do it there, as opposed to on the eyes-only Arbitration Committee mailing list. And I'm confused as to why a bureaucratic system like this is good here, but bad in other places? Finally, it's all good to say "chosen by the ArbCom" but I notice that all the discussion has taken place off-wiki. What possible reason could there be for something as suppossedly straightforward as this being done in this way?

brenneman(t)(c) 23:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Complaining Kelly is the head clerk and complaining about the clerk's office rather diffrent things.--Tznkai 23:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
(1) This was under discussion - both on the wiki and in the arbcom mailing list - for months prior to the election. (2) Karynn got the job for the rather simple reason that was the only ex-arbitrator willing to do it (the rest all went running and screaming). (3) People have been doing this unofficially previously, and there is nothing here to stop people from continuing to do it unofficially. The Clerks office is simply an attempt to make them more common and more organized. Raul654 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it's the same thing. The need expressed does not match the solution proposed. And why was this page archived (into a not-so-representative FAQ) when it was only 55k? - brenneman(t)(c) 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Raul, don't forget the fact that his complaints are great and all but there's also the nice fact they don't make a difference. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm intrested in hearing if he has something constructive to offer myself though.--Tznkai 23:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say that this is unwanted if he has something constructive to offer then I'm all ears eyes. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, remove access to the mailing list. This is the smelliest bit. While it's often said that the ArbCom needs a place to hold talks in private, there hasn't been any compelling argument presented as to why this needs to be expanded to the clerk. If their job is simply to distill the crap into digestable chunks, that is.
  • Create a "clerk's page" on which changes by anyone other than the clerk are reverted. Thus all the "reviewing and summarizing" is out in the open. What possible reason could we have for not letting everyone see the pre-digested chunks?
  • Remove the opening/closing powers, as well allowing edits to arbcom pages. These don't appear to be that burdensome based upon the actual numbers of edits required, and lends way too much of an air of cabalism.
  • Better yet, chuck the whole thing. I look up the page and see quite a few names of people who say they want to job. If these guys are already willing to roll up their sleeves, then simply ask them to do it and get to the workshop pages. Barring that, why is this required? We don't seem to have a "chair of cleanup" and that's a hell of a lot more of a pressing need than this.
  • Finally, all this "fingers in ears" talk is pretty shithouse. The ArbCom is judge, jury, and executionor rolled into one, and every time you make a statement like "we will because we can" you give more ammo the the "OMG cabal" crew. Wise up, at least act like you're responsive to the concerns of normal users.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Ok, I'll answer each section one by one
  • remove access to the mailing list
As far as I know from the discussions here the only extra mailing list power any of the clerks would have would be not have to have their incoming mail go through the queuing system to get to the arbcom list, they WOULD NOT have read access to the list. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Create a "clerk's page" that changes by anyone other than the clerk are reverted on. Thus all the "reviewing and summarizing" is out in the open. What possible reason could we have for not letting everyone see the pre-digested chunks?
Already done, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Administration
  • Remove the opening/closing powers, as well allowing edits to arbcom pages. These don't appear to be that burdensome based upon the actual numbers of edits required, and lends way too much of an air of cabalism.
At worst clerks won't need to use them and I seriously doubt someone is going to abuse the power to close or open an RFAr especially since there's rules on when an RFAr can be opened and closed. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Better yet, chuck the whole thing. I look up the page and see quite a few names of people who say they want to job. If these guys are already willing to roll up their sleeves, then simply ask them to do it and get to the workshop pages. Barring that, why is this required? We don't seem to have a "chair of cleanup" and that's a hell of a lot more of a pressing need than this.
Not gonna happen, see below for why. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally, all this "fingers in ears" talk is pretty shithouse. The ArbCom is judge,jury, and executionor rolled into one, and every time you make a statement like "we will because we can" you give more ammo the the "OMG cabal" crew. Wise up, at least act like you're responsive to the concerns of normal users.
It's an internal arbcom matter so unless you can convince Jimbo or the board to overrule them on this I doubt it'll make much of a difference. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered an informative reply. Any questions I had about the nature of this position, and the make-up of the ArbCom in general, have been well and truly answered. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem, ask a fair set of questions and show a willingness to actually listen to other people and you'd be amazed at the answers you can get :) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Or, we could just accept that the matter was discussed by the past ArbCom, the present Committee agrees that clerks would probably be useful and have raised no objection to them, and that using this page to sling mud at Kelly Martin and the others is really objectionable behaviour.

