Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 AA 1 restrictions 2 Imported discussion from the old page 2.1 Any evidence subpages for this new page? 2.2 Order of requests 2.3 Clarification of the PHG motion 2.4 Overload 2.5 Comments about Sam Blacketer's kind reply 3 Comments in re Basboll's appeal 4 Question about appealing bans 5 Thoughts on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration 6 Thoughts on backlog 7 Appeal - please help 8 Involved Parties 9 Tango RFAR - need quick clerk eyes 10 Where are the archives? 11 New template: {{RfarOpenTasks}} 12 For the sake of sanity, subpages please 13 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO 14 Prohibited from mediating 14.1 "Completely ignored" 15 The JzG section is messed up

AA 1 restrictions

I have a question with regard to the revert parole I and a number of other editors were placed on 11 April 2007, please see: [1] According to the ruling of the arbcom the original duration of the parole was 1 year, which has now expired. The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ruled that all the editors placed on revert limitation in the first AA arbcom case were subject to supervised editing, however no time limits were specified. So I would appreciate if someone could advise whether the restrictions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan are still effective or not. Thank you. Grandmaster (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The original Supervised editing restriction said in relevant part "They may be banned by any administrator ..." The word "may" indicates discretion on the part of administrators, not a mandatory ban. This wording has itself been superceded by the amended remedies in that case. The amended remedies are also discretionary. I would say that at the moment the restrictions are not in force, but that any uninvolved administrator can reimpose them or tougher sanctions if an "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Those editors who were previously sanctioned have demonstrated a prior pattern of problematic editing, and thus any new incident can be seen as repetition. GRBerry 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: I think it would be best if you all stuck to 1RR, Armenians and Azeris alike from the AA1 case. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

These numerous and casual references to "Armenian and Azeri" editors is getting close to racism. I still recall you saying once that you had banned all "Armenians and Azeris" from making comments on a talk page for 5 days. If you had changed that to, say, "negroes and asians" do you think you would have got away with it? If you are going to go around advocating restrictions on editors solely based on their race, then you should not be a Wikipedia administrator. Meowy 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally will, but I'm not sure about everyone. Basically as I understand, the 1RR restrictions are not in force anymore, it is just a general recommendation of the admins that the parties to the first case stick to it. Maybe some sort of a general notification about the present status of AA1 restrictions to the parties to the first case would be good, along with a recommendation to voluntarily stick to 1RR. I think it would be good for future that the enforcing admin specified the precise time limits of any sanction, whenever possible, if any restrictions are applied to any user. That would help to avoid confusion. Grandmaster (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Also it might be good to add a clarification here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#List_of_users_placed_under_supervision. Grandmaster (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this is wrong too: Wikipedia:Probation.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey. If you chaps from AA1 start edit-warring, I'll simply use AA2 to put you formally all on 1RR again. If people informally stick to 1RR (per week) that won't be needed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that rather than the individual paroles it would be better to place the entire area of AA related topics on 1RR limitation, i.e. no one should be allowed to make more than 1 content related rv, and any new users joining the editing in this area would be immediately covered by this limitation. I proposed that during the first arbcom. As for the present situation, I personally agree to stick to 1RR, I hope everyone else is too. But the link posted by Eupator also contains inaccurate info, it says that the parole is indef. An update is necessary. Grandmaster (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Imported discussion from the old page

Any evidence subpages for this new page?

This wisely broken-out page will prove very useful. However it is apparent that in one or more clarification requests, the process difference between opening and reopening cases, as described at Wikipedia:Arbitration guide, may be leading to confusion. Unlike a new case, there appears no provision for extending (500-word) summaries of reopened requests into evidence subpages, as I alluded on this page. Perhaps this is deliberate and/or there is a standard methodology already in place of which I am unaware.

In the Franco-Mongol case, perhaps due to this omission, several users have exceeded 500 words, possibly relying on an inference I observed somewhere that responses to other users may not necessarily be counted within the limit; and, incredibly, one user has already been refactored by three clerks, limiting the amount of summary material available for presenting a case. Also the clarification case has become a harbor for several violently opposed amendment proposals.

