Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Hi there. I recently declined a speedy deletion request from User:Anti-Nationalist to delete the userpage for User:PasswordUsername, which he says is his previous account that he lost the password for. I declined the request because I could not be sure that he was who he said he was (though I had no specific evidence that he isn't). As both are listed on this ArbCom case, I thought it best to ask both the clerks for their view, and advice on next steps. Thanks in advance. GedUK  10:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Manning's picked this up, so nothing to see here now! :o) GedUK  20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please lift my topic ban per "time served". Kittybrewster ☎ 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai says I don't need to. It is automatic. We need a rule book. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Typo in your questions: "All of these opinions have to been listened too." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, as a clerk of WP:EEML, could you please consider moving this long section, which has potential in tripling in size soon, to workshop. It is rather troubling to access remaining topics and in general, workshop pages are more appropriate for the various "polls", IMO. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That part is just a noise with limited substance indeed, in any case it is good to know, that somebody still looking closely over this. Cya, M.K. (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I appreciate that, but would you please act on your own policy with that regard, and do something about a similar warning issued by Manning on 29 October 2009 to user Pantherskin who does not know where to stop. He’s been Wikipedia: hounding me for weeks and ignoring Manning’s repeated pleas to stop the "flamebaiting". I’m understandably upset about these character assassinations and attacks driven by vengeance, which have nothing to do with the ongoing discussion. Pantherskin wants to have the last word always, regardless of what YOU say. He is not a party to these proceedings and came from the sidelines only to harass others. I did nothing wrong to begin with, and if ArbCom sees no reason to penalize me for EEML, I don’t need to be victimized by problem users during these proceedings either. In a way, your formal warning to me, but not to Pantherskin, tends to exonerate him in this instance. I am grateful for your patience. --Poeticbent talk 17:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I will continue to monitor the situation closely. KnightLago (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Obviously I disagree with these accusations, but regardless of that these continued personal attacks are not acceptable. If Poeticbent wants to critize my editing behavior then that is fine with me, but personal attacks are not. If possible the responses of Tymek and Poeticbent, and my response to these two editors should go as they are off-topic and do not add anything to the case other than documenting the explosive atmosphere. So yes, it would be appreciated if you could remove these. Pantherskin (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to continue to monitor the case pages closely to watch the conduct of everyone involved. I also anticipate archiving some threads when I get some free time. I encourage both of you to remain civil, and avoid anything that could be interpreted as a personal attack. KnightLago (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than my usual retort, if you could look into the allegation of contempt here at the proceedings, that would be much appreciated. I had asked Manning, but apparently other priorities have recently taken precedence—I am truly sorry for WP for his loss and wish him well.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you not replying. I am going to ask him not to use those type of words as they carry negative connotations. So I suggest you just ignore it. I too am deeply saddened to see Manning leave. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just curious: do these ArbCom deadlines actually mean anything? We just missed yet another one at WP:EEML. How many deadlines have we passed already in total? I've lost count. Offliner (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Chose the words more carefully, although I'd appreciate your advice how to describe Pantherskin's action, i.e. asking others to comment on my message to another user few minutes after it was made. PS. Regarding emailing the committee - I tried that many times; response rate is <10% and I (while I did get several civil and constructive replies) I also got several requests to repost questions on Proposed Talk (which I did and which were not responded to by the committee members) and one not-so-civil message that can be summarized as a critique of my choice to use email to contact the committee, so... sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I regret that you felt this was unacceptable. I will respect your opinion and abide by your request regarding any future involvement there. However, I did not feel that the questions were out of line within the context of the ongoing discussion. It is regrettable that we will probably never get an answer to those questions. If I was on the committee, I would have asked them myself but not in the interrogatory fashion that time and space limitations necessitated my terse manner in doing so at the proceeding. It's been a long and tedious case and I have not followed it in its entirety. Perhaps those questions have been answered at some other place and I missed it. As a specific target of this group, I probably did lose my cool a bit due to what I perceived to be unmitigated hypocrisy being insufficiently unchallenged. Sorry. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if "You people are insane. Seriously" [1] is an acceptable comment? Offliner (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the inflammatory comments and accusations made here. I see this as baiting and am not going to respond. Can you remove this or at least make it stop? Offliner (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will be monitoring the talk page closely. I have been called a liar three times now, in addition to Radeksz calling me (among others) "insane." Vecrumba has also accused me of creating "attack content" a billion times. None of this is true, but I don't want to respond and defend myself, because this would just create even more irrelevant and inflammatory discussion. It would be better if the accusations were stopped and removed. Offliner (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Offliner, if you hadn't made the edits you did and I didn't have to remove them (you call it "edit warring" on my part, I call it removing "attack content"), and had not chosen to introduce those editing threads as Evidence against me, there would be no need for me to make any observations regarding the nature of the content of your edits. You lobby for appropriate punishments at the proceedings; I simply remind ArbCom of the source of our editorial conflict. I stand by my evidence responding to yours, and by its relevance to the proceedings. Apologies for responding to this off the proceedings page, but I was mentioned specifically.