Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 19

message: how do you actually find open cases? I cannot find any link off this page - which I find a bit odd. --Fredrick day 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the box on the right, near the top. Fred Bauder 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember you are on the talk page, look at the project page. Fred Bauder 19:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry that's what I meant by "this page" = the project page - the box at the top on the right just seems to link to various policies and guideline pages. I'm still don't see how I get to open cases. --Fredrick day 19:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page - move to the top and press project page, relatively near the top in a huge pink box there is a list of all the open cases. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Fredrick, below the "policies" box you are looking at should be another box which is the one you want. On my browser it is right opposite the table of contents. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right that's starting to make more sense - can I suggest that something more explict such as "current cases" is added to the title of that box - to the untrained eye or a novice (which I'm not after 10,000 or so edits) it's not clear what that is --Fredrick day 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that. I'm also not a novice and it took me a minute to find the list of current cases not long ago. --Tango 22:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this has been done. Newyorkbrad 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to find open cases? 

message: Two ArbCom policy proposals.  They're sufficiently different that I'm putting them under different subheadings. Chris Croy 04:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone does something wrong and then goes a year without doing anything wrong, I can't see an case against them being accepted. If someone's been doing something wrong for 18 months, there is no point ignoring the first 6 months of it. So, all in all, a bad idea. --Tango 19:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is doing something now and did it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, well sure, it's all relevant to show an ingrained pattern. But, of course, the relevant question is future behavior. Fred Bauder 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, but past behaviour is our best tool for predicting future behaviour - it's often very inaccurate, but it's the best we've got, so let's not arbitrarily remove a chunk of it. --Tango 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom Policy Proposals 

message: Some of those monster arbcom cases are created by massive lists of parties by the petitioner.  There's always one user who says "WTF am I doing here?" Why not require people explain why every single one of the listed parties is an involved party?  It would probably cut down on case size and time wasting by users that aren't actually involved.
*I like this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justify

message: What if ArbCom used a statute of limitations?  At least one arbiter has already indicated he sort of uses one,  but perhaps this should be formalized.  I'd suggest any conduct that occurred more than a year before the case was initiated should not be considered except in cases of sock puppetry.  We should allow people to reform.  If someone was an unrepentant POV warrior but cleaned up their act and has edited peacefully for a year their old actions shouldn't be held against them.  The sock puppetry exception is because there's a consensus that abusive sock puppetry is the worst crime you can commit, see .  Real life doesn't have a statute of limitations for murder, we shouldn't have one for sock puppetry.
*I think it's really a case-by-case thing; is there any particular ArbCom action you've seen that would have worked differently if this were the rule? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone does something wrong and then goes a year without doing anything wrong, I can't see an case against them being accepted. If someone's been doing something wrong for 18 months, there is no point ignoring the first 6 months of it. So, all in all, a bad idea. --Tango 19:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is doing something now and did it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, well sure, it's all relevant to show an ingrained pattern. But, of course, the relevant question is future behavior. Fred Bauder 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, but past behaviour is our best tool for predicting future behaviour - it's often very inaccurate, but it's the best we've got, so let's not arbitrarily remove a chunk of it. --Tango 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statute of Limitations

message: (moved from main RfAr page)
While Arbcom does not make policy, part of its role is to clarify and interpret policy.
===Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards===
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards is a new section whose interpretation by the community and arbcom is critical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination). The community is providing its input at that deletion discussion page. I request that arbcom provide its input in the form of participating in the closing of that deletion discussion to whatever degree arbcom feels is appropriate. WAS 4.250 23:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for clarification of policy 

message: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards is a new section whose interpretation by the community and arbcom is critical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination). The community is providing its input at that deletion discussion page. I request that arbcom provide its input in the form of participating in the closing of that deletion discussion to whatever degree arbcom feels is appropriate. WAS 4.250 23:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards

message: I don't mean to be rude, but can the active members of the Arbitration Committee please evaluate the current cases and put in their two cents at the proposed decision page? Some of these cases are getting quite ugly (particularly Hkelkar 2), because the involved parties are frustrated about the delay in reaching a decision. I would hope that if these cases were to be decided on more quickly, then such conflicts like  wouldn't happen. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: I attempted to edit the project page, but could not do so probably because it requires a logged in account.  Ryulong has stated that anon ip accounts are being used for sinister purposes and that they are being used to establish false personas for User:Husnock.  I fail to understand where this is coming from.  For one thing, someone using an ip without logging in isn't a crime- it just means they didnt want to log on.  If they use multiple ip addresses for sockpuppet purpuses, that is one thing, but that was not the case here.  195.229.236.213 is a shared ip address used by hundreds of people; if one of these people is the user who was once Husnock, who cares.  As for 38.117 and 38.188 those are VPN accounts used by the 195 address since the 195 is in the Middle East and often blocks parts of Wikipedia.  There was no attempt at deception there, I believe it was pointed out several times that the 195 ips and the 38s were coming from the same place and, once again, they were never used for sockpuppet activites.  Ryulong's entire beef seems to be with this initial edit .  That edit was made in good faith (I know becuase I made it) about a real world situation and has been explained, resolved, and worked out to my satisfaction on the Admin Noticeboard.  Ryulong then blocked the ip address for no other reason than "used by Husnock" and then blocked the VPN 38 address after it was explained that the Husnock arbitration case never amounted to a block.  The full statement made about Ryulong's activites is here:  This admin improperly blocked an account and now, for some reason, is trying to stir things up some more.  195 and the others might be Husnock, they might not, point is there is no Wikipedia regulation that states whoever is using an ip has to identify themselves if they already have a registered account.  And I think, at least in the case of 195, its pretty clear that more than one person uses that account.  So, I have to wonder why Ryulong is making these charges. -38.119.112.188 09:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be best if you brought this up at WP:AN/I. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See main RfAr page where Thatcher131 states that he has unblocked these IPs. Newyorkbrad 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the main RFAR page was briefly semi-protected to deal with a spammer. Thatcher131 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to charges made by [[User:Ryulong]] 