I recognize that discussing lacunae in a policy may be questionable when offered from a party simultaneously in a process covered by the policy, but it appears that in this heavily attended case an ad hoc standard may be better than leaving the question open. The process as-is seems to suggest that clarifications of rulings should be straightforward enough that ArbCom input can be safely predicated solely upon summaries and not upon extended evidence. The current case may not be that easily handled.

I note that four arbiters have already considered this ripe for reopening, which in an ordinary case would be grounds for creating an evidence subpage subject to the wider restrictions of generally 1000 words or 100 diffs, with some leeway. I would appreciate some clerk or arbiter statement as to whether the several involved editors should feel free to use some fresh page (such as this talk page) for expansion of their summary comments at this time, as it appears several of the involved editors by their actions express a silent consensus that the summary limit is exceedible in this case and that the floodgates may be opened. Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of requests

My understanding is that the new requests are supposed to be listed first, and the oldest requests are supposed to be listed last. Is that correct? The instructions say, "Click the [Edit] link to the right of this section, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests."

Since the request about me seems to be the oldest, shouldn't it be at the bottom?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that when a request for clarification leads to arbitrators voting on proposals (which doesn't always happen), it gets moved to the bottom. As there haven't been any motions made as of now on your request for clarification, but others have, it's not at the bottom. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Hopefully there will be some kind of resolution of this Request at some future time before I get old and die. Not that I'm impatient, of course. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oldest requests should be at the bottom, whether or not they require voting doesn't matter. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of the PHG motion

Should it really be "and/or" between the two sections? I'm not sure what it means. I also wonder if 'articles' would be better than 'his articles'.--Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording to eliminate "his articles". "and/or" means that PHG can use one or both ways to meet the requirement. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of how the "and/or" thing would work. I wasn't sure.--Slp1 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With these restrictions, is there any purpose for the topic ban on medieval history? Perhaps that remedy should be supplanted. Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please no. If PHG is allowed to go back to editing articles about medieval history as long as he uses English-language sources, I anticipate that we would go right back to a state of edit war on Franco-Mongol alliance and other articles. Many of our core disputes were still about misinterpretation of English-language sources. And we still have dozens of other articles that we haven't finished cleaning up yet. The main thing that the new "English-only" restriction will do, will make it easier for other editors to followup on what PHG is doing. And I'm sorry if this sounds like an assumption of bad faith, but I still anticipate continued problems with misinterpretation, regardless of which language that he's using. --Elonka 08:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka on this point and would like to add that PHG's use of widely-available English language sources was just as problematic as his use of obscure or non-English ones. Restricting him to use of the former may make it easier for other editors to check his work, but it does not good at all in getting PHG to listen to or work with them. In my experience, it takes weeks of argument for PHG even to admit that he might have made a mistake, and I have yet to see any glimmer of understanding on his part on his problematic use of sources. I would strongly support mandatory mentorship in that it might have the added effect of helping PHG learn to work with others while helping him avoid future sourcing issues. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good quesiton, we need an answer to that. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) It seems to me the arbs are voting for BOTH remedies. I say this because if they only supported one, they'd say so. Unless instructed otherwise, I'll implement both when there are 7 votes (currently there are 12 active arbs, so a majority is 7). For the record, the topic ban should remain in place. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, Rlevse. This [2] suggests that the idea is that PHG can choose which of the two options he will choose (or both).Slp1 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that the other amendment being considered, about extending PHG's restrictions to include other pages, is now off the table? We still have the question of whether or not he should be allowed to make subpages in his userspace that deal with medieval history. --Elonka 10:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• The "and/or" ruling has passed. I have asked the arbs a question about implementation and will take care of the whole clarification request when I have an answer. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Only the "and/or" ruling passed. The other did not. So I'm implementing only the "and/or" motion at this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Overload

The breakoff to this page may have made things clearer, but I fear that it is increasing arbitrator overload. They are likely to spend more time over on the main request page, instead of here. Not to be too pointy, but how long will it take for an arbitrator to respond to this? Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Until now, but I was on a wikibreak until Friday.... For what it's worth, I am not a fan of the page split, nor of the increased complexity of the "requests for clarifications" format, but we can continue the experiment for awhile and see how it goes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments about Sam Blacketer's kind reply

I would like to make few comments about Sam Blacketer's kind reply to my request, I hope this is the right place to do it.

