Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 10

message: Ok, I gotta say something since this is the same person who faulted me just a few days ago for doing the exact same thing he's doing now.
My belief here (considering I don't see how what he did there didn't violate WP:POINT for disruptiveness, thus making it impossible to WP:AGF in this case), is that Tony's trying to strawman himself, thus trying to gain pity for himself after a series of incidents(see this as well, as no doubt other things) of what he and Kelly Martin termed as a "entering an incandescent rage", or that this is some desperate plea for help. 
Tony is like many other prolific editors: he often creates problems whenever it comes to a page where there's something for something, but he's one of our finest elsewhere. And much like others afflicted with this ailment, which seems corrolary to Luigi 30's Law, he is quickly burning out, perhaps to the point where he will leave forever.
Ultimately, the issue here isn't Tony. Tony's just a symptom of a much larger problem that most people have ignored and some have tried to fix until they gave up to the futility of their circumstances. That problem is simple: Our policy system no longer works. 
Tony's issue here with the Catholic Alliance is a common one, most policies/guidelines contradict other polices and guidelines, which in itself is ultimately contradicted by WP:IAR, a rule that is becoming more and more commonly used as these contradictions become endemic, despite people such as Tony who decry IAR while using it in cases like these recent mfd (Perhaps it should be "Ignore Some Rules", but you get my drift.) 
This needs to be discussed in greater detail, but for now, Tony needs to be far away from and of the something for something pages. Either from a mandatory wikivacation or from refocusing his efforts on another project or a whole bunch of barnstars cheering him up so he doesn't feel like he's alone trying to "fix" things or what have you, I know first hand that it sucks feeling at the end of your wick like you have to save Wikipedia singlehanded, i've felt like this for the past few months. 
And remember, the longer we have to wait for the reform of creation/refinement/annulment/enforcement  regarding policies and guidelines, the more times you'll see moments like this. karmafist 08:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree.  It's very easy to feel isolated when you are fighting (real or perceived) vandalism.  Of course we all have subtly different visions of what WP is, that is one of the 'pedia's great strengths as well as a constant source of tension.  Karmafist is probably right that what Tony needs is a beer and some Wikihugs. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have missed something.  If Tony was posting this "RfAr" to request help in deleting the "Catholic Alliance", then it appears that it has already been deleted.  The AfD entry is still there, but the main article is not there.  If Tony was actually requesting that the ArbCom order the article deleted, then perhaps that request is now moot.  If he was actually requesting that other admins delete it, then perhaps that request has been accomplished.  I agree that there is no place for Wiki-projects whose mission is to push a POV, especially since I have an RfAr pending in which I was falsely accused of exactly that.  Robert McClenon 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You did miss something, Robert. He was posting this not to help in the mfd(which is already over), but rather that he's miffed that the thing was deleted and undeleted umpteen times for something he thinks was a clear cut case. karmafist 20:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  It should have been a clear-cut case.  However, he is making it even more confusing by using the RfAr article space, which is for arbitration requests, as a talk page to sound off.  The dispute resolution process is troubled enough without people semi-intentionally troubling it.  Robert McClenon 21:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Sidaway's "RFAR"

message: I have no intention of going looking for trouble. If left alone, I will leave alone. Phil Sandifer 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should you wish to initiate ArbCom proceedings against Snowspinner, you may do so by emailing the complaint to any Arbitrator (as may any person, actually).  The Arbitration Committee will then determine if your complaint deserves a public hearing, and if it does, will open the matter on your behalf.  Kelly Martin (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you realize how crazy that is? Everyking 05:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick comment from Snowspinner