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to a evidence page, but due to case sprawl I'm not sure if that is where it should be [2]. Please move it to where it belongs otherwise. Could you however leave a link to it on the PD page along with Donald Duck's comments so I can respond to it? Also I'm not sure if the same text should be deleted from the PD page - since you closed it I'm sure you know better on this.radek (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Further to your recent interventions, please take a look my last post on the Talk page for the Jedwabne pogrom -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to start opening arbitration enforcement cases over uses of "web brigadiers" regarding myself and others, per Triplestop here. My tolerance for such abuse is getting low again.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit; but it was a communication to Russavia only, and I put my comment in terms he would understand. Stop stalking the edits of everyone you don't like and looking for every opportunity to attack them. Sheesh. Triplestop x3 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the edit. Please avoid using the term in the future. As Manning said before, the term is inflammatory and presumptive. Also, please let's try to avoid accusations of stalking. Stalking is a term best used in other situations. KnightLago (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago, this is not the first time I have been attacked by the EEML members solely because of my comments against them. See comments like this [3][4] for what I mean. I accuse them of stalking and attacks because the former diff is obviously a sock of one somebody who felt the need to log out to post that comment. Furthermore, the user who made the latter edit has never participated in abusefilter related discussions so it is reasonable to conclude that I'm being stalked. The comments themselves were totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand and served no purpose other than to attack me, including an absolutely ridiculous claim that I'm a sock of Anti-N. (For reference, I have since been given the permission. You can see some of my handiwork with filters here [5].) I hope Arbcom can protect users from this nonsense. Triplestop x3 22:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in regards to that IP sock's comment, I do agree that I was being too harsh in tone in my comments on the EEML case page, for which I apologize. Triplestop x3 22:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, KnightLago. I have refactored [6] my comment per your suggestion here [7] to soften up the tone. I am not sure, however, how I could make the comment altogether non-accusatory: after all, I have been concerned for months about stalking from EEML members, and Vecrumba's been following me from discussion to discussion across talk pages, user talk pages, and noticeboards, generally doing his best to leave bad-faith comments – which, of course, was one thing that very seriously (and unfairly) jeopardized my situation as far as my general reputation as a contributor and with regard to the attempts to get me blocked (though I have been fortunate enough to have administrators ignore a lot of the more egregious of the manifold attempts at blockshopping). So, having recomposed my remark in a friendlier fashion, I would still like my concern to be seen and addressed in light of the fact that Vecrumba's been forthcoming about his "keeping tabs" on editors (as he describes it). If I should refactor still further, please let me know – but to be honest, I don't know how my concern could be taken as altogether "non-accusatory" – given the very large volume of evidence of disrupting my work as an editor. If you have some advice about doing that, I would be genuinely appreciative. (No – I am not at all trying to be sarcastic or some sort of ass.) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure ... but which part of ""bwahahahahahahahahahaha. Haha. Ha. Hhh. Chrhhh. Arghghggh. Chrumpf Chrump. Choke choke. Oh I'you'me choking me - help me ... ok ,I got my breath ,bwah .., ha ha. ha .ok ... mmmmhhhh" is the one that is exactly objectionable? I can take the "Chrhhh" comment out. Or the "Arghghggh" or the "Chrumpf". Or do you mean the whole thing?radek (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not have posted that entry if I knew you had closed the [8] thread. You must have closed it while I was writing my response. You might consider restoring it since, in fact, I made it "under the wire", so to speak. Or if you prefer, they can have the last word. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As you posted your comment a few minutes after I closed the thread, it has to stay out. Regarding the last word, and who gets it, that is not something I even consider when clerking. KnightLago (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. You might remember the song What a Difference a Day Made (a nice [9] tune). In this case the difference was three seconds. Just for my edification, If someone attempted to edit in that now closed thread, would that be physically possible? Not that it would be appropriate or acceptable. Just curious if it becomes locked after it is closed? Dr. Dan (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it was 3 minutes. It is not locked, so anyone is still technically able to edit it. But since I closed it as off topic there should not be anyone editing it. KnightLago (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, all of these explanations, comments, and so forth, made me forget that the timer is in minutes, not seconds. Thanks for the explanation. I was going to test it, that's no longer necessary, and it's now a dead thread per your decision to close it. Hope Bainer got what he needed out of it. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret ^account 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your note on my talk page, I think my post is directly involved with PDs, particular with this. As some Arbs did not vote on that remedy, they might be interested to see that EEML plotters still practicing old habits, and this might be addition their decision. As link shows non of those EEML plotters are directly involved in original AE complain, but still commenting on their opponents etc. In any case, my aim is to be 100% sure that Arbs are monitoring that AE complain. But how to achieve this, if not posting brief link? Cheers, M.K. (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, will follow it in the future. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning this [10] edit, I think I erred when I said that the last two sentences were on topic. Actually it was the last six sentences. Thanks for the rest of your recent [11] comment and explanation at the proposed decision page. Thought it best to respond here, rather than there. Less contention. Best, Dr. Dan (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the appointments turn out as expected, I look forward to working with you. Steve Smith (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Clerk is Dead, Long Live The Arb? Welcome! — Coren ^(talk) 01:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the great showing in the election! I look forward to seeing your work with the Committee this year. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Secret ^account 19:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, KnightLago. Please see MBisanz's advice here. Tony (talk)