Try letting the clerks do their jobs for a couple of months. See what happens. There will be lots of time after that to raise a stink if they hurt the process, and I suspect that they will be a great deal of help. Signing off, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the smartest response yet.--Tznkai 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If you think this is about Kelly, give the job to someone else and see if the bitching stops. It won't.
brenneman(t)(c) 00:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it past some people to put all the blame on Kelly but I know that's not the case with your concerns and in general I doubt that the main issue that people have with this is about Kelly. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the only way "the bitching stops" is to get a move on, set up the Clerks, and then watch as people slowly realise how little power the Clerks actually have. David | Talk 00:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Bug Kelly Martin to make up her list then once she's done with that and sends it over to the arbcom bug them to hurry up in either approving or rejecting them. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I am hoping to get around to reviewing the applicants for Clerk this evening. I was going to do it last night, but there were five cases that had to be opened, and that ate all my Wikipedia time for that evening. Tonight should be less onerous; there's just one case to close and one motion to be implemented, which should leave me with enough time to at least present the Committee with a partial list of recommendees for ratification, and maybe even leave a little time left over to look at WP:RFCU. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of powers already

Some have cautioned doubters to "wait and see". Kelly Martin has already shown her abuse of powers. In my case, the motion to close had been waiting for six days to close. It had the requisite number of votes. Rather than close the case, she just added a hash symbol. Why is this relevant? Because previously in the case, she had voted to ban me for a year. And that proposal had not passed, so she chose not to close the case. This is just a small illustration of how the arbitration procedure is already being corrupted by Kelly Martin's involvement. - Xed 00:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see from the diff you presented she was just standardizing the format since all votes by standard have a hash symbol before them to number them correctly. I don't see how that's a big deal. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Mindspillage struck out her own close vote [1]. Karynn fixed the formatting so the (now removed) close vote didn't tally into the final total. Her edit comment "fixed formatting" is 100% correct. In conclusion, your observation is utterly without merit, so please avoid making any more asinine comments here. Raul654 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point that she did not close the case despite there being enough votes. - Xed 00:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so she "abused her powers" by not closing your case. I must say, that's original. Raul654 01:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Note the failure to address my point. - Xed
Oh no, I think your comments here have made an excellent point here, but probably not the one you were aiming for. Raul654 01:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And again. - Xed 01:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll address both the point you were trying to make (that Kelly abused her powers) and the point you actually did make (that anytime something arbcom related occurs, all kinds of people come out of the woodwork with idiotic comments). In reply to the former: your comments are utterly without merit; go away. In reply to the latter: it's usually a sign that the proposal is probably going to be a good one. Raul654 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Please follow WP:CIVIL. Your dismissive attitude gives Wikipedia a bad name. Kelly did not close the case, despite that being one of her apparent duties as a clerk. The case had been waiting for six days to close. All she had to do was close it. In the same case, in her previous guise as an arbitrator, she had voted to ban me for a year. This was a proposal whose severity many impeccable editors (Gozar, Danny Yee, Derex, Mark Dingemanse, Gareth Hughes, the wub) have questioned - see here and here. The proposal had not passed. The case was waiting to close. She didn't close it. - Xed 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It definitely brings the trolls out of the woodwork. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Could it be a form of performance art? Raul654 01:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And I thought Yoko Ono did weird performance art :) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
(inserted after edit conflict with Ryan and Fred)
A few brief observations:
  1. Mindspillage's vote was striken on January 19: [2]. This took the motion to close to a bare pass (four support with one abstention.)
  2. Kelly Martin became chair of the clerks on January 25: [3]
  3. Kelly Martin fixed the formatting of the case on January 26: [4]. Technically she could have closed the case, but may have been concerned about how to count the abstention or wanted to do the formatting first before getting into page closings.
  4. Fred Bauder withdrew his approval for the motion to close less than an hour later: [5]. This brought the net votes to close to 2 (3 support minus 1 oppose), and indicated that a close by Kelly Martin would have been premature anyway—the ArbCom saw the need for further discussion.
In other words, Kelly Martin should be strung up for failing to thwart the will of the ArbCom, because she failed to slavishly and instantaneously follow the letter of the case closure rule on her first full day as a clerk...? How dare she. I note that in the absence of a clerk, the outcome of this series of events would have been exactly the same, with the sole exception that the formatting of the vote numbers would still be broken.

TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The outcome would not be the same if she had closed the case. - Xed 01:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
While true, that entirely misses the point: that Kelly hasn't biased the process. The only (non-cosmetic) edit to the case after she became clerk was by Fred Bauder, withdrawing his vote to close. The case would have stayed open in the absence of a clerk. It stayed open with a clerk, and now is slightly better-formatted. If you want to complain about the ArbCom taking too long to close cases, go ahead. I just don't see how Kelly Martin abused her powers by not altering the outcome of your case.