message: User:Benjamin Gatti has posted several "comments on above" on his Arbcom evidence page. I thought that comments like that weren't allowed on the evidence pages? As proof that it's ok, Ben points to the Deeceevoice case, where it wasn't questioned. Could you clarify this for me? I always thought that the "evidence anaysis" part of the Workshop was for this purpose and that the evidence page was supposed to just have...well...evidence. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. Taken care of. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Ben has now created an "annotated" page, in which he mirrors the Evidence page with his comments again placed in the evidence sections of others.  So now we have two Evidence pages.  Simesa 10:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: I have an idea for a compromise about the term expiration question: how about the ArbCom doesn't accept any new cases until Feb., but it can continue working on already accepted cases during January? Everyking 06:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compromise for what? I'm not seeing any problem requiring any kind of compromise: ArbCom's term lasts until the next batch assumes duties, end of story. --Calton | Talk 09:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there were two competing views on this, that it should end on Jan. 1 and that it should run until the new com is in. There was a request for clarification about this. Everyking 14:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was a request for clarification about this, the result of which you have conspiciously ignored in your comments here - that the arbcom will continue on as-is until Jimbo and the community come to some kind of decision as to how and who the replacements will be. Raul654 19:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. Doesn't my idea kinda fall under "community"? Everyking 19:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  No.  No.  Your idea is to stop having arbitration, or to limit the scope of arbitration, until the "community" and the king decide how to set up the ArbCom.  Your idea is not part of the "community", but a suggestion to allow the "community" to fall apart in the absence of checks on trolls and flamers for a while.  Robert McClenon 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I can only speak for myself, but I don't think the current ArbCom has been doing a very good job and I would rather let a new committee with a genuine mandate decide the issues that get presented. Everyking 19:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You already told me I was crazy, so wouldn't it be easier to just assume its a manifestation of my craziness? Anyway, I don't see the problem with this. What is it? The Arb terms technically should have already ended; I'm saying let them continue working on existing cases for another month, but limit their powers a bit in the meantime. This falls about as nearly halfway as anything I can think of. Everyking 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, enlarging the ArbCom will only help if it splits arbitration into two levels, a first level, in which cases are heard quickly, by one or three arbitrators, and a second phase, in which they are heard by the full ArbCom.  My own opinion is that the current ArbCom works well as an appellate court, but that there should also be a Traffic Court division.  Many of the disputes that are now being taken to the ArbCom are really basically disputes that should first go to a Traffic Court with very quick justice and the right to appeal to a court with more deliberative procedures.  Robert McClenon 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Term expiration idea

message: I agree with Everyking's statement that the current ArbCom has not been doing a very effective job, but both of Everyking's suggestions miss the whole point and would make things worse.  The problem with the current ArbCom is an institutional one rather than a pesonal one.  It is not that it consists of the wrong arbitrators, which seems to be what Everyking is saying.  It is that it has more cases than it can handle in a timely manner under the current procedures.  As a result, it takes too long to ban trolls and flamers, and the conflicts that are caused by the trolls and flamers simmer longer before they are addressed.  To the extent that the ArbCom's decisions have been insufficiently precise, it is primarily because they have a difficult tradeoff between taking too long to craft the right remedy and crafting any remedy in a timely manner.  Preventing the ArbCom from taking any new cases would simply leave Wikipedia defenseless against trolls and flamers (since Jimbo does not have time to ban them, and not all of them can be dealt with cleanly by administrative blocks).  Does Everyking have some plan for vigilante justice while the ArbCom is shut down or partially shut down?  
I don't think that this thread is "performance art" or "improv comedy".  If so, that would fall under WP:POINT.  I think that the whole thread is simply misguided, and is disrupting WP without making a point.  Robert McClenon 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, enlarging the ArbCom will only help if it splits arbitration into two levels, a first level, in which cases are heard quickly, by one or three arbitrators, and a second phase, in which they are heard by the full ArbCom.  My own opinion is that the current ArbCom works well as an appellate court, but that there should also be a Traffic Court division.  Many of the disputes that are now being taken to the ArbCom are really basically disputes that should first go to a Traffic Court with very quick justice and the right to appeal to a court with more deliberative procedures.  Robert McClenon 00:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Comment

message: How does one request arbitration?  There is a hefty edit war occurring on Kent Hovind between user:Jason Gastrich and user:WarriorScribe.  Jason Gastrich seems to find pleasure in reverting any and all edits by WarriorScribe. Icj tlc 19:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To add a request, you edit the "current requests" section of the RFArb article. There's a template inside a comment at the beginning of this section; cut and paste the template (but not the comment braces), and fill it in. Make sure you've gone through other steps in the dispute resolution process first, though, or the request is likely to be rejected. --Christopher Thomas 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response, in the mean time, I did dispute resolution process and have requested Cabal Mediation. Thanks again.  Icj tlc 20:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Request 