As you are an acting clerk in the Arbcom proceedings I would welcome your responce [12] If my concern is not valid then delete if freely or close the discussion. If it falls under the appropriate rule I would welcome an intervention. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I tried searching the help pages but can’t find any guidance on this. Basically I have offered to do some of the miscellaneous tasks Piotrus did for the WikiProject Poland.

I was getting advice from Piotrus on these tasks. Could I continue this briefly with Piotrus via e-mail or would this break Wikipedia rules? See his User talk:Piotrus for the question to date and my talk page for the replies.

Any help, e.g. who I should ask, would be appreciated. Thanks you for all your work on this case. Have a merry Christmas and a great new year. Jniech (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear KnightLago,

Please provide your valuable feedback as well as review IDiscoveri Education. These guys are doing great work and the founder is a close associate as well as a dear friend of Mr.Howard Gardner of Multiple Intelligences' fame which you can look up at the reference in the article - School of Tomorrow. Look forward to hear from you.

Thanks, IDiscoveri (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please edit another arb page? Testing the bot, it thinks you are just an editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed it, it knows you're an ARb now. :-) Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked a few questions here. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would very much like to participate in these discussions, as I think that the block was an exceptionally poor one; please provide me a link to the discussions. Every single admin here knows of users - admins, even - who have started new accounts to step away from old arguments and start fresh. If this not a right in the wiki-en, it damn well should be. BoP has been tainted by the accusation if abusive sockpuppetry, and that's an accusation fucked beyond all measure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That editor was given the 'right to vanish', and if you look at WP:RTV it says clearly "The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual is vanishing, not just the account. Vanished users have no right to silently return under a new identity." Have you read the discussions on the editor's talk page? Here we have an editor requesting to be an administrator despite having a former, undisclosed account - it had already been made crystal clear earlier in the year that this was something not to be condoned (this involved a block user, but the principal is the same) and there were a number of casualties. BoP knew that a return was not part of the deal. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, Doug, you are looking at this wrong. The user was not utilizing the guideline of Right to Vanish the policy of making a Clean Start, which specifically allows for precisely what BoP did. As well, comparing this user to a blocked one does a disservice to both the argument and this user. They did not leave as a blocked/banned or in otherwise cloudy circumstances. They left bc of - no surprise here at all - the dramahz. When they came back, they avoided even the hint if such, and conducted themselves far better than most admins. CleanStart allows precisely this sort of behavior, and its policy.

When they applied for adminship, it was based upon the work they have done to date under their current account, which by anyone's measuring stick, was excellent. In the RfA, the applicant's sole reason for failure was not enough experience (a pretty stupid reason, but then, it's RfA - one doesn't expect a petty mob to come together to cure cancer). Why the applicant didn't list former accounts is pretty obvious - there were clear privacy issues in play.

Should BoP have dropped a note to ArbCom detailing the relationship between the new and old account? CYA would seem to dictate such but - and this is important - it isn't required or even suggested, either for RfA application or during adminship. And I can guarantee you that there are sitting admins who had previous accounts under different names - some of which had far, far worse records that BoP's previous one. I posit that if we are going to persecute this user for having a prior account and having the temerity to apply for adminship, we need to begin a de-sysopping purge of any admin who had a previous account/ I guarantee you that we will lose dozens of admins in the first week.

