Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 13

message: I really need a RFCU for User:Anderson12 and User:WMMrgn as socks of User:Lightbringer AKA User:Basil Rathbone.  It is patently obvious who these people are (Anderson12 basically came right out an said "By your actions, I take it you are a Freemason", he's copied someone else userpage wholesale to cover himself, and yet his edits are only to Freemasonry articles) and yet no one will take action.  What is the point of a decision when it is not enforced when a problem arises? I have tried to find an admin on IRC, and all I got was bad info from Tony Sidaway to ask Kelly Martin, who hasn't been doing WP for some time.  How hard is it to do a simple check and block the socks? MSJapan 15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you try posting to WP:ANI?  Robert McClenon 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly.  I used AIV and VIP, as well as RFCU, as they seemed to be more appropriate to the situation. MSJapan 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted to ANI here, and nothing yet. MSJapan 23:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom decision violations by Lightbringer socks 

message: I'm not quite sure where the best place is to put this message, but as there's an open arbitration case involving -Ril-, the arbitrators should probably be made aware that I've blocked -Ril- indefinitely as a reincarnation of CheeseDreams. For the discussion, see the noticeboard. --Michael Snow 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification regarding -Ril- 

message: I'd like to appeal for the remidies I got. 
*Firstly Davenbelle and in part Stereotek (aka Karl Meier) have continued stalking me (some actions include actively trying to get templates used on my userspace deleted). Granted they did not stalk me to excess... 
*In about december their stalking have had stoped (overal Karl Meier didnt stalked too much aside from a few isolated incidents in contrast to davenbelle) and Davenbelle basicaly got bored and left wikipedia (after all that was the majority of his contribution)
So the very reason for the fileing of this rfar is unnecesary now. It exists solely to be an excuse to oppose my rfas although I admit even if all the rfar remidies agains me is gone, some people will find some new excuses. I am currently displeased with the rfa process and am a bit burnt with my 4th failed rfa on commons as it is the same people opposing... I will address individual remidies. and apeal them individualy below. 
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek]] (appeal)

message: ====POV editing by Coolcat (Passed 6-0)====
It is a fact I have had a history of pov editing as a newbie, which was fine as I was learning. I am currently more in the know of NPOV and try  harder to keep my bias and pov checked. For instance I contribute little to the articles I have pov on and only try to gather general comunity attention to such topics (not individuals who have my pov). This "finding of fact" hurts the discussions I have as it basicaly insures people assuming bad faith. In general this makes me look bad and hurts discussions I participate in. 
Every body makes pov edits some time or another, we aren't machines. I have understand the necesity of neutrailty during the duration of this finding of fact. This kind of behaviour is someting I avoid now.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Findings of fact

message: It is a fact I have had a history of pov editing as a newbie, which was fine as I was learning. I am currently more in the know of NPOV and try  harder to keep my bias and pov checked. For instance I contribute little to the articles I have pov on and only try to gather general comunity attention to such topics (not individuals who have my pov). This "finding of fact" hurts the discussions I have as it basicaly insures people assuming bad faith. In general this makes me look bad and hurts discussions I participate in. 
Every body makes pov edits some time or another, we aren't machines. I have understand the necesity of neutrailty during the duration of this finding of fact. This kind of behaviour is someting I avoid now.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV editing by Coolcat (Passed 6-0)

message: ====Coolcat prohibited from mediating (Passed 4-3)====
While I try to stay away from other peoples disputes, on many occasions people asked my assitance in dealing with problematic or potentialy problematic behaviour. 
I try to help people with their disputes and I believe I am more successfull now and hence feel this remidy is obsolite now. I want to be allowed to help. 
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remedies

message: While I try to stay away from other peoples disputes, on many occasions people asked my assitance in dealing with problematic or potentialy problematic behaviour. 
I try to help people with their disputes and I believe I am more successfull now and hence feel this remidy is obsolite now. I want to be allowed to help. 
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coolcat prohibited from mediating (Passed 4-3)

message: I never understood what edit behavior of mine warranted this remidy but I feel this remidy is now unnecesary. I want to be allowed to edit talk pages without restrictions just like everyone else. This issue had nothing to do with the dispute I had with davenbelle (them stalking me/my actions prompty stalking) and hence is very unnecesary in my view. I have on ocasions did archive pages such as Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit and no one blocked me for it (although davenbelle complained to my mentors about this and was the only person)
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coolcat prohibited from restructuring (Passed 7-0)

