Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

Noticeboard

Clerks' noticeboard (shortcut WP:AC/CN)

Clerks' Noticeboard

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

---

This noticeboard's primary purpose is to to attract the attention of the clerks to a particular matter by non-clerks. Non-clerks are welcome to comment on this page in the event that the clerks appear to have missed something.

Private matters

---

The clerks may be contacted privately, in the event a matter could not be prudently addressed publicly (i.e., on this page), by composing an email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org; only the clerk team and individual arbitrators have access to emails sent to that list.

Procedures

---

A procedural reference for clerks (and arbitrators) is located here.

---

Clerks and trainees, please coordinate your actions through this section, so that we don't have multiple clerks working on the same cases at the same time. An IRC channel, #wikipedia-en-arbcom-clerks, and a mailing list, Clerks-l, are also available for private co-ordination and communication, although the mailing list is fairly low traffic.

Pending Requests

All work relating to pending requests on WP:RfAr.

• Now opening the Ottava Rima restrictions case. AGK 22:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please ensure that the statements of all involved parties are brought to the main case page. I'm also not sure why "requests for comment" is listed under the list of involved parties. I appreciate that mistakes and occasional oversights happen from time to time, but at the same time, I appreciate that this particular case cannot afford to have too much of that either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Open Cases

All work relating to Arbitration cases already opened

Active/inactive arbitrators

This list will be used to set the number of active Arbitrators and the case majority on cases as they open. As of 22 November, there are 10 active Arbitrators, and the majority is therefore 6 for all new cases (that is, those accepted after the "as of" date). See WP:AC/C/P#Calculating the majority for help. The master list is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Current members.

Active (as of 22 November 2009):

1. Carcharoth
2. Cool Hand Luke (active on cases accepted after 22 November)
3. Coren
4. John Vandenberg
5. Newyorkbrad
6. Risker
7. Rlevse
8. Roger Davies
9. Stephen Bain
10. Vassyana
11. Wizardman (selectively active)

Away or inactive:

1. FayssalF
2. FloNight

Arbitrator announcements

Arbitrators, please note if you wish to declare yourself active or away/inactive, either generally or for specific cases. The clerks will update the relevant cases as needed. If you are returning, please indicate whether you wish to be: 1) Put back to active on all cases; 2) Left on inactive on all open cases, and only put to active on new cases; or 3) Left to set yourself to active on cases you wish (remember to update the majority on its /Proposed decision page).

• I'm going inactive on all cases except the EE mailing list case. I'm staying active on BASC and other select issues. Please mark me inactive on the the case pages. Thanks, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Long term projects

• None, currently.

Discussion

Still available for help

Back in August I posted a notice here saying I'm available to help out with any tasks a non-clerk might be able to do. This is still true. :) Rockfang (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we've just taken on a new batch of trainee clerks, so we probably won't be looking to take on any more trainees for at least a few months. However, we do maintain a list of editors who are interested in becoming trainees. I will suggest to the other clerks that we put you on that list. Thanks for volunteering! AGK 12:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me that I may be misinterpreting your request as a willingness to become a trainee clerk, so I make a point of asking: are you willing to be considered as a trainee, Rockfang? If not, then, by all means, do jump in wherever there seems to be a need for input or assistance (although you probably ought to read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Helping out before diving into any "clerky" tasks.) Regards, AGK 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to be considered as a trainee. But if the program is currently full, or if there is no need for new trainees, I can wait.--Rockfang (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've asked for you to be added to the list of candidates to be considered at the next intake of trainees. In the meantime, please do volunteer where you can around the various pages that fall under the prerogative of the clerks (where your input would be appropriate). Regards, AGK 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Display problem with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

I posted a message about a display problem with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Header. Lankiveil took a shot at making the change but now it looks worse than before. If you would kindly drop Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header down to semi-protection for a few hours I would be willing to fix it. I have access to Windows, Mac OS, IE, Firefox, Safari & Opera, so I can fully test it. I'll even download Chrome if needed. Also, is there some reason that you want the case summary box to the right of the TOC? I'm sure that people with laptops aren't happy about having to scroll over to it, if they even know it's there. I think it would look better centered above the TOC, but I won't move it unless you agree with the change. Thanks! UncleDouggie (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you let me know when you can be online to fix it, I'll be happy to drop it down to semiprotection for you to work with it. I'm a bit wary of just unprotecting it and leaving it though, since it's a reasonably high visibility template on a page that tends to attract controversy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC).