We had policy in place that allows for specifically what BoP did, and the editor acted in good faith. That policy - which trumps the RtV guideline - is still in place. I honestly don't think MBisanz is a moron; I do think that Matt was on autopilot and did something utterly moronic. Admins do not get to work on autopilot. Ever. We make them admins because they use their noggins, and not rote action.If they cannot be directly involved in their actions (and this required some thought), then they should not have the mop. When you out someone, you are blocked. That part is also policy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss this specific case any more, but having looked at another current discussion about RTV I think our policies in this area need at least clarifying. And I will note that RTV is not meant in any case to apply to someone with any sort of cloudy behaviour, it should only be used with editors who leave with a good record. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate the issue of not discussing this overmuch, but I will make the final point of noting that the user's prior account could not, by any reasonable definition, be considered "cloudy behavior". He left in good standing simply to avoid the drama and to restart, doing the sorts of things that we should be doing: improving the wiki. And MBisanz and MJMcbride kicked him in the nuts for his effort. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not under the impression that he is being accused of cloudy behaviour. I understood the user left under the right to vanish, which is only meant for editor's in good standing with no cloudy behaviour. It is my opinion as a general point that anyone wishing to come back after RTV should and should in fact be required as part of the RTV conditions to get permission from ArbCom. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that neither a guideline nor your opinion trump the current policy of CleanStart, which allows an editor to return. Think about this: if a user were tired of the incessant drama and politicking, they might withdraw. If they create a new account, come back and do work and avoid the nonsense from before, then I say more power to them. RtV is for folk who have burned all their bridges and who cannot swim in the resultant waters. People wanting a Clean Start are not going to announce that they are doing this; there are a lot of junior detectives in our Project (one of the many reasons we have OR and SYN policies), and there would always be someone trying to sniff out the new account. That completely misses the point of making a Clean Start. If someone without a bad record wants to make a fresh start, they should be able to, so long as they do not edit articles under the prior account, or do not act deceptively. They should be free of having to declare that they are going to make a Clean Start, and simply do it, in accordance with policy. That the user might have dropped a line to ArbCom is specifically CYA, but neither required nor recommended by policy. The user did nothing wrong, and his ability to proceed in the project was crippled by an admin on autopilot and compounded by another admin with a short leash understanding of RtV, and no understanding at all of legitimate accounts. It was a bad call. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This subject has suffered from Graves' Disease, which causes ocular proptosis. Various people who may be part of a paid network of wreckers who tamper with the biogs of people who disagree with global warming have repeatedly inserted an obviously offensive photo of the subject that exploits his physical disability by making a feature of the proptosis in a ludicrous way. Please refer these people - one of them is ChrisO, who has been warned before - to the arbitration committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.85.112 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi KnightLago. I'm still awaiting a reply to my 02:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC) post here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2. I may propose some findings and remedies based on your responses. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I commented on Verizoon's snarky comment on Jimbo's talk page, and suspected that the account might be a sock. I am curious about the process that led to the account being indef blocked.—Finell 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)

I ran a checkuser report while looking into another matter and found this account. KnightLago (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. However, don't you think that this should be explained somewhere? On the account's talk page, perhaps, or in a template on the talk or user page explaining the action and the reason for it? If the account is a sock, shouldn't that be logged someplace and the puppet master identified? Forgive me if I'm ignorant of how these things work.—Finell 06:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a matter of preference. The person who was controlling this account is a banned user. Sometimes such accounts are tagged, and other times they are not in order to deny recognition. In this case, I chose the latter course of action. My block was identified as a checkuser block in the block log. That tells administrators not to unblock without either consulting me, or another checkuser. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough explanation. I was just trying to understand the process. I am not questioning your judgment.—Finell 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. KnightLago (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi KnightLago. I'm still awaiting a reply to my 02:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC) post here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2. I may propose some findings and remedies based on your responses. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. KnightLago (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like you to perform a checkuser on 09jamieboro (talk · contribs) to see if he have created another account to bypass the block as he said he would in his unblock request. Thanks!--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please file a request at Sockpuppet investigations. KnightLago (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though I'm not quite sure he have created a puppet?--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We have received it. KnightLago (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your sig did not come through. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sign to archive. KnightLago (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean? Are you talking to me? HuskyHuskie (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No. My talk page is normally archived every few days by a bot. But, the bot will not archive if there is no time stamp in the section. So in order to archive your section in a few days, I signed to provide a time stamp. Please be sure to sign your comments even if you use a talkback request. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Didn't know. Sorry. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. KnightLago (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have completely rephrased my comment on the Catholic Church case, making the analogy to WP:ARBMAC2 explicit, and suggesting a measure which should reduce the drama to the usual dull roar. I would appreciate your comments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your comment again. KnightLago (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

May I ask you to provide more information about this block?--Father Goose (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. CheckUser indicates the person who was operating the account last was abusing multiple accounts. See the Trowbridge tim SPI case for the other socks. I hope this helps. KnightLago (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That case sheds little light on why User:Cool three was blocked. That account is not mentioned at all at the SPI. It would also mean User:Cool3 (of which User:Cool three is an alternate account) is actually the sockmaster. Can you confirm this?--Atlan (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Thekohser acquired the Cool3 account at some point. His use of the account was eventually discovered and Cool3 was blocked/desysopped. Cool three, claiming to be the original Cool3, then appeared asking for the Cool3 account back. While the Cool three account was an alternate account of Cool3, the Arbitration Committee was never able to conclusively determine the identity of the person asking for the account back. Moving to the SPI case, while not mentioned in the case itself, CU confirms that the person operating the Cool three account was the same person who operated a number of accounts involved in the hoax article. But, I can't say for certain who was the actual sockmaster because of how these accounts changed hands. KnightLago (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that clears it up. Thanks for the info.--Atlan (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

[13]: "I too encourage uninvolved adminss to get involved."