First of all we all know that the main goal is "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" i.e. "high-quality encyclopaedia which is neutral point of view and based on reliable sources". We all know also that consensus does not always achieve this result. But there is absolutely no reason to think that one or few admins acting unilaterally and "discretionarily" would do better than consensus of several people on the talk pages. Admins are just more powerful users, not more wise ones. It is misleading to focus on the fact that consensus does not necessarily produce the good of the encyclopedia without addressing the fact that the decision of few uninvolved admins could be even *less likely* to realize the good of the encyclopedia.

Second and most important point: I cited people being banned for editing supported by consensus but It was not a criticism to the admins. It was a criticism to the situation that this action creates: if I must be afraid of being banned even for editing what is supported by the consensus then I can't definitely feel free to make any kind of edit at all! To be able to edit without being afraid I would need to consult the admins who could sanction the ban but this would make them "involved".

Third: we should always keep in mind that admins are just users with more tools. The punishments are not being delivered by an impartial jury after having listened the accusations and the defenses. The punishments do not even reflect a consensus inside the wikipedia community. The punishments are "discretionary", they just reflect the opinion of a single or few "users with more tools". It's like if a group of policemen both accuses you of a crime and sentence you to jail without any defense being allowed. Defenses are indeed completely ignored and discouraged with threats (as I have shown). Also the statement "editors unhappy with restrictions should look at the aspects of their own behaviour which have provoked them, and see if they can change it" seem to be a way to discourage people to defending themselves.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus among a group of like minded people, such as 9/11 Truth Movement supporters, does not overrule core policy. You cannot overturn neutral point of view with 10, or even 100 editors at a particular article. Jehochman ^Talk 10:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. It's seems just a bad faith assumption which I'm not interested to address.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to this incident, which resulted in your being banned from editing 9/11-related articles. Continuing to stonewall and wikilawyer is not going to help your case. Jehochman ^Talk 11:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1. To call people disagreeing with you "9/11 Truth Movement supporter" is just an unnecessay way to attack and to go into ideological struggle, maybe you like it, I do not.
2. I'm not asking any help, I am expressing my opinion, is it allowed?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not the place to express personal opinions. They are a place for consolidating verifiable information, presented from a neutral point of view. The statement you linked to has nothing to do with me. Please be more accurate in the future. The Wikipedia community is thoroughly tired of POV pushing on 9/11 articles. Those who whitewash articles by misrepresenting conspiracy theories as fact will be stopped from doing so, by bans or blocks if necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Obviously I am not expressing opinion in "wikipedia articles"
2. The statement I linked has to do with ideological struggle as your statements are
3. You just can't speak for the wikipedia community
4. I think to be working for WP:NPOV and I consider offensive and a bad faith assumption to be called "POV pusher".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't an assumption of bad faith, because there is evidence, quite a lot of it, that you have been POV pushing. This is why you have been banned from editing these articles. As for offensive, I think it is offensive to insinuate that a living person has murdered thousands of people, when there is no verifiable evidence whatsoever. I for one do not understand why you are allowed to continue editing Wikipedia in any capacity, as you have failed to recognize problems and failed to provide any reassurance that things will be different in the future. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) - Striking because acknowledgements have been made. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do you think to be neutral when judging when an edit is "POV pushing" and when it is not?
2. My revert was a BLP violation and I did wrong (and I have been sanctioned) but it's very dishonest on your side to miss the difference between "insinuating something" and "reporting about insinuations made by other people".
3. Your last phrase is just another threat. Are really admins allowed to continuously theraten users they disagree with?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia, and not serve as a soapbox. This is nothing about ideology, but about incorporating verifiable information from reliable sources. For years now, Wikipedia has endured endless POV pusing. Some users that have come before, such as User:TruthSeeker1234, have been actively involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Some of their websites and people behind them do engage in blatant libel and harassment of individuals (e.g. Larry Silverstein). Wikipedia needs to steer clear of this, refrain from using these sites as sources, only use reliable sources, and not cherry pick reliable sources where they made a slipup while reporting in the midst of chaos on 9/11. While I don't see you as an active member of 9/11 truth, to keep inserting blatant BLP violations in articles is absolutely not acceptable and we have had enough of such behavior. --Aude (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to discuss about this problems but not now and not here because it would take us far away from the topic of my original post.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I happen to be an administrator, but for the purpose of this topic, I am just an ordinary editor, same as you. Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone completely uninvolved in any 911 dispute(due to the fact that I have a strong personal bias I have chosen to avoid the topic) I can say that no amount of consensus can override the requirement for a neutral point of view. This is not up to the community, NPOV is imposed on us by the people that own Wikipedia. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, however I did aknowledge this in my comment and actually nobody is disputing this fact!--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, that is wonderful. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 :) Yes it is. However the main problem is: if people are banned for making good faith edits which have been discussed and reached consensus then nobody will feel free to make any edit whatsoever! And this is definitely not wonderful.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Pokipsy76, it may be fun for you, and good for your editing skills, to work on several articles that have no controversy whatsoever. This may help you gain perspective on what it is like to work "normally" with Wikipedia. I am afraid that the atmosphere around those 9/11 articles is quite caustic and unhealthful. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments in re Basboll's appeal