message: In the Workshop, comments on proposals are broken up in a very odd way.  First the list arbitrators are listed, then the involved parties, and then everyone else.  If all anyone did was comment on what they thought of the proposal and move onto the next, it would be fine.  The problem is that no-one uses the workshop that way.  People talk to each other.  People DEBATE with one another.  This leads to very difficult-to-read workshops as various groups of people go back and forth across three different locations.  I understand why ArbCom doesn't allow replying to another party in another party's evidence section, but is there any reason for the current workshop format? Chris Croy 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The workshop page is intended for comments about the proposals not back forth discussion. Each case workshop page has a talk page for discussion. I encourage users to start threads there instead of having back and forth discussion on the workshop pages. FloNight 19:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I have sometimes seen a comment by one person lead to a comment by someone else, that eventually leads to a new principle or a change of approach by an Arbitrator, but I have never seen a productive outcome from an extended conversation.  We clerks could probably be more aggressive about moving actual conversations to the talk page. Thatcher131 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting Change 

message: ...why not design case pages with each request, even for rejected ones? Archives would still be easy to handle, and yet it would put a little less strain on the clerks for having to create a case page when a request gets accepted. Diez2 04:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instead of using a bare bones template... 

message: PierreLarcin overwrote case David Laibman with his own new case (case Rotary International) (diff). Given the edit summary I surmised this was unintentional, and so restored case David Laibman as it was immediately prior to Pierres' edit, while leaving Pierres' new case in. I also updated the Arbitrator's opinions and date/time opening stamp on Pierres' new case, as they had been carried over from case Davie Laibman and were thus not relevant to the new case. I hope this is satisfactory; if not, I await blasting on my talk page :-) — digitaleon • talk @ 08:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I double-checked it and it looks fine. Thanks! Thatcher131 10:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not see the separation line between cases and the way to open a new one.
Oops, I apologize for adding work. PierreLarcin 84.102.229.154 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Edit of 08:32, 9 July 2007 UTC ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=143458347&oldid=143452844 diff]) 

message: I think it's a really good idea for someone to turn cascading move protection on all pages so that only admins can move them around. hbdragon88 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What pages are transcluded on here that are pagemove vandal targets? The header subpage, the how-to page, and some templates seem to be it. Or do you mean something else? Picaroon (Talk) 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking all arbitration cases.  Is that possible?  I guess they're not high-profile enough. hbdragon88 00:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock on wood, this hasn't been necessary. If there is a problem in the future, it will be dealt with, but see WP:BEANS. Also, I think you may have been referring more to conventional move-protection, rather than cascading protection. Newyorkbrad 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cascading protection 

message: People interested in the arbitration process might find a page I created interesting. See User:Picaroon/Stats. I've already caught a few errors, so while it is mostly accurate, don't take the numbers as absolutely authoritative. I'll continue updating it, hopefully. Picaroon (Talk) 02:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration statistics 

message: I see User:Rotary International has been added as a party to the RFAR for Rotary International, but there is no such user. Perhaps it's a joke or a WP:POINT? Does anyone want to check that? AndyJones 12:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it is a good faith mistake, perhaps using {{tl|userlinks|| instead of ; however, it appears it will be moot in 2 days. Thatcher131 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be so sure Thatcher31. I suspect PierreLarcin considers that the Rotary as a whole (i.e. Rotarians contributing in WP) is a stakeholder here. But I may be wrong and the best to do is wait for his answer.--Bombastus 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Rotary International]] 

message: Don't expect a whole lot from the administrator in a case. I mistakenly thought the admin would check the articles and in a minute or two spot the problem with our near-vandal that has been plaguing the three of us editors for a couple of weeks. No dice. The admin who looked at our case decided I hadn't gone into enough detail about how many times I had tried to contact this guy (it was dozens) with no answer whatever until the arbtitration. Since he knows he will be kicked off if he loses, he replied to the only one that counts, which wasn't the three editors who have been trying to get answers out of him these past few weeks. So forget what they say about "not being too long." They are looking for details about trying to communicate. I assume they don't want details about the difference of opinion but I won't really be sure until our complaint gets rejected again, I guess. Student7 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be confusing the "administrators" with the "arbitrators." When there is a problem with inappropriate editing conduct (as opposed to a content dispute), which is not resolved by interacting directly with that editor, you can bring the matter to the attention of administrators such as by posting a report on the administrators' noticeboard. This is not a stage in the dispute resolution process, per se, but it is how immediate user-conduct issues can be addressed. Filing a user-conduct request for comment concerning an editor's conduct represents another alternative. For article-content disputes, there are other procedures that can be used. There are also mediation alternatives, all of which are discussed at the dispute resolution page. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, although ultimately which cases to take is a decision for the arbitrators. Please also note that if a case is rejected because earlier steps in the dispute resolution process have not yet been tried, it can be brought back here later on if those steps than are tried and are unsuccessful. I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your measured words of reason. I did not truly appreciate the difference between an admin and an arb. I was concerned that I was dismissed by the arb a bit too quickly. We've been getting shot at here in the trenches for a while now on two articles and I found it hard to take when the arb seemed overly concerned with "form" and "procudure" without really being very much help. In the meantime, one of the other editors who did dot all his eyes, submitted it "properly," did finally get someone's attention, so we may now have a promise of some sort of logical process. We will see. Student7 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning to Requesters 

message: I have made a change in the wording of the sentence on the /Proposed decision template which sets forth the number of arbitrators and majority. A complete explanation is here and comments would be welcome. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you fix the capitalization as well? It should be arbitrators, not Arbitrators, which not only seems a tad bit self-aggrandizing, but is incorrect according to WP:MOSCL. 166.166.107.172 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a style preference consistently expressed by one of the a/Arbitrators, which as a mere c/Clerk i/I don't feel empowered to override. Newyorkbrad 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to wording of Proposed decision template re number of arbitrators and recusals 

message: I think that it is important to remind all involved users that their past and ongoing conduct likely will be examined by the Committee as it relates to an arbitration case. Sometimes editors are surprised to find themselves named as parties later in a case. We do not limit ourselves to only examining the party originally named in the dispute by one side. Remember that once a case is opened we will look for all serious user conduct issues. Take care, FloNight 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a more accurate statement would be that usually the Arb Comm does so.  You collectively explicitly choose not to do this recently, and as a result produced one of your worst decisions in recent memory, and one that is better forgotten than remembered.  GRBerry 13:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look at the behavior of all involved parties 