I'm not sure how you are encouraged to volunteer to do something, but for most people it takes something a little more active than someone writing somewhere that it would be a good idea if they did it. And then not pointing it out to them. And it then being archived, unseen.

Problems at the article were acknowledged, and they are still problems. Even though the case was rejected, it seems a shame to pass up the chance to improve the article for the sake of a little active encouragement. Any active encouragement you could give to any suitable candidates would almost surely be beneficial in the long run.

Best, Knepflerle (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Was this intentional? Durova⁴¹² 23:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I am trying to prevent cases from being opened in the incorrect place. Did my protection have an unintended consequence? If so, I would be happy to drop it back down. KnightLago (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like non-admins no longer have editsection links on the page (for example, under WP:RFAR#Durova, you and I will see an edit link in the section header, but non-admins don't. Ucucha 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I see now. I will drop it back down then. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are you ever going to unprotect RFAR so that people can continue to comment on cases?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Which page specifically are you unable to edit? I was trying to prevent cases from being opened in the wrong place, it sounds like the protection may have had an unintended consequence. KnightLago (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

uh... any of them? Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see any way to edit anything at RFAR right now, since all of the section headers are now missing their "[Edit]" button. ...not that I'm particularly interested in actually commenting, but it'd be nice to have the opportunity to do so. If I were to comment on something right now though, it'd likely be the thing about BLP's, in the clarifications(?) section.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, for admins, the edit links are still there (see above). I am dropping the protection back down. Thanks for letting me know. KnightLago (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As an alternative, we could create an editnotice for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests telling people to submit cases in the proper place. Ucucha 00:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Feel free to give it a shot, otherwise I will put it on my to do list, and get to it eventually. KnightLago (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to edit, of course. I'll also note it at the relevant talk page. Ucucha 00:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! KnightLago (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that your entry was commented out. I have moved it to the "Reconfirmation" section.

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remove me. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to the Arb case. How long do I have to draft and add comments? Work-crunch situation for a couple/few days. Thank you for any information. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any idea as to when you might be able to comment? If I had some general idea I could try and make sure the case has not gone to voting yet. But I cannot promise anything. KnightLago (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Greetings. I'd like to comment on some of the proposed findings and even add a proposed solution (as I think everyone would now like to see this resolved - I hope this isn't setting some kind of record!) but just need to where it is appropriate now to do so.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What Steve said. KnightLago (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 07:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

We are getting a ton of vandalism on Talk:Van Jones from the 4.226.0.0/16 range - recently extended to my talk page. I know this would be a big rangeblock -- is there too much collateral damage to implement it? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Did a 3 hour softblock of the range - please lift it if it's too intrusive. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I took a quick look, and think you will be OK with that. KnightLago (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi KnightLago. Cent is generally used to draw attention to discussions regarding policies, guidelines or other matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed. Announcements, such as for ArbCom elections, etc, are generally done via the Watchlist or the sitenotice which appears on the top of every page. To get an announcement on Watchlist you need to go to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, to get the sitenotice you need to go to MediaWiki:Sitenotice. If you have any questions regarding this, or if I have made a mistake, please let me know. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just trying to get the word out. Thanks for the note. KnightLago (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey there,

I don't know if you noticed my questions/comments here, but I was hoping for a response before the case went to the proposed decision stage. BOZ (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed that, and have now commented here. KnightLago (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the hard work you and the rest of the Arbitration Committee put into the case. Your intervention into what has been a three-year problem is much appreciated! Nightscream (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject State University System of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the State University System of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

• NorwalkJames (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

KnightLago. I have recently started a clean up process on the University of Texas at Dallas page. I have nominated it for a peer review. Seeing that you are highly recommended to look at university pages, I was wondering what your thoughts were on this page. Thank you so much for your help. Oldag07 (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring to your attention a few things on the Gibraltar case.

1. When I was having problems I said some regrettable things, which I have apologised for, if you still feel a topic ban is appropriate then I'm not going to argue about it. I just make the point that bans and blocks are supposedly preventative not punitive. I made those remarks whilst in a bad place, they haven't been repeated and they're out of character. Now that I am a lot better is it still appropriate?

2. The assertion that the self-governing status of Gibraltar is an "opinion" not a fact. Sorry but I cannot accept that remaining in the case. Gibraltar is self-governing, it is a fact that the Spanish editors could not dispute. Instead they have tried to use a combination of synthesis and original research to try and minimise the status in the article. Their motivation in doing so is based on Spanish nationalism toward Gibraltar, where it is portrayed as a British colony on stolen Spanish soil. Those comments are only serving to buttress Spanish nationalism to skew the POV of the article not to achieve NPOV. I think you're being incredibly naive if you feel those remarks are helpful in steering the dispute, I can see those remarks coming back to haunt you in various nationalist disputes.