message: Hi -- recently I noticed a request at WP:RFP to protect the talk page of User:Gimmiet (AKA Gabrielsimon), currently on a rather restrictive probation for his past actions.  The user requesting protection said that Gimmiet has been blanking his talk page and refuses to consider simply archiving it, in the process removing many administrator notices, warnings and notices of violations/blocks that are directly related to his probation. (From what I gather upon reading his comments, he's feeling picked on and wants reminders about his poor behavior -- current and past -- nuked.)  So it's been requested that his talk page be protected for a short time.  My question is this:  As I understand it, normally users are allowed to blank their talk pages if they so choose, including removing administrator notices.  But should less latitude be extended to someone with Gabrielsimon's track record, given that context about his probation is also being removed?  I'm unsure, so thought I'd ask here for opinions. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question to arbcom re: latitude on talk pages for those under probation 

message: When will the EffK case go into voting?  
It is true that I, as one of the originating parties, have continued to post evidence, but that is only because the evidence page is still open and the editor in question is continuing to engage in behavior that other editors consider disruptive.  Would it be possible for the ArbCom either to go into voting or at least consider a temporary injunction?  
I realize that the ArbCom has a backlog to decide.  I am simply requesting to have this case moved from the Evidence backlog into the Voting backlog.  Thank you.  Robert McClenon 22:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As defendant I say that I have asked the user Robert McClenon to voluntarily submit himself to the same process of adjudication, in demonstration of his good faith, in line with his professed  advice as per the other involved user Str1977. Both of these users are inextricably involved in this case, and I who first tried to posit the arbitration, some seasons ago, include clear request tpo the arbitrators that be that they define this possibility. McClenon advise me to so request, I have done so at three places, and I do so now again. I have not edited a single Article since 15 december, and will not be editing one until Arbitration . Therefore this request for urgency is unnecessary, unless it is simply for me to be censored from responding and proposing at discussions where good faith requires relevant explanation and source. I make no bones of this user's degree od fault in the entire poorly judged case. it is factor, as is the case, of the extremely troubled historical concatenation. Please, again, hear my request for a proper complete case of us three Users. I object to the POV stated here, and would like to direct good will to the attempt I made at Vatican Bank talk, to present a useful 'template' for semi-hagiographic, and sourced solution to article resolution. This has found favourt today from several users, and I dispute the term or categorrisation of disruption. I should not be panalised for having something to state, when others have no more than their wish for a factually  hagiographical presentation of the history. If such a request cannot be made, I refer to my earlier letter to Arbcom discussions that a case be brought against  the truly obstructive users Str1977 and this Robert McClenon. I explained at my evidence, and I added important evidence there yesterday, as my estimation of wiki transgression demanded.EffK 01:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EffK Case 

message: The Committee may wish to be aware that a user signing himself user:shock_puppet has posted an allegation (on the Userboxes Talk page) that Kelly Matrin is the sock-puppet of someone called Willy on Wheels, whom user:shock_puppet speaks in negative terms.  Either one or other (sp or KM) must, I suggest, be guilty of bad faith.  If sp, then I suggest that this raises the spectre of the RfAr being used as a means of venting a grudge rather than as an open-handed dispute resolution process --SockpuppetSamuelson 13:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked this user indefinitely, he has two edits, one was to vandalise a userbox and the other was to make this ludicrous accusation. I think it's safe to say that  is a reincarnation of some blocked/banned user. In the future, I think that WP:AN/I is a better place for this kind of message. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've blocked the IPs from which this editor edited as open proxies.  Both show, on CheckUser, the typical evidence of an open proxy being used by WoW/Milkman type vandals.  There are a large number of users created from these IPs which I will have to investigate and kill; I'll be getting to that later.  The IPs blocked were  and . Kelly Martin (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm new to the RfAr page - what ever happened to the RfAr on Kelly Martin et al?  --Dschor 07:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: rejected JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 07:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that is hardly a surprise.  Should be a fun week.  --Dschor 07:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hugs and kisses to you too, honeybuns. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelly Martin ''et al'' 

message: What is this, WikiCourt? Captain Jackson 16:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, want to play? Fred Bauder 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the canonical response is "would you prefer a nice game of chess?" - David Gerard 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL 