message: :Crossposted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence.
Hi. I've written a couple of tutorials on how to produce diffs and permanent links, and have gotten good feedback about their usefulness. My impetus was the utter practical uselessness, (though perhaps philosophical interest) of help:diff, which is usually linked to when newbies ask how to produce diffs. I don't understand above one word in ten in it, so how's a newbie supposed to?  
Also, help:diff is only about diffs, whereas it's sometimes a lot more convenient to link one's evidence to a short section on a talkpage or on ANI. If those section links aren't done right, they'll go dead as soon as the page is archived. In the case of ANI, that means after a day or two.  I noticed yesterday that one user went into his evidence section in the COFS case and effortfully changed all his section links to point to the archive into which they had just disappeared. I mentioned the tutorials to him, and he said he had been trying unsuccessfully to find that kind of information when he compiled his evidence.  So, what do you say, arbitrators, would you like me to mention  this simple tutorial and/or this really, really simple tutorial at, say, the top of the evidence template? I've discussed it with NYBrad, and he seemed to think it would be helpful. Changing the relevant paragraph to something like this is what I have in mind:
:As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See diff and link tutorial.
Bishonen | talk 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good & useful to me at least. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not an arbitrator, but I like these explanations very much. I remember asking at the help desk once how to link to a diff, after not having been able to find a good explanation anywhere else, and I will redfacedly admit that I wasn't familiar with the "permanent link" feature until I read this tutorial yesterday. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure.  I think the template actually belongs to the clerks, though. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes of course. Errr ... what brilliant tutorials! Ummm ...  are they by Bishzilla?! (Psss ... she's got a flaming mouth pointed at my head!) Paul August ☎ 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it looks very good and helpful! :) Cbrown1023 talk 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Pointless non-clerk non-Arbitrator snowball support...? Daniel 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, guys. I know you're only being so nice because you're scared of Bishzilla, but I've gone ahead and edited the template. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I edit your evidence template, arbs? 

message: When Essjay retired in March, there was discussion about whether votes he'd cast in cases prior to that should stand (see here for example). To quote Doc Glasgow's comment there:
That argument is persuasive and Essjay's votes where removed from the vote totals by Paul August. The thought occurs to me as to whether this should also apply where an Arbitrator becomes inactive during a case. The logic is the same- they will not be alive to further arguments that may be presented or shifts in the positions of other Arbitrators. Evidence may be presented at any time after the proposed decision is first created, and Arbitrators appear to pay attention to Community reactions to those proposed decisions. Should the inactive Arb return before the close of the case there is no issue, but given that the closing times of cases are unpredictable that will not always be the case. 
I was wondering if there were any thought from others (and especially members of ArbCom) as to whether it should be come standard practice to indent and discount the votes of Arbs who become inactive during a case as well as those who leave the Committee? WjBscribe 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, keep in mind that "Inactive", when applied to members of ArbCom, merely means that they have not edited a case page in the recent past, not necessarily that they're unavailable or away. Kirill 16:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should have said when Arbitrators put themselves to "Away" - that seems an indication that even if they continue to edit Wikipedia, they are not going to be acting as an Arbitrator for a period of time. WjBscribe 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because each of the arbitrators works with our fine clerks to figure this out each time we are away. We each handle it differently. Also depends on how long we are going to be away and how many open cases we voted in. There should be no one way to handle this issue. FloNight 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators who become inactive mid-case 

message: I have done a general updating and copyediting of the above page. Review and comments very welcome. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks]] 

message: Why don't you guys put requests for clarification on to it's own subpage and transclude it in?  The logic behind this is A. less edits to the main page, and B. if someone wants to reference a previous clarification discussion, it would be a lot easier to find the diffs without having to wade through the edits to the requests section. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a request for clarification is resolved, if anything substantive was addressed or resolved, we now generally archive the discussion to the talkpage of the original case it relates to, so you should be able to find it without hunting through diffs. Newyorkbrad 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I'm not sure this is a good idea.  Betacommandbot has been regularly complained about at WP:ANI and WP:AN, and was blocked 5 times by 4 admins during the month of July 2007 alone.  block log.  None have them has stood up, but Betacommand has clearly been doing contentious bot editing.  Better to let him go through RfA, in my opinion.  GRBerry 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reservations as well.  None of the stipulations given address the findings of inadequate communication, for example.  RFA made a mistake in this case- he started misusing the tools immediately, and continued for some time.  I see no reason to believe his being an administrator has the support of the community.  Friday (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With-holding whatever opinion I have on the validity of community consensus of any resysopping without RFA, I don't think it's appropriate that someone who obviously cannot control himself to use his bot properly should be trusted with the tools (and possibly, playing devil's advocate here, running an admin bot) again just like that. – Chacor 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he ran an admin bot again the committee will desysop him again, no? He'll have a bunch of people watching him, so surely it wouldn't go unnoticed. Picaroon (t) 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been very responsive, the issues regarding BCbots blocks were not due to me, One of them wikimedia images were tagged as Non-Free, such tags require a use rationale. The community was in dispute of this, it was resolved by removing the non-free label. The block regarding tagging logos that was placed by Ta bu shi da yu, was not appropriate and was shortly reversed. The second block by Ta bu shi da yu was caused by a user modifying  which in fact did orphan a lot of images for a short time. The block by Future Perfect at Sunrise was because BCBot was tagging images several times. The reason that BCBot was doing this was because someone changed the template that the bot used. I think it was  to use a uw- style template. BCBot only checked for the original template because no-one told me that they were changing the template. Once that was brought to my attention I quickly fixed it. Since the case closed I have started working with images, I tag orphaned non-free, check for basic rationales that are required per WP:NFCC, Ive also reworked RFC with radiant. and now Im working on a push to move images to commons, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7 & User:Betacommand/Commons for the commons push. Ive also helped other editors, ive written User:SpebiBot and Ive helped wikihermit with is copyright detection bot. Since the ArbCom case I have worked on all areas that were brought up and am addressing them. I plan on avoiding image deletions because I dont want to have the perception that Im trying to delete all NFC. And as I said I have stopped username blocks. βcommand 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betacommand motion 