I for one have no problem with dropping the protection on a temporary basis. As Lankiveil says, however, I'd rather that this was done only for periods where the code is being adjusted; so UncleDouggie, please give one of us a shout on our talk page, and the protection will be duly amended (for, say, three hours?). Oh, and thanks again, Douggie, for your help. AGK 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Already sorted :-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Procedural questions

Here are some questions I have. Feel free to add or comment. Manning (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1 Who sets the deadlines for evidence, workshopping etc. Can clerks formally request the establishment of deadlines?

2 How do we cope with changes to effective Arb numbers during a case? Should we maintain of log of status changes? Related examples:

• An arbitrator elects to recuse midway through a case. Do prior votes still count or are they refactored as comments?
• An arbitrator reclassifies as "inactive" midway through a case. Do prior votes still count or are they refactored as comments?
• An arbitrator resigns. (This case has already been clarified, all votes on unresolved matters are refactored as comments)
• An inactive Arb returns midway through a case. Can their vote alter the outcome of temporary motions that otherwise were resolved?

Motions

(1) In regular cases clerks do not become involved in tallying until a motion to close the overall case has been passed. However with the new "single motion" framework, the time for action is not so clear-cut. So when should a clerk get involved in tallying? Possible suggestions:

• At the moment a motion has achieved a definite pass/fail result
• After a predetermined period has elapsed since a motion achieved a definite result (eg. 24/48 hours)
• When an arbitrator leaves a note instructing a clerk to close the motion.

(2) What should be the "elapsed time" conditions for closing motions, (if any)?

(3) Should each motion have a clerk notes area? (Currently the notes section falls at the end of a group of motions).

Manning: I think all of these were answered on clerks-l, but if any were not, or any responses were unclear, then please do speak up. We want to make sure that our newcomers are exhaustively trained! AGK 10:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite

A discussion is currently being held on clerks-l concerning the return of Ryan, a former clerk who retired earlier this year, to active service as a clerk. Contributions would be welcome. AGK 20:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

With the discussion on the mailing list having finished, I am happy to say that Ryan Postlethwaite has returned to serving as a Committee clerk. AGK 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hope I'm allowed to post here - it this belongs elsewhere, feel free to move to the proper venue. That whole RFAR request/case (the "Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA" one) really needs a clerk. There's some folks posting outside their own section that's making it a little jumbled. Just thought I'd mention it to you guys. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are allowed to post on here! Thank you for bringing the situation to our attention, Ched. I've slapped the thread into place, so everything ought to be back to normal now. Do please let us know (on this page or elsewhere) if any more instances of wandering comments arise. Regards, AGK 23:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Updating of clerking procedures

I am working, armed with some suggestions from Carcharoth and my own ideas about how the page could be improved, on an update of the current procedures page. My progress to date is at WP:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures/S. All are welcome to contribute or comment—and any suggestions would be particularly welcome. Thanks, AGK 22:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Workshop/evidence editnotice

Could somebody please make use of their superior-to-my-own parserfunction knowledge to adjust the arbitration space edit notice to only display on the main requests page (and not also on evidence and workshop pages, as it currently does). Thatcher brought this up some time ago, but it never was looked into. The template is here: Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. AGK 22:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Improper tally at Case/Speed of light

Resolved

 – tally was correct Manning (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The injunction tally shows only 4 support votes and no abstentions. The table shows that 5 votes are needed to carry. The argument is made that a 24 hour wait with no response is tantamount to abstention. Thus the claim of 4 net support votes; however, that interpretation of "net" is not consonant with the table. Inasmuch as I myself have often been incommunicado for several days or weeks, I do not see this action as fitting correct procedure. Either an abstention is obtained or another vote in favor, or the action is not carried. Brews ohare (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An injunction (different than a motion) needs only net 4 votes to pass. After the waiting period (usually 24 hours) the injunction passes since it has 4 supports and 0 opposes. I hope that helps. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk attention needed