message: A couple weeks back, I spent some time lightly refactoring a few RFARs. In general, I reformatted some things to make it easier to read (like adding bullet points), hunted down diffs when the parties didn't do it themselves, and deleted pointless threaded arguments between the parties (but left discussion where someone was asking for clarification). No one complained, but I haven't done it much since. Before I do anything else, I'm interested in what current (and maybe future) arbitrators think about this:
#Should someone not on the arbitration committee be doing refactoring of any kind? If so, to what extent?
#Should a "clerk" exist in some kind of official capacity?
#Should clerks, official or otherwise, edit RFARs for:
#*Supplementary information
#*Readability
#*Clarity (removing confusing information)
#*Brevity (removing irrelevant information, removing "outside views" by uninvolved third parties)
#*Civility (removing threaded arguments between involved parties, personal attacks)
Orinigally, I started doing it just because I like to read RFARs so I can know what is going on with the Wiki, but some of the writing was making my eyes bleed; and I thought it could do the Arbs a favor considering how busy they already are. I recognize some people may have significant reservations about a "random Joe" like myself editing a page this sensitive though, so I'd like to get some input. --causa sui talk 03:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are playing with fire. Even an arbitrator will get into trouble doing what you are doing. We are considering using newly retired arbitrators for clerks as well as certain other users. I'll pass your interest on to the mailing list and discuss it on our irc channel. Are you currently a member's advocate? That is part of what they ought to be doing for their clients. Fred Bauder 13:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not a member's advocate. Evidentally, they either aren't doing it, or not everyone has an advocate. --causa sui talk 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not everyone has an advocate. There are some big problems with the AMA - some of it is the style of argument preferred by many advocates, which is overly legalistic in a way that simply does not work well. Part of it is that users do not magically become coherent when talking to their advocates - the completely batshit crazy tend to remain so in all cases. Phil Sandifer 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What that means is that incoherent editors will be unable to find an advocate who will work with them.  Robert McClenon 16:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: How about requiring that parties to an arbitration must be represented as a competent advocate? Fred Bauder 19:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that could work if you could find enough competent people who are willing to be advocates. Also, a lot of the people who end up in RFArs are disagreeable people who might not like the idea of other people representing them. --causa sui talk 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I partly agree and partly disagree with Fred Bauder's suggestion.  Parties to arbitration should be permitted to appear pro se, but should be expected to be competent.  I understand that one of the more difficult aspects of litigation in which a party is pro se is how much latitude the judge should allow for lack of knowledge by the litigant.  Ryan is right that many of the parties are disagreeable people.  A few of them at least can write well-structured English, but some are just too angry to organize what they write.  I assume that is what is meant by stream-of-consciousness posts, which are said to be unwelcome.  Robert McClenon 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stream of consciousness has no relationship to rationally presented argument and is seemingly wikipedia/college speak for length . It is misused and it is purely offensive- a personal attack in fact. Fred seems to be suggesting that trials have lawyers here, and he should know. As to the word disagreeable, that is a POV and rather dangerous to use. What is equally dangerous is that very serious cases could rest on incomplete defendent understanding of the editorial means for posting in these inner pages. I for one was begging for arbitration for ages, and unable to achieve it. I am relieved that it has now been posted. I rather have to say that in a case such as mine, that I would not expect anyone but the most daring and anonymous to concern themself at all, as the stakes are billions and the cohorts are rampant. And yet an anonymous advocate knda goes against one's faith and adds to one's doubts. In fact in my case I must say to Jimbo and everyone that all but the anonymous and completely so should recuse themselves from my case immediately. That Jimbo has a duty of care. Someone else pleasesend him the message, as I don't want to poke the stick in there at all. Duty of care. Incidentally I formulate and post a new brevity of my experience in Wikipedia. I say IT is in clear and present intellectual danger, from the users I specify. I say this in purest good faith, as I see daily excisions of material and a great wash of bad faith. My trial connects with this to its core. Some of the users on this page close to here know exactly. I would also repeat  here this question -If someone else who is an evidential party to a trial includes diffs from another or second third party as that party's evidence, either party's, evidence, does that second third party become subject to equal scrutiny by the trial? EffK 13:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can some third party please explain what EffK just posted?  Robert McClenon 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I couldn't possibly have made a better case for my own proposal. If we don't have the power to remove this kind of random ranting from unrelated discussion, how can we have any kind of ordered, reasonable discourse on anything? --causa sui talk 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not under any obligation to reply to the incoherent nonsense that gets posted here, and neither are we, beyond our rejection votes ;) Raul654 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, having smaller, more concise evidence pages would make for faster arbitration. I have been advocating the arbcom forming some sort of clerk's office to do that for us. Raul654 20:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That post that some of us do not understand, to be sure, was not a Request for Arbitration, but was posted by a party to a case that has already been accepted.  Robert McClenon 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mean to be pushy, but what's the hangup? :) This kind of thing, in my experience, gets stuck in the bureaucratic machine and never gets implemented, whether there is a good reason for not doing it or not. --causa sui talk 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for arbs 