JungleCat has added another characteristic statement to my request for appeal. It's worth looking at the whole exchange [3] and the article talk page discussion it was about [4]. Notice that the noble sentiment JungleCat quotes himself for was originally expressed to support an editor who had exclaimed his wonderment that someone might "believe such crap" when the editor it was directed at had politely suggested he withdraw it. While calling someone's (alleged) beliefs "crap" may not directly violate the purpose of Wikipedia, it is surely a bit off the mark to quote the founding idea of Wikipedia to justify such insults?

The moon hoax analogy is instructive. While I was getting my doctoral training in science studies I looked empirically at fringe theories, including parapsychology (mainly mind reading and telekinesis) and the "we never went to the moon" idea. The most interesting thing about examining such views is that it forces you to understand the received view (psychology, the Apollo project, and, of course, progressive collapse) in some detail. I have never suggested that fringe views be presented as "legitimate theories" (i.e., as a accepted scientific positions). I have suggested that the articles can often be improved simply by providing the answers to the questions that proponents of fringe views claim are somehow open ("How can they explain...?") That does not mean representing fringe critiques of the mainstream. Those critiques need not even be mentioned. And that is why it is so frustrating to have people like MONGO interpreting every one of my edits in terms of a belief I have never expressed. (Not only was Morton insulting to call them "crap", he was being presumptuous to talk about my "beliefs" ... and he was even wrong about the relevant belief in this case, which had very litte to do with controlled demolition).

Aside from my interest in the controlled demolition hypothesis (as a popular belief not a scientific proposition), then, I have also been getting increasingly interested in what we know about how and why the WTC collapsed. (Just as I had a chance to learn a great deal about how we actually got to the moon when I studied the hoax accusations). I think my work on the article has made it more informative, and this includes the information it has provided on the limits of what we know and the nature of the investigations that led to that knowledge. I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of the subject, but I do claim to have been editing in good faith. I have not been trying to refute NIST or to defend the controlled demolition hypothesis (I have not been "pushing"). I have been working with the moderate assumption that NIST's is not the gospel truth and that proponents of the controlled demolition are not just talking nonsense; that is, I have been trying to make sense of both positions.

But regardless of who is right about the content issues, the incivility here is clearly on one side. ArbCom can choose to say that people who are interested in a particular set of problems cannot expect to be treated civily; or AC can demand that even the "right" side defend its views civily.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about appealing bans

A banned user wishes to appeal but there has been no reply from mail sent to the arbitrators. May that user ask another user to support his appeal by posting it here? Under what conditions would such a request be considered meatpuppetry, and under which would it not? 75.61.105.103 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Under all conditions it would. If there's been no reply, try again. (We get lots of these requests, most of which are spurious, and some get missed.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Without any particular motivation, I'd like to offer my thoughts on the current structure and operations of the Requests for Arbitration (RfAr). As we all seem to veer naturally towards pessimism, I will observe that the process works reasonably well. That is to say, RfAr serves its function to acceptable standards: as a page where editors can present disputes to the Committee, and request that they arbitrate them, it seems to fill that role well. However, it is prone to a lot of backwards-and-forwards discussions. For example, it's not uncommon to see a statement from a party followed by several sections titled "Reply to X... Reply to Y..."; that really is nothing but extended bickering. Perhaps we need to look at cutting that out.