message: ===Clerk needed===
I see that the tradition of bombing any sort of discussions by the same characters thus making the threads unreadable and useless (or at least more difficult to comprehend) protruded even to an ArbCom page. While it is a useful demonstration of one of the reasons why any other less formatted forum cannot sort this mess out (there are other reasons why community sanction board is inadequate for this problem), still may I request the clerk to remove spurious additions by users who choose to make threaded arguments into other people's statements? Thanks. --Irpen 05:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supported. Please start With Petri and his outrageous claims off no contributions. I have moved mine to my statement. I added it because I was unaware of that bit of protocol and Petri had already done so without repercussions, so I did not know it was wrong. --Alexia Death the Grey 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a clerk note reminding everyone for the format for the RfAr page, and will allow a little while for people to move things to their own sections now as Alexia has done. Newyorkbrad 10:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Digwuren and Tartu based accounts]] 

message: I see that the tradition of bombing any sort of discussions by the same characters thus making the threads unreadable and useless (or at least more difficult to comprehend) protruded even to an ArbCom page. While it is a useful demonstration of one of the reasons why any other less formatted forum cannot sort this mess out (there are other reasons why community sanction board is inadequate for this problem), still may I request the clerk to remove spurious additions by users who choose to make threaded arguments into other people's statements? Thanks. --Irpen 05:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Supported. Please start With Petri and his outrageous claims off no contributions. I have moved mine to my statement. I added it because I was unaware of that bit of protocol and Petri had already done so without repercussions, so I did not know it was wrong. --Alexia Death the Grey 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a clerk note reminding everyone for the format for the RfAr page, and will allow a little while for people to move things to their own sections now as Alexia has done. Newyorkbrad 10:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clerk needed

message: Arbitrator UninvitedCompany posted to a decision today that "Per discussion on arbcom-l, the Committee is striving to avoid use of judicial language and metaphors in its decisions.  I have updated the remedies accordingly." If a decision has been made to change the terminology that has been in widespread use, I suggest that some further information be posted about the changes for the information of editors who participate in workshops or may be affected by proposed remedies. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a general understanding that we should move away from judicial terminology, but not necessarily one regarding what we should move towards instead.  I suspect this will need some time to evolve before it's possible to really make a statement about the sort of language we're adopting. Kirill 06:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may suggest a terms that I think in need of replacement, "Injunction" jumps to mind as something that could do with a better name. (Alternately, just merge motions and injunctions to minimize the amount of people who don't see the subtle difference.) Also, "Arbitration", "Clerks", and a good deal of other terms could be safely decapitalized, to lessen the aura of officiality they convey. Nevertheless, no need to go overboard by focusing on renaming to the exclusion of important issues. Picaroon (t) 23:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in terminology 

message: Is there a template for situations like this where an ArbCom ruling has affected an article?  I ask because when archiving that Talk page I accidentally archived the ArbCom ruling thinking it was just another section in the Talk page.  SwatJester was kind enough to save the ArbCom ruling from the archive but it seems to me that this could have been avoided had the ruling been in a template similar to other "stickied" Talk page information.  --ElKevbo 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  There is  and , but the terms of the Smart case were relatively unique.  If I closed the case I would have substituted one of the boxes and made a custom message (or you could put it on User talk:Derek Smart/Arbitration and transclude it). Thatcher131 07:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom ruling template for articles? 

message: I noted that an involved party on one of the Requests for arbitration, User:No.13, is actually a sock of a banned user. He has been indefinitely blocked. --PaxEquilibrium 16:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Well, first off, since ArbCom has pretty much said that they won't review the indef Block on VK, but are looking at user conduct issues as a broader base, should we rename it?
Also, the list has gotten WAY WAY out of hand with regards to involved parties, here's my suggestion to pare it down to the folks whose behavior has been the worst, ie, the ones with reason to face ArbCom. I'm not saying that the others haven't been occasionally off the tracks, but these are the eight that if you polled admins involved and this, have done the most to poison the atmosphere
* (who's indefblocked, probably can be dropped if ArbCom wants just to endorse User:Alison's block)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(Fixed formatting) SirFozzie 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest leaving me in there just so nobody says it's unfair or anything, however there's not much point in them looking for evidence of any wrongdoing on my part as firstly there isn't much and secondly I'm leaving again straight after the case anyway. One Night In Hackney303 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm inclined to agree - Alison ☺ 00:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hope the Arbs lay down stricter, and more general rules, cause this "stuff" will creep in again with newer editors. Also, it's not only the above, it also applies to others not mentioned, and to other articles.User:Gold_heart 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd have the thought "The Troubles" would be more appropriate, as articles relating to it seem to be the likely scope of the case. One Night In Hackney303 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vintagekits"'s ArbCom Participants 