3. When this case was started, I couldn't participate fully as my father was ill and another editor was hospitalised. The evidence produced by a number of editors who've effectively held the article hostage was directed toward removing editors they disagreed with by topic bans; you'll note that I didn't propose of suggest any blocks/bans/sanctions against individuals. Effectively what you're proposing is to remove one side but leave the other intact. You're rewarding editors for baiting others into uncivil remarks.

4. In reading your comments I can only conclude you have apparently disregarded the workshop. In the workshop there was case of RHoPF hounding editors, walls of text being put up to derail discussion by Ecemaml, non-apologies such as "I'm sorry you were offended by my joke" not to mention examples of bad faith and uncivil remarks:

[14] activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination
[15] "Gibnews' rottweiler" repeated [16]

[17] I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here.
[18] So that is three untruths in the same section from you, Why are you telling untruths here, Justin?

5. In the workshop, the editors were lobbying to have my conduct examined more fully. I would still welcome that.

6. This was never an arbcom case, there had been no previous attempt at long term solutions. I can only note my bitter disappointment that arbcom would punish one group of violators while allowing another group of violators to go free without even a token slap or even have their conduct examined at all. Particularly an editor who apparently delights in teasing and tormenting those with temporary mental problems. I've seen this editor hounding people for years and I can't believe he is going to get away with it again.

The solution you're proposing might reduce conflict, well if you ban only one side then what's left can violently agree on skewing the POV of the article. What it isn't is a long term solution, I did propose something like this some time ago [19], it would be more workable. Justin talk 09:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Still need to look into this again. KnightLago (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed everything again, including the workshop, and my opinion has not changed. KnightLago (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, my mistake. Thanks for taking care of it, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi KnightLago, I removed the {{policy}} tag you placed on this page and added the old {{infopage}} back, per BRD. Your welcome to discuss this on the talkpage and perhaps set up a community-wide RfC if you wish this page to be a policy. ThemFromSpace 17:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

«Coopkev2»^(talk) 19:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, what's with this deletion? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It was an incomplete list of articles I had put a little time into, but nothing of real significance. There is no way I could ever make it complete, and I have not been updating it, so I deleted it. I can send you a copy if you want it. Let me know. KnightLago (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay; don't need a copy. Thanks. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm having some difficulty with an editor exhibiting behavior similar to Asgardian. Although his behavior doesn't extend to nearly the level/depth of Asgardian's, the individual behaviors (article ownership, refusal to talk on the talk page, fabricating false accusations and then refusing to provide evidence when asked, distortion and dismissal of others' words and statements, and outright contempt for basic polices) are the same. I don't believe a ban is necessary, but rather, having someone politely inform him that his behavior is unacceptable, would suffice. I just wasn't sure where to make the case. I'm loathe to start a formal ArbCom case on it, but I don't want to go to the Admin Noticeboard either, since I've repeatedly observed in the past that the people there are ineffectual. If I outline the case on the talk page of the disputed article in question, and then invite members of the ArbCom to participate, would that be okay? Please let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir,

I am contacting you via the volunteers list to ask for your assistance reviewing this article. al-Bashir, having been recently indicted by the ICC on three counts of genocide, has had his page undergo a flurry of updating and editing and I believe that this article now has the potential to meet the WP:FA criteria. I figured that this article would be of interest to you given your stated focus of university level education and history as well as social science. Thank you in advance for your time, and if for any reason you are unable to participate, I understand. Feel free to contact me at any time and for any reason and I will do my best to respond promptly and in the affirmative. Thank you sir. Cwill151 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwill151 (talk • contribs)

If you so choose, here is a link. Cwill151 (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I will be largely unavailable for the remainder of July. Sorry. KnightLago (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviwing the case with the article 'Valeri Lilov' and declined its improper speedy deletion request. I am still learning, but hope to be of more help to Wikipedia in the future, knowing all the subtleties about submitting an article properly. Thank you for your cooperation once again!

Best Regards,

Wangshujuan

221.11.179.57 (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And from me - thanks; I really do appreciate it, and know you were busy. It's tough, sometimes (esp at that time of day) to find an admin to look at things for the help channel.

And also, the above message served as a good illustration, as I talked the user through how to correctly add a new message at the end of a talk page, and to sign. Unfortunately, they weren't logged in, but can't win 'em all; it was Wangshujuan (talk · contribs).