Resolved

 – An arbitrator has closed the thread. Manning (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The situation with Brews ohare is continuing to deteriorate. I draw your attention to my remark [1] and expect you to do something about it. I will not stand for being called a lyncher. You already blocked somebody for calling other editors Nazis during the case. These people are on notice that such behavior will not be tolerated. Do something about it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

But this has nothing specifically to do with Brews' arbitration case. In fact, you can see here that some soapboxing that this Arbitration was trying to end is still going on, but Brews is behaving in an admirable way here. Why not raise the case at AN/I or at the noticeboard for incivility? Count Iblis (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman - People get a lot further in this world using "please" and "thank you".
• Count Iblis - this page is for alerting the clerks as to potential issues, not for discussion as to whether or not a complaint has merit. Manning (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Manning, I've already gone quite far in the world. Let me give you good advice: when your neighbor cries for help, help them. Don't lecture about please and thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 23:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman - I am sympathetic to off-wiki factors at present which may be increasing your stress levels. I also note that I immediately addressed the issue you raised by getting an arb to intervene. I simply noted that no-one ever appreciates being ordered around. We are all volunteers, and basic courtesy never hurts. Manning (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• We're all volunteers, and none of us should have to put up with stick. That includes both being called a lyncher and unfairly demanding messages.
  I would at this stage proceed to address Jehochman's grievance, but it seems that Risker already has done so. AGK 23:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, AGK, you lost me. How is calling somebody a lyncher equivalent to omitting the word "please" in a request for clerk assistance? Over many weeks I've been polite and patient, yet they still roam the wiki casting aspersions at me and others. Yeah, I'm peaved and it shows. (Manning, thank you for doing something about the problem. I appreciate it.) Jehochman ^Talk 00:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• No problem Jehochman - always happy to help. Congrats on the bub. Manning (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Congratulations from me too on the new arrival.
  I did not say that both instances of maltreatment were as severe as one another. I did say that both being called a lyncher and receiving a blunt and unwelcoming message are beyond the levels that a volunteer should be expected to suffer. If your patience is at an end, then you have my sympathies, and I—and every other clerk, I am sure—will do everything we can to assist you; but treating us like crap is in no case a good way of soliciting our assistance.
  AGK 20:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche

Could somebody ask this editor to consolidate their comments? I went to read what that case was about, and instead I am feeling like this editor needs to be restrained from making any further posts until they clean up the mess they've made. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What comments? I'm not being lazy; I'd like you to cite the diffs that contain conduct you object to, for the avoidance of doubt. AGK 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See the wall of text at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Statement by Epeefleche. You might want to hit Greg L with a trout while you're at it. His statement is also excessively verbose. Posting a wall of text is not beneficial to development of consensus, and frequently is perceived as disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In both cases, I have taken action. Thank you for drawing attention to the length of the statements. AGK 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

General questions announcement

Could someone please post to AC/N?--Tznkai (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean the general questions on ArbCom elections? The community advertise that where needed. The ArbCom elections are not official ArbCom business, and my view is that ArbCom as a body does not get involved in ArbCom elections, so announcing it there would not be appropriate. The Signpost, and the village pump, and various policy talk pages and noticeboards would be better places to announce this, in my view. What should be announced at WP:AC/N (the arbitration noticeboard) is the fact that some arbitrators are standing down at the end of their terms, and that the normal annual election is being held, and the new arrivals (when the process is done). I'll suggest that now. Carcharoth (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Need a clerk for a recall effort

Resolved

 – Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) wants to initiate recall proceedings against me. I'm standing for recall under Lar's criteria, so I need an impartial clerk to certify the petition. Anyone feeling particularly neutral at the moment?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Master of Puppets (talk · contribs) agreed to clerk this. It doesn't seem to be anything requiring an ArbCom clerk, just someone neutral. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision

"That such conversations can, or are, done in secret "

Should be:

"That such conversations can be, or are, held in secret "

Rich Farmbrough, 06:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

I have emailed ArbCom about this issue. Thanks for raising it. Manning (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Although only arbitrators and clerks are supposed to edit the proposed decision page, I think that blatant, obvious, incontrovertible typos may be fixed by any editor. (Before I was an arbitrator, I would use an edit summary such as "fix typo, no substantive change" so that people with the page watchlisted wouldn't worry why I was editing it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:a/r error

Could a clerk please take care of this? [2] --Tznkai (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material and contacted the OP to determine details such as the involved parties, attempts at other forms of DR etc. After that either the OP or I will resubmit. Manning (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cross post please

Cross post on AC/N please: [3] --Tznkai (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

 Cross posted - Tiptoety ^talk 18:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbComOpenTasks upd reqd

There are new amendment and clarification requests which are not on {{ArbComOpenTasks}}. Could a clerk add them. Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The TOC of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment looks really weird. Where did this "Further discussion" section heading come from ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A "further discussion" section has been part of the amendment request template for a long time. Would you rather it were removed? I've updated the open tasks template ask you asked. AGK 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont want it removed; I am sure there are good reasons for your improvements back in June - I might have even sung its praises at the time. ;-)

What struck me was that we are seeing a lot of "Statement by yet another editor" as opposed to comments specifically about the first proposed Amendment, and SirFozzie has added what may be considered a separate amendment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please doublecheck the dates? I'm certain that the Troubles elements have not been open for a month. --Elonka 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the date. Dougweller (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Elements, plural (look in the amendments section). The date is wrong, and the link is red. --Elonka 06:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka: Oops, that was my mistake. I've fixed all the errors. Thanks for catching that. AGK 11:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but now the case isn't linked at all, even though there obviously is a case. Would anyone object if I just went in and fixed it myself? --Elonka 17:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix it. KnightLago (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. The trick is that when dealing with a case with the newer naming system (Requests/Case/Name), the /interim template should be used, but when dealing with a case with the older naming system (Requests for Arbitration/Name), leave the "interim" part off.[4] At some point someone may wish to update the template logic to be able to tell which naming system is being used, and adjust automatically (or if you're planning on moving all cases to the new naming system, that would work too). In the meantime I've updated the template docs, to give a tip on whether to use "interim" or not.[5] Also, I noticed that the template by default has the Clarifications and Amendments "collapsed" or hidden. This may be one of the reasons that Clarifications & Amendments take so long to get arb attention, because of the "out of sight, out of mind" problem. To adjust things so that the default state is open, rather than collapsed, I believe this is the page that needs to be tweaked: Template:ArbComOpenTasks/6. But that's more of a workflow question, so I'll leave it up to the arbs on whether they want it hidden or not. If you do want it tweaked, and no one's sure how to do it, let me know and I'll go fix.  :) --Elonka 22:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so that's that interim means… I had presumed that where the arbitration case corresponding to the clarification/amendment thread was listed using the old naming format, we simply made do with no link. That's why I considered changing the entry to have no case link to be "fixing" the problem.
I have no problem with editors in good standing making helpful changes to pages that are typically classed as "clerk (and arbitrator) only." In most cases, it means less work for me :). AGK 23:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification regarding Shell Kinney's Arbcom Case "ban"

Please see User talk:Shell Kinney#ArbCom Case Ban. I am sorry but I cannot see any conduct from Shell so "disruptive" as to warrant an immediate 7 day ban from an ArbCom case with no prior warning. Manning Bartlett gives very little justification for his action and supplies not a single diff. Shell is a longstanding contributor who deserves better treatment than this and to ban people from cases for expressing forthright views could have a dangerous chilling effect on future discussion.