message: moved from WT:RfAr
Please advise which senior administrator or member of the ArbCom panel changed the title of the ArbCom case assessing the behaviour of a particular user and his indefinite ban, to a far broader title which basically encompasses a vast segment of Northern Irish politics. I have no wish to be involved in the latter. My comments were made in good faith regarding the heading of the original case, and I think it extremely bad form that the heading has been changed without first contacting all those who had already contributed a comment. If the arbitrarily changed heading is to remain I shall withdraw my comment. David Lauder 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just received this note from User:Penwhale: "Per the original ArbCom vote, the arbitrators decided that the scope of the case should not be limited to just Vintagekits. Via an e-mail instruction, I was asked to include all parties and name the case as The Troubles. A little too secretive for me, I'm afraid, and such a renaming changes the goalposts and the reason Vintagekit's ban came up for ArbCom. I am withdrawing. David Lauder 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitrators, during their vote, mentioned that they would like to look at the whole picture. If you notice my clerk note, I asked what the scope was going to be on and whether to involve all parties. The Arbitration Committee does maintain a mailing list for conversing off-wiki. (Think of the discussion as behind doors.) It's not secretive (secretive here would actually mean that the arbitrators didn't mention they want to view the whole picture before asking the clerk to re-title). By the way, you may not voluntarily withdraw from an arbitration case (to be removed from involved party, a motion must pass). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I am not "involved" in the "The Troubles" of Ulster at all or in any way. That was not the original arbitration which I voluntarily made a statement for. Something voluntarily submitted to a particular case, which has then had a dramatic shift of parameters, should be able to be withdrawn otherwise it is essentially being misused. I failed to notice that you were the clerk, so please put this matter before the arbitrators for an authorisiation of my statement withdrawal. regards, David Lauder 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be up to the judgment of arbitrators to decide; I could only ask them to consider. Generally speaking, though, most people that submit any kind of evidence for the situation ends up staying listed as an involved party because they also would get notified at the end of the case. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *As one who has been keen for this whole affair to be sorted fairly. I disagree completely with David Lauder. I think it is brilliant that the whole of this problem is to be fully explored. It seems to me that at times, a small clique of editors which included David Lauder have exacerbated the problems, rather than try to find a reasonable solution and compromise with those of differing views.  David Lauder may indeed choose to withdraw as he wishes but he should note that his withdrawal will not prevent his conduct in this affair from being closely scrutinised.  If the Arbcom decide that the permanent ban of Vintagekits is justified then so be it, but it is very unlikely they the findings will be that Vintagekits orchestrated and 100%  personally caused the feuding which has been a feature of "The Troubles" pages for so long. Giano 13:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't know how you can say that, honestly I don't. Would you say that post falls with the realms of WP:CIVIL? I have not attacked anyone elses work on WP the way VK has. Show me someone I have bullied into submission? Lead me to one AfD I have proposed? Show me where I had some involvement in the last two indefinite blocks of Vintagekits. We may have crossed swords at points but are we not adults? In all courts/arbitration matters there is a fundamental root cause. Originally this case was brought to ArbCom to consider Vintagekits, under that heading. The parameters have been substantially altered covering Northern irish matters, where my input over the past 8 months has been utterly meaningless.David Lauder 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, surely you've nothing to be concerned about and the arb case can proceed with the incidental evidence you have provided? - Alison ☺ 13:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of title of case 

message: Shouldn't there be more linking to specific diff's proposed decisions. I noticed the lacking off first on this this proposed decision, but I also saw it today on another case. There is often a lot of diff's on evidence pages but I think its important to show what the arbcom thought were the diff's on which they decide their decision. Garion96 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to diffs in proposed/final decision 

message: I humbly ask FloNight and James F. to reconsider accepting this case in light of my statement. If the ArbCom rejects the case, I would be grateful if ArbCom members could assist both me and my opponents in how best to resolve the stand-off. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add the note that I am not asking ArbCom to make any kind of ruling or determination on the inclusion of particular non-free content in the Intelligent design article, but rather on the policy, processes, and actions taken in this particular case. They are typical of many other disputes regarding the usage of non-free media. Videmus Omnia  Talk  15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadell's questions re Intelligent Design 

message: Should a solution like probation be imposed as a result of arbitration, I think someone in Prob's position has 3 choices.
#Keep editing under the original account name for the time of the remedy.
#Change the account name, keep the change secret and not edit for the time of the probation. Probation requires community knowledge to be effective.
#Change the account name and announce the change to the community in relation to the arbitration case in the same way arbitration cases are announced now.
I don't see how there can be any other options, given that arbitration decisions are binding and probation requires community knowledge to be effective. ViridaeTalk 15:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if an editor editing under probation wishes to change his or her account but does not wish to notify the community, then notifying the Arbitration Committee is sufficient, if he or she commits to not editing the articles under which he or she was originally under probation.  If the editor, under his or her new account, begins regularly editing articles to which probation applies, all deals are off, because then the editor's account and probationary status are then relevant to the community.  --Iamunknown 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just informing arbcm is not effective - they are busy people and do not have time to watch if someone is behaving themselves - the community however, does. ViridaeTalk 23:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The arbcom and admins but not ordinary editors ? --Aminz 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, but at that point the privacy is lost, because it cannot be expected that  people will keep it quiet? There is also no way to contact admins only that I am aware of. ViridaeTalk 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My 2c

message: Discussion moved from Wikipedia Talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision for broader community input on this important matter. :)  Newyorkbrad 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *laughs* Thanks, Bio! I was going to comment, but I think Astrotrain already thinks I'm stalking his edits ;)SirFozzie 15:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: On behalf of the arbitration clerks, I would welcome additional community input on this point before we start adjusting all the other cases and templates. :) Newyorkbrad 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Are" is correct.  You wouldn't say "six pedants is a nuisance", would you?  The verb should agree with the subject, not the object. — ras52 13:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely the full sentence refers to a collective noun (the Arbitrators in this case), and a collective noun takes a singular verb. By the way, I'm assuming good faith, and not taking personally the "nuisance" statement above. --The.Q(t)(c) 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was intended tongue in cheek: certainly not personally.  I don't think that whether or not the Arbitrators is a collective noun is relevant, though "6 votes" could perhaps be considered one.  The clause "6 votes is/are a majority" can be considered in isolation.  Google finds roughly equal numbers of each:  50,300 for are, and 31,400 for is, not that I'd use Google as an arbiter on matters grammatical.  Perhaps a better comparison is not "six pedants is a nuisance", but "six pedants is enough" which doesn't seem so obviously wrong.  Anyway, I still think "are" is correct, though it's perhaps not so clear cut.  — ras52 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a grammar expert by any means, but bad grammar annoys me (Eats, Shoots & Leaves is my bible, I frequently drive my family and work colleagues to distraction my correcting misplaced apostrophes, Etc). This statement just scans incorrectly for me, but perhaps it's more to do with American and British English differences than anything else.  If the same statement were written in Hiberno-English, it would probably read something like: 
In dis case, dere's 10 Arbitrators dat are activated, so dat means that if dere are 6 of them voting the same way, dat's more than isn't voting that way, so dey wins!
--The.Q(t)(c) 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. :) shoy 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template grammar question 