For all we know, Kelly might have sent an email to the arbitrators saying, "I'm going to close this case; does anyone have anything to add?" (Heck, doing so might even be a good idea as a general practice.) The text on the page says "24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.", not that a case with four support votes must be closed at exactly 24 hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is another great example of someone else making a different case than they thought they were making... wasn't it Nietzsche who said that the best way to damage a cause is to use bad arguments to support it? --Ryan Delaney talk 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There are only 3 votes to close the case. Closing a case requires 4. We are still considering whether a one year ban of you is justified. You are not helping your case with this nonsense. Formatting is what a clerk does. Fred Bauder 01:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It had 4 votes. For six days. - Xed 01:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Even I think you should let this go, although the incivility about "performance art" is bad form.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
And now it doesn't. I for one had specifically mentioned that I was holding off on my decision a little longer as some people whose judgment I respect were questioning the outcome, so I don't see how the propriety of her failing to close it is in question. You could be a little less snide, and ask for explanation rather than coming right out and accusing someone of abuse. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
There's certainly irony in you telling me to "ask for explanation". People have being doing that for over a month in my case, with no cogent reply (see [6], [7], here, here etc etc). - Xed 02:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not the place to have a huge discussion over the outcome of your arbitration case, take it over to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It was on there - it was ignored. There appears to be no place to discuss the outcome. I, and all the people who have questioned the case, may as well talk to a wall. All the people who have put their effort into questioning the severity of the ban (Gozar, Danny Yee, Derex, Mark Dingemanse, Gareth Hughes, the wub) - to you their actions are just "weird performance art" from "trolls". - Xed 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Xed, I was going to say that this is bordering on the ridiculous, but it is in fact well into the zone of ridiculosity and no longer even bordering on the sane. If we had a BJAODN for ArbCom cases, then "adding a hash constitutes abuse of power" would fall right below "per nuclear law, this case must be deferred to the US supreme court". I'm somewhat tempted to go through your edit logs to see if you have added a hash mark (or even worse, an exclamation point) some time in your wikicareer, and if so to block you by your own logic for that abuse of power. Radiant_>|< 02:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The point was not the addition of the hash, but the failure to close the case. - Xed 02:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
(After triple edit conflict, your guess is as good as mine as to where this goes in the thread.) By the looks of it, it had five votes for a couple of weeks before that. If you're going to assume bad faith here (and I certainly don't for a moment suggest you do), I don't see on what basis you'd conclude this was Kelly's bad faith for failing to close it, when it now had fewer. Indeed I'd suggest it'd have looked odder if she had. And all this assumes some particular closing procedure comes into play, even when most of the arbiters haven't yet voted, when so far as I know there is not, and it really is their own business when to do so. If you think the failure to close any time after Jan. 3 was inappropriate, or requires explanation, you should surely take it up with the arbcom as a whole, and not single any individual out for what looks to most people to be an entirely innocent (in)action. Alai 02:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What happened here is that on my regular inspection of cases with motions to close, I noted that there was a formatting error that made the count look inappropriate and corrected it. I then added it to my notes as a case which was closable, meaning that I would send out a notice to the ArbCom that the case would close in 24 hours if nobody objected. (Under the ground rules that I'm working under, I am supposed to give the ArbCom 24 hours notice of opens or closes.) Before I could get around to sending that notice (since I generate a worklist before actually doing any work, and I do opens before closes), Fred Bauder, an Arbitrator, elected to strike his vote to close, making the case ineligible to be closed. It is not my place to question why Fred chose to strike his votes. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you have a conflict of interest in my case (having voted to ban me for a year), you should not have touched the page. (See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Administration "Conflict of interest") - Xed 02:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
By your own logic then, any arbitrator who votes on any remedy has a conflict of interest and thus no arbitration cases can ever be closed. Somehow, I don't think that holds water. At this point, I'd advise you to stop digging. Raul654 02:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Since when has conflict of interest been a factor when doing cosmetic touch ups in formatting Xed, stop trying to make something out of nothing. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no conflict of interest in my closing a case in which I previously acted as Arbitrator. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Though to be fair to Xed(?), the accusation seems to be that the conflict of interest was in fixing the formatting(!?), when supposed you shouldn't have edited the page, and in not closing the case... without editing the page(??)? I think this is so far away from having a reasonable basis as to defy further chess notation on my part, but Xed seems to be so annoyed now, doubtless not helped by earlier baiting from a certain emergent double act, that I'm not sure what more can be done to prevail upon him to drop this. But I'll suggest for one last time dropping it anyway, and then retire from the field. Alai 02:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It would have been acceptable for her–nay, required–for her to close the case, but it's a conflict of interest for her to add a hash mark to fix the formatting of a numbered list. Oh. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here stems from the fact that Xed was under the impression that Kelly was obligated to close the case, and that not closing it constituted an abuse of power. Unfortunately for Xed, he could not be more wrong, and he's now realized it after dozens of people have commented to that effect. Now, in an effort to cover his own mistake of posting his specious complaint here, he is trying to concoct some conflit of interest complaint. Raul654 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bingo!!! JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the arbitrators are willing to spend their time "defending their own" here, but not in giving cogent answers to the questions in my case which have been repeatedly asked, by many people for over a month - see [8], [9], [10], [11] etc.- Xed 02:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting tactic - file a complaint of abuse, and then after we take time to respond, complain that your complaints elsewhere aren't being responded to. Raul654 02:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You didn't read them did you. They're not my complaints, but questions from half a dozen others. - Xed 02:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
You do realize that if you want to complain about the case not closing properly and promptly, we would have to go back to [12] on January 5th, where there was a majority to ban you for a year and sufficient votes to close, and it sat that way for 14 days, right? Phil Sandifer 16:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The cherry on top of this comedy moment is that this and the previous case against Xed came about from others perceiving him as having difficulty working well with others - David Gerard 16:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)