Normally I would obviously have taken the matter up with Manning in the first instance but as he appears to have left the project - having deleted his user and talkpage and surrendered his admin rights - that course of action does not appear open to me. I do not think Manning's ban can stand if he is not going to be around to justify his reasons for imposing it. Perhaps an uninvolved clerk could look into this and either (a) confirm the ban and provide good reasons why it is justified or (b) acknowledge that Shell may resume participation in relation to that case if she wishes to do so. Thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with lifting the case page ban and was coming here to do it after seeing WJBscribe's comment on Shell's talk page. In the future, I suggest that discussion occur with users prior to giving page bans except for the most egregious offense that would get a page ban on any page. As well, when a clerk gets feedback from arbs and clerks that a sanction is too harsh, I urge them to lift the ban instead of forcing other people to over ride them and do it. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar thing happened to me, with as little warning and less justification, and it wasn't lifted (ArbCom didn't even answer my appeal). I guess I should have lobbied better. :/ Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom did answer: on 3 November, within three hours of you sending it, and again on 8 November.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Shell did not approach me. I saw the comments on her and Manning's talk page and felt that it needed to be reviewed by arbs. Around the same time, Manning started a thread on the clerks mailing list about the page ban. All in all, Manning has done a good job keeping order on a difficult case. But in this instance, his interpretation of the situation did not match that of most other people reviewing it so it was reversed. That is the way the process is suppose to work. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, surely you had a warning from Rlevse? [6] Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That message was sent a month before about a different matter, and although it was rude and contained lots of nonsense allegations, I heeded it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, sorry if I've added any confusion. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Flo, I didn't mean to imply anyone here was lobbied directly, 'twas merely away of saying that I'm not up on my wiki-politics. I agree Shell's ban was bad, but no worse than mine (leaving me feeling a bit screwed). In my case I simply complained about a participant's behaviour, misunderstood some clerk "instructions", got banned without warning and then got ignored when I tried to have it looked at. Pure caprice, no? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Reread your email, Deacon of Pndapetzim. Based on the wording, I got the impression that you would not be upset if the Committee did not reverse your page ban. So, I'm surprised to see you making this comment, now. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's the difference between being treated harshly and treated unfairly, if you understand me. If the setup there had to be strict, then that's the way it had to be, and I'm sympathetic to that. I'm less sympathetic when it looks like it's only strict for me. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Only strict only on you? Riiight. Everybody was treated exactly the same way, strick but fair. Go check the log of the bans. Loosmark (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of Shell, apparently. --Martin (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Shell did not approach me either. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Out right page bans are pretty big deals. I've found suggesting them as motions can work.--Tznkai (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My first thought is that that can take too long if the ban is to prevent disruption. The problem here seems to have been both lack of warning and length of the ban. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerks have a very large toolbox at their disposal. Refactoring, removing, {{hat}}, short term bans, blocks, and plain old pleading and cajoling to name a few,. Long term bans essentially kick someone out of the proceeding entirely: eliminating them as a source of information. How participants and non participants act is an excellent source of information for the committee, depriving them of it should only be done with at the very least, their foreknowledge, if not their consent.--Tznkai (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

An additional thought on the matter, it is very helpful to have these things centralized. I don't mean to imply that clerks shouldn't use their discretion to control problematic conduct, because they should. When it comes to booting someone out of the case entirely, its a dramatic step that is best done at center stage with everyone looking over your shoulder.--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I thought you were including short term bans in your suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• To be fair, Shell's interaction with Jehochman didn't seem to contribute anything relevant to the case, she was basically flaming him. Manning had made clear instructions on how users should conduct themselves on the case pages. Manning's actions, while tough, did preserve order and kept the page on topic. WJBscribe states Shell is a long standing editor and deserves better, but Manning has been with the project since 2001, being user #100. I think my right not to have my case muddied with off-topic comment outweighs Shell's right to flame Jehochman on an issue not directly related to the Proposed decision. It is sad that some members of the Committee did not support Manning and evidently he, a user since 2001, has now quit the project because this. --Martin (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The timing is strange, but is this tiny incident really a reason an editor so experienced and dedicated would suddenly vanish?? What's going on? Manning, please come back - we need you... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Evidently the Committee believes un-banning Shell from a soon to close ArbCom case page is worth the loss of someone of Manning's caliber. --Martin (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish others gave Manning more credit for weeks of his daily stress over the runaway train called the EEML case. There was no other way to stay on top, but to nip some threads in the bud. All he did was to look at a broader picture, when trying to prevent further developments; and, the sky wasn’t falling because a couple of good people were sent on a short vacation from yet another trap. However, Manning had every right to feel let down when his prolonged and exhausting effort was publicly put into doubt in the end. --Poeticbent talk 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there anywhere else on Wikipedia where editors can ban other editors just on a whim? Majorly talk 22:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom case pages are not main space. ArbCom cases are notorious for their slug fests. Manning had published clear instructions on the conduct of the case pages and the consequences of non compliance. Shell was flaming Jehochman on the case page in violation of the rules established at the beginning. Manning acted correctly and decisively. --Martin (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