What concerns me, however, is the lack of clarify and cutting-to-the-point in requests for arbitration. At present, the parties involved (and, increasingly often, uninvolved by-standers) offer statements, which are supposed to be short, to-the-point, and descriptive of the issues the Committee are requested to consider. This is, however, is not working. What we're getting is several rants from each side of the fence, which really does make it somewhat difficult (for me, at least, as a neutral observer of the arbitration process) to identify the issues in hand.

For example, would the addition of a "core issue" section, perhaps under the current "previous attempts at dispute resolution" area, not make that easier? I for one would find the first read-over of a rfar much simpler if the filing party had noted that it was over, for example, "Users α, β and γ have been grouping together to push through POV Θ".

Thoughts? Anthøny 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What if all requests created a new subpage? If a case is renamed upon opening, it would be a simple standard move to fix any "mislocation". Clerks could move extended comments and replies to the talk page, keeping the main request for the short and simple statements you seek. It would also permit the committee to keep better track of requests, is they so wish. For example, it would make it conventient to track repeated requests from or about particular areas and editors, or to see a previous snapshot of a dispute. Just a thought. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You clearly share my thinking :) I proposed all new requests be created on a case subpage. If the case was accepted by the arbitrators, it would be a simple case of wiping the request and pasting in the open case template. It was never agreed upon, however. I think one concern was that it would be difficult for arbitrators to vote on every case at once, which a lot of them, I believe, do. In my book, however, that's not really a major concern: I'm sure making four edits rather than one wouldn't be a huge deal to ask. Anthøny 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should automatically assume such replies are merely bickering, and would need to be dismissed. I also think demanding cutting-to-the-point may not necessarily be helpful in the actual process - even if it involves sifting through long replies (even after they've been cut down by clerks), it is better to give parties to a dispute the opportunity to be heard without potentially relevant parts being lost in translation. Taking shortcuts and not interacting with the parties of a dispute to the satisfaction of the parties, uninvolved editors, and the committee, often leads to certain problems being undetected - this, to some extent I suppose, undermines the purpose of coming here in the first place. I also personally prefer being able to respond on the same central page for all requests that have not been accepted or rejected (yet). For these reasons, among others, I do think we should keep the system as it is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Perhaps I laid it on too thick there: in my experience on rfar, I've seen some excellent statements. My point is, there tends to be excessive rambling; and, "reply to editor X"-style posts do tend to suffer from bickering more than other areas of rfar. Perhaps eliminating them wouldn't be beneficial, but I certainly think some sort of measure to focus threads more (e.g., a "core issue" section) is needed. Anthøny 16:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your concern in initiating this discussion, and agree that such replies can suffer from more of bickering than anything. And it may be worth considering, but there is also a setback from it too. A core issue section is very likely tempt a lot of people to ignore the remaining statements, and may make individuals (no matter who they are) to look at the statements in such a way that was different from what their opinion would have been, had there not been a core-issues section. I do think the current system is fundamental in (to some extent) forcing independent, individual interpretations to surface from all those who respond. But understandably, in comparison to eliminating those sections, I personally would be less opposed to such an idea. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on backlog

At this moment, there is none. Not really.

One case is in its 7th week, but was about to close before getting stalled by unforeseen events, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision. In fact, it looks like one arbitrator going inactive, or one more voting would be enough to allow it to close.

There are two more, one in its 3rd week (needs another week?) and one in its second week (voting, but not close to closing yet).

Getting to May without a substantial backlog is an accomplishment. Credit to arbitrators for participating, for writing, for discussing, for voting, and in general for moving things along. And to the clerks, for, well, clerking. But also for prodding the arbitrators as needed.

But I see that 3 new arbitrations just opened, and that you recently lost one of your decision writers. I think the community will understand if you can't keep up quite as well as you have for the last few months. But I'd also like to encourage you to maintain the pace that allowed these last few months to pass (relatively) smoothly.