message: It has been recommended by User:Daniel and User:Chaser that I post this complaint here—although I suspect posting here is useless and will be dismissed. 
The complaint is as follows:
Moved from WP:BN.--chaser - t 05:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The case closed in March, which is more than half a year ago. The train has left the station. Furthermore, how exactly does participating the deletion discussion make Fred biased? A link might be helpful. Picaroon (t) 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint about Fred Bauder 

message: *As a condition of my temporary unbanning to make a community ban appeal, I am not allowed to post anywhere else on Wikipedia (except my user page).
*This morning, I was accused of sockpuppetry here, but unbanning conditions means I can't reply.
*Can I ask that a clerk notes this on the above page, that I am unable to reply, and note that I have replied to the editor concerned on my talk page? --Iantresman 22:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a clerk as well as an administrator. I hereby authorize you to post a reply on that page, because it has become relevant to the request for arbitration. When you do, you can link to this thread and mention it in your edit summary, so that there will be no allegation you violated the conditions of your unblock. Newyorkbrad 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk query 

message: Hi, I have not been signing the stuff I write in my arbitration request (with four tildes), because it's not a talk page.  However, it just dawned on me that others are signing.  My apologies if I messed up by not signing.Ferrylodge 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Signing is not of pressing importance, since the header will tell us who made the comment. However, timestamps can be helpful in sorting out the path of a conversation, so please make an effort to do it from now on. Thanks. Picaroon (t) 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info.  I'll do my best to sign from now on.Ferrylodge 02:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing Comments? 

message: Just out of curiosity, what happens if an admin (I) imposes a permaban on an editor (II), and then the editor (II) makes an arbitration request naming the admin (I) as an involved party, but the admin (I) never shows up to make an ARBCOM statement?Ferrylodge 02:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These two prior arbitrations may offer some guidance: 172 (#2) and Henrygb. --bainer (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the committee can consider the conduct of all involved parties, I believe there is a bit of a distinction to be drawn between a case drawn to seek review or reconsideration of the ban, as opposed to a case alleging habitual misconduct by the administrator. In the former situation, at the case acceptance stage, the administrator might feel that his or her points had been covered by others, for example. If the case is accepted, all parties including administrator (I) in your example would be notified and invited to present evidence and workshop proposals. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 13:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information, Newyorkbrad.  Earlier today, I took the liberty of reminding FeloniousMonk about these proceedings, including two questions which have not been addressed by others so far in these proceedings.Ferrylodge 14:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point "reminding" crosses the line to "badgering." Just an observation. Raymond Arritt 14:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And do you believe that line has been crossed, Raymond?Ferrylodge 14:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, just an observation, not an accusation. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on. Raymond Arritt 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not fit, nor has anyone suggested that it fits.  But thank you for the observation.Ferrylodge 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah yes, Brad makes the important distinction between making a statement before the case is accepted and participating after the case has been accepted. I had thought Ferrylodge was referring to the latter. The arbitrations I linked to of course deal with failures to participate in cases after they have been accepted. --bainer (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-Shows 

message: antisocialmedia.net is clearly an attack site, but it was also covered in what even the most prominent policy-they-don't-want-called-BADSITES proponents regard as Reliable Sources. Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack site) was named, not linked. The naming was removed under cover of NPA. We already don't link many shock sites, we just put the addresses in text form. But specifically: is the prohibition on specifically linking, or is naming for encyclopedic purpose in article space covered?
Another point: you don't want people gaming your ruling. But the whole case came about because of the BADSITES advocates grossly gaming the MONGO decision. What can be done when (not if) they start again? Bring yet another case? We're talking about admins reverting at will and blocking people they disagree with - David Gerard 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Issues which were not resolved in the ruling are not resolved, but remain subject to resolution under our principles, most particularly Wikipedia:No personal attacks, by users, administrators and the dispute resolution process. Fred Bauder 16:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a particular issue arises (not simply an abstract question), please carefully discuss the matter on talk pages, and if necessary use the dispute resolution process. Please don't edit or wheel war. Fred Bauder 16:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those answer the question: is the resolution against linking intended to cover naming in an encyclopedic context? That's a yes or no question, Fred. - David Gerard 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking =/= naming; cf. the rejection of the proposals prohibiting "referencing" of sites. Kirill 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence: these are not linking to a site. If naming is gaming the principle against linking, then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming harassment policy is typical or symptomatic of bullying and provocative behaviour - back to the playground. In other words there is a pretty good reason to say WP:HARASS is not for gaming. Charles Matthews 20:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification re motions in Attack Sites