message: causa sui makes an observation with which I agree:  "some of the writing was making my eyes bleed".  That is, most of the RfArs filed in the past two months have been horrendously written.  I would like to commend Schmucky the Cat for actually filing an RfAr that shows reasoning rather than anger.  My own suggestion would be that no one should refactor RfArs except for a party or the party's advocate, and that I agree with Fred Bauder that that is what advocates should be doing.  I would suggest that the arbitrators should frequently postpone voting on whether to accept an RfAr until it is refactored by its parties.  I would strongly urge NOT removing personal attacks.  The personal attacks in an RfAr are evidence of a pattern of personal attacks.  Robert McClenon 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about requiring that parties to an arbitration must be represented as a competent advocate? Fred Bauder 19:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that could work if you could find enough competent people who are willing to be advocates. Also, a lot of the people who end up in RFArs are disagreeable people who might not like the idea of other people representing them. --causa sui talk 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I partly agree and partly disagree with Fred Bauder's suggestion.  Parties to arbitration should be permitted to appear pro se, but should be expected to be competent.  I understand that one of the more difficult aspects of litigation in which a party is pro se is how much latitude the judge should allow for lack of knowledge by the litigant.  Ryan is right that many of the parties are disagreeable people.  A few of them at least can write well-structured English, but some are just too angry to organize what they write.  I assume that is what is meant by stream-of-consciousness posts, which are said to be unwelcome.  Robert McClenon 20:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stream of consciousness has no relationship to rationally presented argument and is seemingly wikipedia/college speak for length . It is misused and it is purely offensive- a personal attack in fact. Fred seems to be suggesting that trials have lawyers here, and he should know. As to the word disagreeable, that is a POV and rather dangerous to use. What is equally dangerous is that very serious cases could rest on incomplete defendent understanding of the editorial means for posting in these inner pages. I for one was begging for arbitration for ages, and unable to achieve it. I am relieved that it has now been posted. I rather have to say that in a case such as mine, that I would not expect anyone but the most daring and anonymous to concern themself at all, as the stakes are billions and the cohorts are rampant. And yet an anonymous advocate knda goes against one's faith and adds to one's doubts. In fact in my case I must say to Jimbo and everyone that all but the anonymous and completely so should recuse themselves from my case immediately. That Jimbo has a duty of care. Someone else pleasesend him the message, as I don't want to poke the stick in there at all. Duty of care. Incidentally I formulate and post a new brevity of my experience in Wikipedia. I say IT is in clear and present intellectual danger, from the users I specify. I say this in purest good faith, as I see daily excisions of material and a great wash of bad faith. My trial connects with this to its core. Some of the users on this page close to here know exactly. I would also repeat  here this question -If someone else who is an evidential party to a trial includes diffs from another or second third party as that party's evidence, either party's, evidence, does that second third party become subject to equal scrutiny by the trial? EffK 13:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can some third party please explain what EffK just posted?  Robert McClenon 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I couldn't possibly have made a better case for my own proposal. If we don't have the power to remove this kind of random ranting from unrelated discussion, how can we have any kind of ordered, reasonable discourse on anything? --causa sui talk 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not under any obligation to reply to the incoherent nonsense that gets posted here, and neither are we, beyond our rejection votes ;) Raul654 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, having smaller, more concise evidence pages would make for faster arbitration. I have been advocating the arbcom forming some sort of clerk's office to do that for us. Raul654 20:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That post that some of us do not understand, to be sure, was not a Request for Arbitration, but was posted by a party to a case that has already been accepted.  Robert McClenon 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mean to be pushy, but what's the hangup? :) This kind of thing, in my experience, gets stuck in the bureaucratic machine and never gets implemented, whether there is a good reason for not doing it or not. --causa sui talk 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrible RfArs