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. What exactly does the ban reset mean? That it's now being reset to a year starting now, as opposed to starting back in April when the ban was first imposed? Nightscream (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

According to CheckUser, he has been socking. As a result, his ban has been reset to the date he was caught. If the socking continues the ban could be made indefinite. KnightLago (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who creates an account, and talk page, purely for the purpose of leveling inarticulate, juvenile complaints at someone else, is not putting the privilege of that account to any productive use. If they have a change of heart and decide to do so, they're welcome to put in an unblock request - something this user has not deigned to do, further clarifying this was their exclusive reason for being here. - Vianello (Talk) 02:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, to clarify, if you felt your toes were stepped on because I blocked them after you warned them, I apologize. If that's what this is about, I did not realize right off that you had administrative authority you were choosing not to exercise. I hadn't meant to 'override' you, but neither did I see much reason to revoke the block either when I noticed you were an administrator later on. The user has made no show of good faith nor vocalization that he might possess any, which he retains the opportunity to exercise. - Vianello (Talk) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that someone who creates an account and immediately creates a juvenile page is not putting the privilege of that account to any productive use. But we generally warn, at least once or twice, except in the most extreme of circumstances, before indefinitely blocking. I was just surprised at the speed of the block in this case and wanted to find out what was going on. In the future, I would recommend letting a little more time pass between the warning(s) and indefinite block. KnightLago (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, really. I just consider creating an account for the sole purpose of antagonizing others to be among the "most extreme" circumstances. You clearly don't, and that's quite understandable really. In the least, I probably shouldn't have exercised such a strong motion when you had already sort of "called dibs" on the matter, after a fashion. I think perhaps both a stronger warning and a bit more leniency on the immediacy of blocking would've been called for. I respect your patience, which I tend to lack myself, and even though I think there may be sort of a fundamental difference of "personal policy", at the very least, I will seriously consider your advice in future, and I will not stumble in on cases you've already taken up. My apologies again for my brash behavior. - Vianello (Talk) 15:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is no big deal. I just wanted to inquire. Thanks for the reply and giving this some thought. KnightLago (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask you about a clarification about the EEML case aftermath? How should I procede if instead of engaging in debate another person repeats over and over that I am/was part of EEML(or even accusing people not being of EEML of being part of it) and presents no arguments? Lately it has become somewhat problematic as some users are applying that behaviour to push their position without presenting any serious arguments. Is this violation of WP:CIV that I can report? I am asking especially in light of previous adnotations of admins regarding branding people as EEML members after the bans and blocks have been lifted/ended. [20] [21]

What should be done about it becomes abusive? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, without dealing in specifics, if you are arguing article content, and the opposing party's only reply is that you were part of EEML, then they probably do not have much of an argument. Those specific links you provided were case specific. If you are encountering this problem, you should seek out an uninvolved administrator and ask them to look into the situation. Whether this is a real problem, or something that you should just ignore, would depend on the context of the discussion. I hope this helps. KnightLago (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. KnightLago (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Black booty. Since you had some involvement with the Black booty redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Stonemason89 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If that's what you meant, then I don't think your response was very helpful. I asked a very specific question; if you were not going to provide an answer to that question, I fail to see the value in your response (be it for readers, or for myself for that matter, because that's what people were interested in - not mere "inquiries"). I already emphasised that I do not want names of applicants , the number of applications being actively considered, or the number that was discarded - I see good sense in not revealing that information until August 13. I also note that all the announcement stated was that names would be revealed on August 13 which is perfectly OK. However, I don't see the sense in suppressing information regarding the total number of applications that were received by the Committee (unless, as absurd it may seem to your colleagues, arbitrators are going to fiddle with the numbers in the meantime). Could you please explain why it is impossible to reveal that number before August 13? Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry you did not find the number of inquiries useful. I clearly stated the number was inquires. The total number of applicants will be released on August 13th. There is no compelling basis to release the number now and needlessly feed speculation until the formal announcement. A secondary reason is that the number remains fluid. Applications have been withdrawn during vetting before. KnightLago (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you would presume that the number of inquires received (whatever that's supposed to mean) would be useful when that wasn't the question asked of you. You made no clear statement that you would not answer my question, and this issue would not have even arisen if you'd been shooting straight with me (or the public) in the first place. This lack of transparency has consequently increased speculation rather than decrease it, regardless of what your intention was, and your secondary reason is simply fueling (rather than resolving) concerns: the total number of applications that were received is a constant that is not affected by the number of applications that are going to be discarded or withdrawn during vetting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As an Arbitrator, there has been no lack of transparency. I honestly told you the amount of inquires we received. You made the presumption that those were the total number of applications. I am sorry you made that mistake, it was probably an easy mistake to make, but it was not my fault. I have also maintained all along that a full report will be made on August 13th (as we previously announced) once the vetting is complete. As I said above, this is to avoid rumor and due to the fact that the number can fluctuate.