message: The arbitration case specifically mentions antisocialmedia (ASM).  As far as my reading of it goes, this is for the following reasons, among others:
* Wikipedia is not the place to promote your agenda.  This is addressed in WP:NPOV (and in WP:BAN, which allows for the banning of those who are here to pursue an agenda).
* Wikipedia is now so big that it is of paramount importance to those advancing an agenda, to get that agenda promoted here.
* Harassment of editors is a natural consequence of this, but that does not make it acceptable; nor does the fact that Wikipedia is now so big as to make harassment inevitable, imply that when people registered some time ago they should have recognised that this would happen.
* We should aspire to a low-to-zero-tolerance approach to harassment.  This is recognised in existing policy. WP:HARASS.  There is a clear difference between persecution of one's opponents, and sincere debate with an aim of achieving rapprochement or at least a truce, in order to develop content which reflects all significant points of view without editorially favouring one or the other, deferring instead to the balance of independent scholarly opinion.
* Sometimes, people prove incapable of working collaboratively with others.  We try to help them, but in the end if they are not capable of working in a collegiate manner we exclude them.  This is policy, WP:BAN.
* Sometimes, such people continue the argument, attacks and threats after banning, either by registering new accounts or by using their user space, which blocked editors can still edit.  Neither is acceptable. WP:SOCK and WP:PPOL reflect the consensus that nobody has an indefinite right to continue an argument.  You only get so many kicks at the can.
* A banned editor is banned because their actions are destructive to the project.  They do not become any less destructive when repeated in an external venue.
The reason the arbcom case was brought, and ASM links deemed unacceptable, is because of this last point.  Pursuing and escalating an agenda offsite, especially by personalising and attacking those who acted to enforce community consensus and policy by preventing the abuse of Wikipedia to pursue an agenda, is absolutely 100% unacceptable.
Right now, banned User:WordBomb, the operator of ASM, is pursuing exactly the same campaign through Wikipedia Review (WR).  Simultaneuously, some pro-LaRouche activists are pursuing a campaign against User:Cberlet on the same site.  Simultaneously, the banned user WordBomb is also pursuing a campaign against those who advocated removal and banning of links to ASM, also on the same site.  Simultaneously, Herschelkrustofsky, also banned from Wikipedia, is pursuing a campaign of harassment and outing against SlimVirgin, alleging sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK is very clear on the distinction between a sockpuppet and an alternate account, and his evidence in any case establishes no credible link between the two named accounts).  In another thread, allegations are made that User:Ryulong is a sockpuppet.  In another thread, banned User:Jon Awbrey is speculating on an inappropriate and undeclared editing relationship between User:Jayjg and User:Jpgordon, also implying sock- or meatpuppetry.
In the arbitration case, the need to be able to draw distinctions is discussed.  This is as it should be.  It is, right now, very hard indeed - near impossible I'd say - to draw a distinction between Judd Bagley engaging in harassment at ASM, and Judd Bagley pursuing precisely the same campaign at WR.  When Judd Bagley pursues a campaign against those who advocated banning of ASM, it does not matter whether it is here or at WR.  Within the context of Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, Bagley's agitation against those who prevented his attempts to skew the content in a particular direction, are not relevant or welcome.
Applying the duck test, particularly in respect of banned user WordBomb's actions, it would seem to that Wikipedia Review is covered by the findings of the arbitration case.  The findings are carefully worded, and reading the carefully worded findings this fits the following:
* 15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence.  WR is, by now, substantially dedicated to harassing and outing Wikipedia editors, particularly those members of the administrator community who have been active in achieving the banning of certain editors and preventing them from abusing Wikipedia to pursue their agenda.
* 8) Except for obvious cases, such as ED, it is difficult to sort out sites engaged in criticism of Wikipedia and its editors and administrators from sites engaged in harassment. Likewise, when information is provided about the alleged wrong-doings of Wikipedia users, it can be difficult to differentiate legitimate complaints from bogus ones calculated to cast a user in a false light.  Wikipedia Review contains more, more sustained, more personalised and more sinister attacks on administrators than ED did at the time of the original MONGO case, and does now.  The actions coordinated on Wikipedia Review have caused more distress, more personal real-world issues and more disruption than the campaigns coordinated on ED.
* 5.1) This decision applies only to links to AntiSocialMedia.net and similar sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Wikipedia users. Attempts to extend this remedy to sites critical of Wikipedia and its users' behavior are discouraged.  Wikitruth is critical of Wikipedia, and occasionally hard on Wikipedians.  Wikipedia Review is, at present, being actively used by several banned users - e.g. User:WordBomb, User:Jon Awbrey, User:JB1896, user:Internodeuser - to further the campaigns and disruption that led to their original bans.  Some editors who are not banned appear to be acting as proxies for these campaigns.  Wikipedia Review, while it undoubtedly is critical of Wikipedia, in the same way ASM is also critical of Wikipedia, is also a "site engaged in harassment".  The baseless allegations of sockpuppetry by User:SlimVirgin are currently repeated on WR.  The assertion of SV's real world identity, as promoted by ASM, is stated as fact on WR.  WR is actively engaged in trying to build the memes of their accusations to undermine those who have opposed POV-pushing, soapboxing and vanity abuse of Wikipedia, leading to well-supported bans of those now active on WR.  WR also appears to be actively recruiting banned or disenchanted users.
On the other hand, at least one individual (who is active on Wikipedia Review) argued passionately against any attempt to blanket-ban critical sites, and this is supported by the case.  The restriction, and as a clarification of the MONGO arbitration, that restriction as well, applies only to sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Wikipedia users, and set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing volunteers.  WR is unquestionably engaging in malicious behaviour, and is arguably substantially (and unarguably significantly) devoted to harassing Wikipedia volunteers.  This is because it provides a platform and campaigning forum for several individuals, of whom Bagley is the worst.  Thus, the problem is not inherent in WR itself but is a result of its current user base.
Wikipedia Review does not, however, constitute a reliable source for information critical of Wikipedia or any individual Wikipedian.  Links to Wikipedia Review do not constitute "legitimate criticism", because the criticism has no authority and has, as presently constituted, strongly suspect motives.  We would not accept a post on Stormfront as a source for an allegation that an editor is pushing a pro-Zionist POV, and for the same reason we cannot accept a post on Wikipedia Review as a source for any criticism of a Wikipedia editor or admin, because to a very high degree of probability that will be motivated by personal animus.
Wikipedia Review is no longer Daniel Brandt's good-faith attempt to fix Wikipedia through critique, its focus at present is largely to undermine and destroy Wikipedia, or to mould it into a different shape where NPOV is replaced by the POV of those who have, either through choice or through inability, failed to influence content decisions to their own liking.  Not everybody on WR is happy with this, I would say.  While there is some glee at the undermining of admins willing to make tough calls, there is also some disquiet about some of the actions undertaken by certain individuals, and their motives for contributing.
While assuming good faith, then, we should recognise that WR,in its current state, is dangerous and inimical to the process of building an encyclopaedia - as with any link to offsite blog posts, aggravation, harassment, outing, attacks and other behaviour unacceptable within the framework of Wikipedia, links to WR are likely to be  pernicious and corrosive, and (most importantly) not at all likely to actually result in improvements to content.  Such links, to WR especially, risk undermining attempts to build consensus in the most contentious of topics. They damage the one thing that Wikipedia is about, above all else, which is co-operating to build the best encyclopaedia we can.  So we banned links to ASM, and we should also ban links to WR.  But there is more to WR than just Bagley, and there are editors who insist that some WR members, at least, have good intentions of fixing genuine abuse.  There is a need to reconcile these, and to arrive at a position where the actual problem, rather than a sideline issue, is fixed.  We all, I think, know that links to ASM are a sideshow here, it is Wikipedia Review, first and foremost, whose links concern large numbers of editors and have motivated the majority of recent debates on link removal, attack sites, external link sections in WP:NPA and WP:HARASS and so on.  These problems predate ASM, and the particular individual who has done more than anyone else to prevent a BADSITES policy, keep the argument alive, resist any tendency to remove attack links on principle and apply the MONGO ruling to sites other than ED, is active on WR, not ASM.
I propose therefore that the following clarification should be adopted, which takes into account the good faith concerns of those Wikipedia editors who are active on WR or consider it has at least the potential to act as part of the essential mechanism of checks and balances:
* No more links to Wikipedia Review threads should be added until the problem of offsite harassment, outing and coordination of abuse is fixed.  In particular, restating as fact the allegations published at ASM is wholly unacceptable. 
* The content of Wikipedia Review should be monitored by the Arbitrators periodically, with a view to lifting this restriction if Wikipedia Review reverts to being a good-faith attempt to improve the project, rather than a gathering ground for banned abusers.
* If any editor believes that Wikipedia Review contains a valid criticism, supported by sound evidence, of any Wikipedia editor or process, then three channels are open to them:
:* Wikipedia:Mailing lists, specifically WikiEN-l, which is an officially supported channel for meta-debate, and is at one remove from the content of the project, thus allowing discussion with much less risk of inflaming already tense situations.
:* Email to the arbitration committee, who investigate and discuss privately or in public, as appropriate, credible and supported allegations of abuse of the project.
:* OTRS, which is a back-channel open to article subjects and those affected by content issues, where independent trusted Wikipedians can review the basis of the case and make a decision as to whether, and how, it should be raised.
At the tactical level:
* Threads already linked, which have drifted into attack, are stale, repeat allegations which are also available from a better source, or which contain harassment, intimidation or outing, may be removed, with an explanation, by any editor in good standing.  Automated removal, as was done for ED, is strongly discouraged, and it is preferred that subjects defer to independent editors rather than remove old links referring to themselves.  Old may be taken as prior to the acceptance date of the attack sites arbitration, a date at which it may be reasonably expected that the community pulled its collective socks up in respect of external harassment.
* Attempts (by Wikipedia Review members especially) to reinsert links removed by others should be sanctioned.  Disputes should be referred to the arbitration committee as requests for clarification.  If a link contains personalised criticism against an individual, little is lost if the link is temporarily unavailable while it is deliberated in a neutral venue.
I believe that this is a proportionate and reasonable clarification.  It addresses a clear and evident present problem, which has been identified by many users; it satisfies the legitimate concern that valid criticism not be suppressed, by identifying three supported routes for that criticism to be assessed and responded to; it removes a farcical situation where we ban eighthundredpoundgorilla.com while allowing links to corneroftheroom.com, where EightHundredPoundGorilla is a prominent member and is pursuing exactly the same agenda, along with several other problematic individuals also pursuing other agendas; it defines a mechanism by which the site, which has as contributors several Wikipedians in good standing, can fix the identified problem and play a full part in what was, at face value, its original purpose; it addresses a significant and serious concern about ongoing offsite harassment of Wikipedians.  
And most important of all it does this: it reinforces the point that keeping Wikipedia as a place where it is safe for people to work on documenting controversial issues is much more important than keeping Wikipedia as a place where you can criticise others for the way in which they try to work on documenting controversial issues.
Wikipedia is not at all reluctant to discuss problems and criticisms, but we are not obliged to do so at the same venue where we are working on the core goal of building a verifiably neutral encyclopaedia, especially when doing so risks undermining that vital goal. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people are limited to 500 words in a case, I don't see that we have to read 2300 in a clarification. Could you take down this manifesto, and ask a simple question if you want a simple answer? Charles Matthews 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Charles, I am happy to move the reasoning to talk, but I felt it necessary to develop the argument in order to show that this is not seen as just another "ZOMG! Ban WR! BADSITE! BADSITE!" call.  Sorry I was verbose, but if the issue was simple it would not need discussion at all.  It is restated below, with the actual request highlighted, clerks should feel free to move this to Talk in support if they like. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification re motions in Attack Sites (2)