message: I do not need formal mentorship anymore, I mostly (if at all) did not require their offical attention as I was able to handle matters myslef. However I still would like to see the individuals as my informal mentors and continue the relationship. I do not want my relation with them to appear "forced" as I am in a better level of dialouge than that. 
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coolcat Mentorship (Passed 7-0)

message: Are these sentences concurrent and/or consecutive ? Just visiting. Martial Law 06:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remedies run concurrently unless otherwise stated, IIRC. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate the info. Martial Law 11:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too! Learning somethimg new everyday. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentences: Concurrent and/or Consecutive

message: Lou franklin/Evidence is beginning to fill up with back-and-forth speeches and responses. When the second one was posted I moved it to the talk page, but then reverted myself because all of Lou's evidence is in that vein, so logically I would have had to have moved all of it. I considered trying to tell Lou that it's better for evidence to consist of specific allegations backed up by diffs, but as I filed the RFAR and most of the evidence it would be ridiculous at this point for me to pretend to be giving him impartial advice (even if that's what it is). Could someone else could take a look at the Evidence page and maybe explain to Lou how to give evidence and use diffs? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at this.  There's nothing that can be done to refactor his submissions because there are no diffs provided anyway.  However, I think he's fighting a losing case anyway -- there probably is no evidence he can present that will alter the likely conclusion that he's a blatant POV pusher with incivility issues.  I think spending a lot of time trying to educate him as to the way we do things here on Wikipedia would be nonproductive.  Perhaps someone could persuade him to find an advocate? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest someone at least make the gesture anyway despite the WP:SNOW-like considerations above, but Kelly is right - Lou's "evidence" tends to confirm, rather than refute, the charges against him and even if he backed it up with diffs and so on, the most he could show is that his opponents aren't any better, not that how he's behaved is okay. PurplePlatypus 19:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he could be a good contributor so long as he stayed away from this page and someone took the time to show him how Wikipedia is supposed to work.  A little hand-holding, I think, can go a long way.    Do we have any projects like that around here - for taking users who seem to not be understanding certain things about the wiki and carefully guiding them in the right direction?  I think, if there were something along those lines, it would help more than banning him would.  -Seth Mahoney 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's mentorship. Users can be involuntarily placed under mentorship as part of ArbCom rulings as an alternative to banning. -Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd like to see that happen, if its something Lou can agree to.  I'm also unfortunately ignorant as regards the arbitration process - is there an opportunity for us to suggest possible outcomes?  -Seth Mahoney 20:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Workshop allows users to make suggestions as to proposed decisions. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the links.  I've added my recommendation.  -Seth Mahoney 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PurplePlatypus wrote:  Lou's "evidence" tends to confirm, rather than refute, the charges against him.  That is a very common situation.  Recently, when a user conduct RfC is written, the response is very often a diatribe against the subject's opponents, who are the certifiers of the RfC, thus confirming (without the need for diffs) that the editor is uncivil and makes personal attacks.  There is only so much that the Wikipedia community can do to acculturate editors who are chronically angry.  Kelly Martin wrote:  Perhaps someone could persuade him to find an advocate?  An advocate might help some, but probably not much.  There is only so much that an advocate can do for an editor who is chronically angry.  Chronically angry editors often do not cooperate with their advocate.  There is a point when assuming good faith only means realizing that these editors are not consciously self-destructive.  Robert McClenon 13:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kelly Martin that Lou Franklin needs an advocate.  I have offered.  However, I think that there needs to be another law, which is that the more a controversial editor needs an advocate, the less likely they are to request and work with one.  Robert McClenon 12:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speeches on an evidence page

message: I thought the 'Request for Arbitration' was not supposed to be a discussion board. Why are 
comments from Waya sahoni on other folks statements concerning his request for arbitration being allowed? And yes. I'm one of the involved parties. --Jerry (Talk) 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm Curious