message: Why hasn't anything been done in this case?  Why does it continue to remain in the "evidence" phase? It is by far the oldest case still on the docket, and yet it remains in the "evidence" phase, even though plenty of evidence has been given.  EffK is continuing to cause active harm to wikipedia, and the arbcom has yet to do anything, in spite of accepting the case nearly two months ago. john k 19:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that I am recording the active harm. I still cannot understand why this user attacks good faith use and notice of source? Why join with those whom he kows to be in contumate hypocrisy?  Specify the active harm, or I take this as further confirmation of your abandonment of Wikipedia principles even beyond the abandonment of verifiability.EffK 12:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question apparently answered, in that EffK requested ArbCom assistance in fixing the diff.  Robert McClenon 20:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I request ArbCom assistance in judging the case.  Robert McClenon 20:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: He couldn't get his browser to work on such a long page, so he asked me to post it. He was able to put it on the talk page. I am recused in that case anyway. Fred Bauder 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We may post evidence in any case we chose to anyway. Looking for evidence you find evidence of all sorts. Fred Bauder 01:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Fred- it's all working today. Good thing too as I was able to rescue a spare diff. I don't pretend to understand why things work or don't work ! I got in via your edit there Fred and it loaded like a snap from that diff. As to the requesting-surely we are all now requesting Arbcom assistance in judging the case. What assistance is Robert McClenon looking for ? I am very glad to see that he is now equally subject to arbitration scrutiny. can any one tell me-is advocacy sensible or necessary at this juncture. Anybody else wanna be a martyr. Or if we win ,join the banning squad ?EffK 12:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EffK again 

message: The evidence entered by Musical Linguist documents the active harm that is continuing in the past few days.  Could the arbitrators please consider the request for a preliminary injunction (in the workshop)? Robert McClenon 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Preliminary Injunction

message: Something is peculiar about the History of the Evidence in this case.  Could one of the arbitrators please request a developer check?  The diffs appear to show that Fred Bauder posted a link to the evidence in the section of evidence presented by EffK.  On the one hand, I don't think that an arbitrator should be posting evidence in a case that he will judge.  On the other hand, I don't think that an arbitrator is posting evidence in this case.  If Fred Bauder is posting evidence, then he is becoming an advocate, and should recuse.  However, I think it is more likely that EffK posted the diff, and that the Wiki log is wrong.  (The edit summary appears to have been written by EffK, not by Fred Bauder.)  Robert McClenon 20:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question apparently answered, in that EffK requested ArbCom assistance in fixing the diff.  Robert McClenon 20:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I request ArbCom assistance in judging the case.  Robert McClenon 20:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: He couldn't get his browser to work on such a long page, so he asked me to post it. He was able to put it on the talk page. I am recused in that case anyway. Fred Bauder 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We may post evidence in any case we chose to anyway. Looking for evidence you find evidence of all sorts. Fred Bauder 01:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Fred- it's all working today. Good thing too as I was able to rescue a spare diff. I don't pretend to understand why things work or don't work ! I got in via your edit there Fred and it loaded like a snap from that diff. As to the requesting-surely we are all now requesting Arbcom assistance in judging the case. What assistance is Robert McClenon looking for ? I am very glad to see that he is now equally subject to arbitration scrutiny. can any one tell me-is advocacy sensible or necessary at this juncture. Anybody else wanna be a martyr. Or if we win ,join the banning squad ?EffK 12:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for History Check on Case

message: The assistance that I am requesting from the ArbCom is that they take the case from evidence into voting so that they can judge the case.  As Mindspillage has said, there is already enough evidence.  As long as the evidence record stays open, it will just get more of the same.  Robert McClenon 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request Explained

message: Fred Bauder wrote:  We may post evidence in any case we chose to anyway.  Looking for evidence you find evidence of all sorts.  I assume that he means that the arbitrators may conduct their own investigation, like a court under civil law, or a grand jury, or certain administrative tribunals.  That is reasonable.  However, in that case, I assume that the arbitrators would mark the evidence as being entered by the arbitrators.  Robert McClenon 20:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume, given the premise that the evidence is shared - remember that things like checkuser requests are generally not. Phil Sandifer 22:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators Posting Own Evidence

message: I propose the following policy change:
:An RfAr by a Wikipedia user, will be automatically deleted in 1 week unless it is seconded by two other Wikipedia users that are qualified to second.  The qualification for seconding an RfAr is that the Wikipedia user must have done at least <x> edits at least <y> weeks before the RfAr nomination was made.
Questions, comments, and suggestions are appreciated.
Regards,  Carl Hewitt 09:08 22 January 2006
*I'd agree. I would think various other qualifications should also be made, as there is clearly need .EffK 13:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an arbitrator can't tell what the person is even saying, they should reject the case. What you are proposing doesn't seem to be any different. --causa sui talk 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the temptation is to dig in and find out what the dispute is about. But this takes a lot of time and effort. Fred Bauder 21:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requiring seconding for RfAr