message: It looks like participant in the pending Sadi Carnot case has been using a disruptive sockpuppet at WT:COI.  See this bad faith post. The arbitrators may wish to determine who's doing this.  I sent an email to one of the participants last night which touches on the subject of the post.  While this could be a coincidence, it seems more likely that there's a connection. - Jehochman  Talk 11:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm such a silly goose.  The sock was User:MyWikiBiz, and has been dealt with.  If somebody wants to suss out the IP address of User:COI analyst they may find an open proxy that needs blocking. - Jehochman  Talk 12:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppetry by participant? 

message: Why can't individual Arbitration cases be placed on spearate pages as AFDs are? (Unless I totally missed the correct link.) It seems this would be easyier to follow individual cases, as the watchlist would then only show changes on the case(s) one is watching. This seems to work very well for AFDs, and I can't help wondering why it isn't/can't done here. - BillCJ 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are; see .  What appears on WP:RFAR, however, are not cases but requests for cases; it wouldn't be very useful, I think, to create subpages for those that are rejected. Kirill 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate case pages 

message: Hey, just wanted to point something out:  I have never been involved in an arbitration, but I recently had the instance where it seemed someone else was violating the terms of an arbitration they had been through before.  I read through their entire prior arbitration, thought it might be worth reporting, and.... couldn't figure out how to do it.  I went way out of process and contacted one of the initial people on the arb committee, who corrected my mistake.
The archived arbitration pages, i.e. the sub-pages of this article, should by default have a link to WP:AN/AE, so that folks reading the arbitration and suspecting a violation know how to report it.  Comments?  --Jaysweet 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I'll find a place to link it. Picaroon (t) 23:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for arbitration sub-pages need to have a link to [[WP:AN/AE]] 

message: I'd like to request an arbitration case be reopened in order to address a particular topic. Are there instructions anywhere for making such a request? Simões (talk/contribs) 20:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are seeking a change in the findings or remedies in a case, you can post to the "Requests for clarification" section on the Requests for arbitration page or, if it's a major change, bring a new case. If you are seeking enforcement of the rulings that were already made in the prior decision, you should post to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for reopening?