message: I've just read Raul's ninth law, and I'd just like to say that I have personally always been awed by the dedication and wisdom of the ArbCom.
I once took a WikiBreak because of my frustration with the actions of a certain user, and my sad belief that the user in question was an exceedingly skilled troll, who was far too adept at abusing WP:AGF to ever be properly held liable for his actions.
When I came back from my break, I saw that this user had been brought before the ArbCom, and banned for an extended length of time. The fact that the ArbCom recognized the heavy damage subtly wrought by this editor was very gratifying to me.
Since then, I've been taking a look at how the ArbCom handles cases, and my first impression of their competence and dedication has been confirmed.
I honestly believe that Wikipedia would be far, far worse off without the ArbCom, and I am saddened that Raul's ninth law exists. I regret that I have but one voice with which to show my support. :) --Ashenai 11:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me add one more voice.  The ArbCom was originally established by Jimbo Wales because Jimbo became too busy to ban disruptive editors.  Without the ArbCom, Wikipedia would be nearly impossible.  Robert McClenon 12:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not completely true one of the other large language wikipedia gets by without one by giving the job to the general admin population.Geni 14:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment is a reference to the german wikipedia. The german wikipedia was *actually* run by a cabal (as opposed to the insubstantial accusations made on the english wikipedia). However, I'm told that the cabal is losing power, and that the germans are definitely experiencing serious systemic problems now.  Raul654 14:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the English Wikipedia, with a diverse and fractious population of admins, giving the power to sanction disruptive editors to admins collectively would result in wheel warring.  Robert McClenon 12:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With no offense intended to anyone in particular, it's seemed to me for a while that en has way more admins than it really needs.  Could that be part of the problem? Phr 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  Considering the number of users and traffic we get, it's pretty similar to other wikipediae.  We have 1328 registered users per admin; German has 1032, Spanish has 1688, French has 995, Italian has 1168.  So we're right in the ballpark.  It just seems like a lot because we're significantly bigger than the rest :)  Ral315 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't spent much time around here and have never been part of a case, but I would imagine that it is quite difficult. I give my support as well. -- Kjkolb 18:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My appreciation of the ArbCom

message: I spoke up when HerschelKrustofsky was being put on probation after voluntarily stating his position in an ArbCom case, when there were no findings of fact against him. I am well aware that HK was not a model Wikipedian, but many people aren't model Wikipedians and manage not to end up on ArbCom probation.
Henryuzi's situation sounds very similar to me. Of course ArbCom can make the decisions it wants, but it should realize the consequences. You're creating an atmosphere where an ordinary user - one who may have done a few things wrong in their time on Wikipedia - should fear ArbCom and should avoid participating in an RfAr at all costs. If you pay back people who provide extra context to your cases with their testimony by putting them on probation, then eventually users will get wise to this, and people who want to offer their considered opinion will avoid RfAr like the plague. So then the only testimony will come from ArbCom itself, and from people who don't care if they get punished for stating their viewpoint (generally, these would be attention-seeking trolls).
My advice: don't overextend your power, even if it does seem like "the best thing for the encyclopedia". It eventually won't be the best thing for the encyclopedia if the most effective form of dispute resolution is too frightening for anyone to use. And I urge you to accept the Henryuzi case; when there are no real checks on ArbCom, you might as well try to have the integrity to be a check on yourself.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  18:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reccomend that you look over the case more carefully. Henryuzi was not sanctioned at all because of his support for Larvatus, even if that is what he claims or how he interprets it. Rather, Henryuzi was banned for being disruptive in the same manner as Larvatus; he was banned for his article space edits, nothing more. If you would like to make a case for why those disruptive article space edits don't warrant the limitations imposed, go ahead and I'll consider it; but this has nothing to do with "punishing someone for providing context". Dmcdevit·t 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please reconsider your position. As far as I know, every major factual claim in my edits of the WebEx article ( and ) has been accepted as verified and incorporated in its current version. Consider also that without my initiative in making these contributions, this information would in all likelihood have gone unnoticed by Wikipedia contributors. Besides, no findings of fact have designated my edits as "disruptive". In sum, I got banned for nothing more than performing a valuable service to this community. Henryuzi 06:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Henryuzi case sounds familiar 

message: Am I allowed to discuss the present request for clarification? The amendment to the ruling did not allow for any exceptions that I can recall, but it seems insane that I would not be allowed to respond to something like this. Everyking 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - has been a very sleep-deprived week. Will clarify it. Phil Sandifer 08:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can I?