So are RfA, ANI, etc. Manning isn't the big boss. Majorly talk 23:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom case pages are different, with different rules. Manning is a Clerk and is responsible for maintaining order. An ArbCom case ban does not reflect on anyone's record. Shell's ban is a petty matter in my view, the real scandal is the apparent preference to see Manning quit the project because of it. --Martin (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Everywhere.--Tznkai (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

For example? I thought bans required community consensus (I understand such a concept might be difficult for arbcom to imagine, of course). Majorly talk 23:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

People boot eachother out of their userspace all the time for example. BLP enforcement can lead to a nearly endless permutation of bans. Blocks and unblock conditions are essentially done "at a whim" they just happen to be supported.--Tznkai (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) Over years of EE-related proceedings where I have been told, for example, that Latvians were glad for Nazi guns to kill Jews and such offensive comments passed as normal discourse, Manning was the first to enforce decorum. If such enforcement at the EEML case has led to Manning's retiring then it is a searing indicment of WP's conflict resolution mechanisms. I hope other factors were involved. I regret some of the piling up on Manning I see in the conversation above.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken (I can not confirm now due to deleted user page), Manning claimed he was an exopedian and made a significant number of contributions anonymously. Hopefully, the project did not lose him completely. (Igny (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

It is with some trepidation I make this post, as I despise drama. But for clarity here I'll summarise some things.

• My motives at all time were to keep order, without bias or inconsistency. EEML has been an embittered case as most are aware. I'm particularly pleased that this has been confirmed above by some of those who were on the receiving end of sanctions.
• My assessment of the Shell situation that an editor who had not participated in the case previously had arrived and opened with what appeared to be a flaming statement of another editor over an issue unrelated to the case. Perhaps I was mistaken, but based on past experience this raised huge red flags for me and I acted swiftly. My actiond were consistent with those I had made previously in similar circumstances.
• A number of arbs and clerks felt my call was incorrect, and I have no issue with that, nor do I have any issue withthe ban being overturned by an Arb. Clerks are deputies for the arbs and it is entirely appropriate that that are free to overturn clerk actions. If my interpretation of Shell's motives were wrong, they they were wrong and I will gladly apologise.
• None of the above was the cause of my sudden retirement. The retirement was caused by truly hurtful and frankly outrageous accusations of bias made to me offline. We all make mistakes, and if I misread Shell's intentions then I am truly sorry - I was merely trying to maintain order in what has been an truly difficult case to manage. However I have never been motivated by bias. Criticism is fine, but to have my basic motives cast into disrepute by people I had otherwise trusted was simply too outrageous for me to tolerate.
• On an unrelated note, but out of an honest desire to clean up at least one loose end - Deacon felt aggrieved that I applied an "Arbcom wide" ban instead of a simple case ban. My reasoning at the time was that I felt because of the ban Deacon would try to "spread drama" throughout ArbCom space. In hindsight (based on Deacon's conduct since the ban expired) this was a total misjudgement and I would like to sincerely apologise to Deacon for that.