Again, thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Jd. In fact, I recently emailed the Committee mailing list, noting that Newyorkbrad's absence would hurt the Committee, and that his empty seat required filling; I was pleased with their answer: they got very quickly round to dealing with it. So yes, credit to them is due, I believe. Anthøny 09:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - please help

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks

DO NOT REVERT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.68.211 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a block on this IP address, due to its recent disruptive contributions. Additionally, it is rather evidently a sock puppet of Gibraltarian. Anthøny 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Involved Parties

I can't figure out what format I am supposed to use to list the involved parties (in the anti-americanism case). Life.temp (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the formatting/links now. You can check the difference from this-link so you know what you did differently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tango RFAR - need quick clerk eyes

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango/Proposed_decision#Remedies - his desysopping appears to have not passed, but it's being reported all over that it did. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you've already cleared this up at the case's talk page, but just for the record; per preferential/conditional voting, the remedy passed - confirmed in implementation notes written by arbitrators. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are the archives?

Pleae excuse my unfamiliarity with these page, I have tried to look for the archives of the past request for clarifications/appeal but I can't find them, do there exist such archives?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

They are archived to the talk page of the relevant case. GRBerry 14:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Requests for clarifications/amendments/appeals on past cases are not archived on a separate rejected/closed cases page. Instead, as they deal with an already decided case, they're just added to the talk page of the case itself. For example, an appeal or clarification on the 9/11 case will be added to the case's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both :)--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New template: {{RfarOpenTasks}}

Folks, I've finished developing the new template, Template:RfarOpenTasks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), with a little assistance from Ncmvocalist along the way. The template currently only documents requests for clarifications, and requests for amendments to prior cases; I imagine standard requests for arbitration could be easily integrated.

The template is currently stand-alone; it may be more efficient to integrate it with {{ArbComOpenTasks}}, either as a full merger, or just having it transcluded (displayed) there. Please feel free to suggest amendments to the template, and keep an eye out for any changes to WP:RFAC, in case they warrant an update to the template.

Regards, Anthøny 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just me but isn't "status: " a bit redundant given "needs Arbs" doesn't have it prefixed? x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. The only reason "needs arbs" does not have status: prefixed is that there is insufficient space to allow it to do so; it's something I'm open to flexibility over. If you feel it could be improved, be bold and tweak away. We can tidy up and improve afterwards. :) Anthøny 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of sanity, subpages please

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Prohibited from mediating

The JzG section is messed up

I think someone tried to "helpfully" fix the chaos but I think it makes it less clear. Some of those comments should remain indented as responses or moved back to their author's section. As it stands now, we have editors with multiple sections. Would a clerk mind looking into this? --Dragon695 (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the helpful sort. I did move a few comments so that contributors would each have only one section, marking some as "response to" as is traditional on this page. Threaded comments within statements are normally discouraged. I also outdented several comments, as I couldn't see anything to suggest they were responses, I think they just indented too far. It happens sometimes, and has a bit of a domino effect. Anyhoo, I agree it's still pretty chaotic (and I missed an extra comment from Jim62sch), but I don't think it has to do with indenting/outdenting. It's simply length. Anyone and everyone with something to say about JzG is throwing in their 2 bits, and the whole requesting is slowly beginning to thread itself. It's entirely too much for a typical request, and it'd probably be best to split everything but the 'involved parties' (Viridae and JzG) to a subpage. That could be transcluded into a collapsible section, so folks could continue to speak and be seen without cluttering up the page further. But that's a major cleanup decision for a clerk. I'm not one, and I won't do anything more than what I consider the most obvious, most minor formatting/spelling sort of cleanup. Be assured, I'm only trying to help keep things tidy and to the standards normally present on this page, if I'm wrong or mistaken I encourage anyone to revert me. It's only formatting, I don't want to alter anyones content. --InkSplotch (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I will look into the matter, and tidy up where possible. Anthøny 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, insofar as is possible. Anthøny 12:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that clerking is not always an easy job. For the record, I wasn't doubting Ink's motives, I was thinking of doing a similar action but then I thought it might be better to let a clerk handle it. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging as resolved: the matter is largely moot, as the section is no longer present on requests for arbitration, per the recent case merger. Anthøny 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)