message: Is there a standard for when the Evidence section of a case is closed and the case goes into voting?  Is there a way that one of the parties to the case can propose that the case be moved into voting?  In particular, this question has to do with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2, where I see that no new evidence has been posted in four days, and the Workshop is simply being filled with exchanges of comments (of which I am also involved).  However, it is also a more general question.  Robert McClenon 13:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, there isn't any standard. Arbitrators just move it to voting when they feel like it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, typically it goes to voting when an arbitrator feels the proposals on "/Proposed decision" are sufficient to begin voting on. Though the actual moving to the voting stage isn't that importsnt, since proposals can be made afterwars, also. In the -Ril- case, while the workshop is full, the decision page hasn't been written up by any arbitrators yet. Dmcdevit·t 19:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking a case into voting 

message: I believe User:Lightbringer AKA User:Basil Rathbone is at it yet again, this time as User:40 Days of Lent.  Could someone please checkuser him and take the appropriate steps?  Thank you.  MSJapan 15:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied to WP:RFCU. Dmcdevit·t 08:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, never mind, that account has already been blocked for puppetry. Off to bed with me. Dmcdevit·t 08:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification 

message: Hi. There is an arbitration case, the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich case, and I am not involved with it, but I have some evidence that I think is important in that case. I do not want to get involved at all with the case, but I think the evidence suggests the possibility of a policy violation(s). I added an "Evidence provided by Ben" section and basically only said "These links might be of interest" and posted various links . The evidence I think needs no additional context or explanation. Some other users told me that not providing my opinion on it was not appropriate, and I should explain why I am adding the evidence . Like I said, I do not want to get involved at all and I want to limit all involvement. Should I provide an explanation? --Ben 19:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no such requirement. However, the fact that you have not provided specific instances of evidence (arbs are not going to search a whole site for evidence; they expect links, just like how they expect diffs) nor made a basic one-sentence description of what the evidence you are presenting is about. As a result, it is likely to be ignored by the arbcom. Johnleemk | Talk 19:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice John. I think I will add a little bit more info. --Ben 19:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If "Ben" feels the need to add "a little bit more info," I will probably keep an eye on that and rebut, as needed, to provide balance, information, and perspective.  Regardless, I'm guessing that we can forget the commentary about not wanting to get involved "at all." - WarriorScribe 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Interesting that a person claiming to disdain involvement "at all" feels the need to involve himself.  Regardless of that, the "evidence" that has been allegedly presented was exceptionally vague as to what it should represent, and so "Ben" was asked to clarify.  He claims potential policy violations, but he's not clear what they are or why his "evidence" suggests that they have occurred.  It seems to me that at the major impetus for his complaint has been answered (note, specifically, the comment, "since they followed Wikipedia policy, when they're on Wikipedia they're part of Wikipedia, not Maleboge (and btw, if they haven't actually announced their membership, it's not like they've hid it - many of them have linked to discussions on Usenet involving them)").  It also seems to me that, if someone is going to present "evidence", one should be expected to explain just what it is he feels the "evidence" specifically suggests. - WarriorScribe 19:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also, if Ben is presenting more evidence, I may unstrikeout my evidence which further demonstrates Gastrich's lack of good faith. Are there strong objections to my unstriking and commenting in the workshop? JoshuaZ 19:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not by me. - WarriorScribe 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Any of the evidence Benapgar is presenting that is specifically against editors he's negatively interacted with at Talk:Intelligent design, JoshuaZ for example, will need to viewed in that context. He has a clear, established pattern of attacking those who oppose his changes to the ID article, often taking the strife to user space or the project space, of which WP:RFAr is part. This pattern is detailed in his user conduct RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benapgar FeloniousMonk 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about presenting evidence

message: seems to strongly indicate that the claimed "outsider" is in fact a sockpuppet of Sloan. JoshuaZ 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you got this idea from? All these posts are strongly against Sloan. In fact mostly they are signed with the name Louis Blair, a regular from rec.games.chess.* Rook wave 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry. I very much  misinterpreted some edits. JoshuaZ 02:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry in the Rook RfA 

message: Is there a policy on blanking users' pages after they have been banned by the arbcom? EffK's userpage was blanked yesterday by an admin. I reverted the blanking as I see nothing in the arbcom decision against EffK removing his right to a userpage. Obviously he is no longer able to edit the page - he continues to use his talkpage; but immediately before his banning he used it to state his position and his belief that he was being banned unjustly. I think he has a right to do this, even if other users disagree with his statement. I have asked for other views at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, and there is more detailed discussion on my talkpage. But I would like to ask the arbitrators as well: do you see your banning of EffK, and/or indeed any user in general, as removing his right to a userpage?Bengalski 12:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Banned users have no rights at all on Wikipedia, except the right to request a review their ban via off-wiki channels.  Their user pages and talk pages may be blanked, deleted, or protected as is necessary to avoid disruption.  Kelly Martin (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the "banned" have no rights. But what about the rest of us, the un-banned? I for one, feel that all wikpedians ought to be allowed to read whatever is posted, unless, if, on its face, it's simply so horrid that it must be deleted. When you delete a banned user's talk or personal page, you are harming the community and depriving others of the opporunity to stay fully informed. It's sort of like how the oldest Kennedy sister was shunted away after her lobotomy - never to be heard from again. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Banned users' personal pages can make great object lessons on how to spot the thinking of vandals and trolls. I urge you to reconsider. Merecat 22:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And if there's no disruption? It just seems to me blanking is completely unnecessary. If his statement does no harm to the encyclopedia or anyone else, why take it away from him? Bengalski 18:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's traditional to replace a banned user's userpage with a notice. --causa sui talk 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's probably worth archiving off the Talk page, to provide a fresh start when they return and to remove the inevitable acrimonious exchanges that have gone before - I did that with User Talk:Jason Gastrich.  Just my $0.02. Just zis Guy you know? 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking of banned users' userpages