I would be grateful if there is no further discussion here, as drama is not what this project is about and it is certainly something I have never courted. I wish you all well. Manning (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I know Manning doesn't want anybody to make comments but I just can't keep silent on this. I have not always agreed with Manning, in fact we disagreed many times but I always found his conduct highly professional and totally impartial and with time I've learned to appreciate his no nonsense approach to things. I also think he did a great job clerking the case under the most difficult of circumstances and in fact I am pretty sure that almost everybody shares my opinion. So I'd just like to say one thing: shame on the person who accused Manning offline and didn't have the balls to address him publicly. If you have any honor make a public apology to Manning. Loosmark (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, it is wrong for you to speak of "shame" and "apology" when you don't know the facts. Perhaps the criticisms were just? Perhaps there was a misunderstanding? Perhaps Manning is being over-sensitive, and is over-reacting? Perhaps he is exaggerating? You've only heard one side of the story. And as for a lack of "balls", discretion does not mean cowardice. Are you suggesting there is no place for private criticism? Not knowing the facts means you are not in a position to judge these matters. Paul August ☎ 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be placing all the blame upon Manning, like he is not deserving of an apology. Being a user since 2001 indicates to me he is not overly sensitive, one has to have a thick skin to survive around here. I really have to question the sense of perspective of some who think maintaining Shell's unblemished "record"^{and an Arb case ban is really of no consequence anyway, it's just a mechanism to maintain order} is seen as more important than the reputation of long standing users of the calibre of Manning. --Martin (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

re to Paul August: That's exactly what am I saying. The off-wiki acusations against Manning were completely out of line. Everybody who ever interacted with Manning knows that his impartiality is beyond any doubt. Loosmark (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone. What I'm saying is that no one should be passing judgement without knowing the facts of the matter. Paul August ☎ 21:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why doesn't the person who acused him off-wiki explain us "the facts"? I find it appalling that he/she keeps quiet even after Manning left the project. Loosmark (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue could have been resolved quietly, and the ban lifted without fanfare. Manning was a spokesman for a team, and should have been supported by them in public, because he helped them stay on track. This is sort of like EEML members who trusted not to be betrayed by their own kind. --Poeticbent talk 23:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't know all the facts and I certainly will not ask Manning to reveal anything, I would suggest that whatever was the mechanism that brought about the offline accusations be dealt with so we don't continue to lose valuable long-standing members of the Wikipedia community whom all—at least publicly—have thanked for their dedication and objectivity.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Manning has disabled e-mail, and I would myself feel really stupid leaving a message on his page with the "retired" template in place, but I do think it would be a good idea if someone who could contact Manning did so, so that we could determine if there would be any way of dealing with similar events in the future. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Manning's retirement is a great loss to the project. Hopefully he will reconsider his decision. Wishing him the best. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A sufficiently strong off wiki accusation to cause this might well count as an attempt to interfere with an ongoing arb com case, and would seem to me one of the few circumstances that might merit disclosure of the email to arb com; I hope that has happened & that they find some way of taking it into account. . DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with DGG. Also if unaddressed this could lead to a dangerous precedent on how to put pressure/eliminate clerks during cases. Loosmark (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The criticism was not made by a party or other interested third party to the case, so I don't think that we need to worry about anything from that angle. AGK 12:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that? Loosmark (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is the party responsible? It's no secret that Shell Kinney was flaming me when Manning banned her. I very much regret that Manning has now left. The person responsible ought to step forward and take ownership of their actions as this might help convince Manning to return. In the past I've disagreed with Manning, so I do see why anybody would accuse him of being biased in favor of me, but you never know what makes some people tick. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Manning has apparently left Wikipedia, and has shut down the email account by which his colleagues and the Arbitration Committee were in contact with him. Therefore, we are unable to ask him to what he is referring in his statement above. We have had no indication or information that he was being unduly pressured by any parties to this case. Should Manning choose to return under his registered account in the future, we will make inquiries; however, like every editor here, he has the right to leave and we need to respect that he has chosen to disengage. Speculating on the intent of his words is not helpful to anyone. Risker (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)