message: Given that the Arbitration Committee's has basically found that -Ril- is CheeseDreams, is there a problem with me blocking him before the case finishes?  I'd like to do get clarification from the ArbCom on this before I do so.  Ral315 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if he is causing serious trouble. Fred Bauder 05:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re. -Ril- 

message: Shouldn't the other Benapgar RfA be removed also per his being hard banned? JoshuaZ 06:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Benapgar RfA 

message: How dare the Arbitration Committee unilaterally top-down antidemocratically fascistically attempt to remove the right to arbitration from the incoherent and insane. RFC Tony now! And Kelly too, just in case!! (not.) - David Gerard 13:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the sentiment, but I fear that you might prompt some WP:BEANS from the humour-challenged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 500 word limit enforcement

message: Someone with a history of vandalsiing my user page has now brought me here withpout an Rfc or aqnything in what looks to me to be pure trolloing. What is the oprocedurte exactly, and how is it that someone with a history of harrassing me can use this page to harrass me further? I am at the end of my tether. This person won't led me edit, has made endless false accusations, is calling me mad on this page, and has vandalised my user page on repeated occasions, mostly using sockpuppets but also here. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the procedure here

message: Am I allowed to comment on the case on Monicasdude? If so, how do I go about it? Despite being a Wikipedian for over a year, I'm still completely new to this Requests for arbitration thingy. JIP | Talk 15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just add your statement like the others. You can make the header "Statement by uninvolved party JIP," or involved, or whatever you are. Dmcdevit·t 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the actual case is that you are altering and annotating other people's statements? Might that have something to do with it? --Calton | Talk 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, since you have simply fabricated that claim.  Monicasdude 13:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, more stuff you make up, then. Free clue: the case is against you, personally, so you don't get to alter the case and charges against yourself. --Calton | Talk 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is getting rather messy, I agree. All parties need to go for some WP:TEA. Anyway, the case opens this evening, I trust we can down swords until then? Stifle (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monicasdude case 

message: How is it decided when an arbitration case is opened? When enough arbitrators accept it? Is there a time limit for acceptance? When a case is opened, does it get its own subpage right away? Where are the links to these case subpages? All I have seen is links to further subpages of them. To get to the actual case pages I have to visit those and then follow the "back" link provided in the navigation bar. JIP | Talk 17:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If 4 arbitrators vote to accept, it is accepted regardless of how many reject or recuse votes. When we are tired of looking at it and no more votes are forthcoming it is removed. The clerks now open the cases and set up the subpages. Yes, the initial  links are to /Evidence and to /Workshop and you have to go back up to get to the actual request. Fred Bauder 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General questions 

message: moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee James F. (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I would like the committee to loook at the editing behaviour of User:Acuman

message: moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee James F. (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, I am now completely satisfied. I will remove my complaint from ArbCom as you have adequately shown me the reasoning behind these actions. I only went there because it appeared you were not answering my request, and perhaps I was a bit hasty. I will leave this subsection up on this talk page so it can be archived accordingly. Thank you again, and I hope to see you around! JHMM13 (T | C)   07:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Academic Challenger]] 

message: Is it ok that recused arbitrators contribute to the workshop of a case? --Ligulem 18:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although they should avoid using the "Arbitrator comments" section (e.g. comment as a party or as an "other") and/or note that they are recused on the case.  Mistakes happen; do not attempt to use an Arbitrator who accidentially commented in the "Arbitrator" space on a case from which s/he is recused as a reason to get a case against you thrown out, as that won't work.  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recused arbitrators contributing to workshop