As a former Signpost writer, I think your position as the writer of "Arbitration Report" is untenable. Your view of the Arbitration Committee is clearly biased. This was recognized by multiple editors in the 7/19/10 report. This prejudice has continued since. Today's report, titled "Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution" or tl;dr, is but a continuation of this bias. The update section blatantly misstates a number of key points, and you make a very serious accusation of tampering with no factual basis whatsoever. If I could cancel my subscription to the Signpost, I would. KnightLago (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrators ask people questions and expect them to answer directly, but when people ask arbitrators questions in return, people expect arbs to evade the questions? I don't think so; you weren't being straight up and that's a lack of transparency. If you were trying to not disappoint me (which is the only explanation I can think of for you providing the useless piece of trivia), then you could have said "Ncm, contrary to what Carcharoth has suggested, it is not possible to give a number of total applications because it might feed speculation. But we're comfortable revealing that we received 27 inquiries." That is a satisfactory answer to my question; some former arbitrators were willing AND able to provide these sorts of clueful answers in situations like this - pity they retired or I'd suggest you undergo re-training from them. In light of what it was I asked, and given this was beyond a personal question, you should have taken more care in being clear that the number you gave had nothing in common with what it was I clearly asked for. "We received 27 inquires. More information on Aug 13" did nothing of the sort (goodness knows what you were trying to say by "inquires" which is a verb in any case).

I think it's also fairly clear to true outsiders that what you're saying does not add up. A total number of applications that were received at a set point in time (the closing date) is a constant (number) that cannot fluctuate after that point in time; it is independent of factors such as vetting, withdrawals, etc. Despite this fact, you've repeatedly maintained that "applications have been withdrawn" and that the figure is "fluid" - this makes for a perfectly reasonable concern that arbs might fiddle/mend/fix, regardless of when that information is revealed. I'm not suggesting this fiddling is with a malicious intent (which is what your word "tamper" entails) but I'm suggesting that fiddling (fixing or tinkering) to "avoid rumour" and not "feed speculation" is counterproductive - it is only with such fiddling that the figure could in any way "fluctuate", which is the basis of my concern as I outlined above. Finally, I'm not going to respond to malicious vengeful allegations based on a bunch of self-made presumptions, but I'll certainly add extra diffs for absolute clarity against frivolous claims of this nature. In the future, if it ever becomes necessary for me to speak to you, or certain other colleagues of yours (such as Risker who I have also criticised for the exact same communication issue), I hope this will not be the sort of responses I encounter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not evade your question. The Arbitration Committee has decided to make a full report on the 13th for the reasons I have already mentioned. When you asked, I gave you an honest answer. I did not realize you would mistake inquires for applications. In retrospect, I see how easy of a mistake it was to make, and I wish I had been more clear. But I was just trying to help you out by giving you some information. When I noticed the mistake, I quickly pointed it out to you. At that point, you could have made the correction, and let it go. Instead, you struck your reply on Carcharoth (talk · contribs)'s talk page, left the above comments, and subsequently made baseless accusations that were removed by the editor of the Signpost. I consider all of those actions a gross overreaction to what was a simple misunderstanding as I originally said on your talk page. I think an unbiased journalist would have recognized this minor misunderstanding and moved onward, but again, that did not happen here. In the future, if you have a question, or would like to request information, you should email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. We will then consider a reply, or point you to the relevant announcement. KnightLago (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Evasion means "a statement that is not literally false but that which avoids an unpleasant truth". (a) You evaded my question by clearly avoiding to make a statement that: you would not disclose the total number of applications received at this time (which was the only question asked of you). Instead, you made a statement about "inquires" which was: (b) not asked of you, (c) a verb that cannot be quantified as a noun, and (d) has still not explained in the context of the original question, hence its uselessness. I accordingly struck the appreciation I had for you personally and expressed my concerns here - where there is absolute transparency. (e) Additionally, the mathematics and principles of your secondary reason do not add up, and I've explained in plain English why this is so, both from a logical perspective (considering your primary reason), as well as a mathematical perspective (even absent a particular primary reason). You've evaded these concerns also. My assumption was that you're in a position where you are responsible and trustworthy to the point that you will not evade the questions put to you officially, let alone personally, but I was mistaken to make that assumption with respect to you. Now that you've clarified the part with respect to (b), I appreciate what you intended, I do, but it did not come across in the way you intended because of (a), (c), (d), and (e).

(2) You've repeatedly made baseless bad faith accusations about my neutrality. I've quite clearly explained what I meant by the word fiddling which implied no fraudulent or bad faith meaning, and when I thought it wasn't clear to you already, I added more detail to how, in the context of your reasons, this was a reasonable concern for an outsider to have. Although I'm sorry you jumped to the worst possible (and wrong) conclusion regarding what I meant, continuing to suggest I meant something in bias, bad faith or anything remotely similar is both extreme and false. It was with my full endorsement that the editor in chief modified what I wrote to that which appears today; it wasn't so that you would continue to make baseless accusations - that's the overreaction, if anything.

(3) Now, or in the future, as a group or even as individuals, if you want others to use a particular medium to communicate with you in the first instance, or if you wish to encourage others to do so, I suggest modelling and negotiation will be more effective than authoritarian demanding - that is, use that same medium in the first instance for any responses, concerns, or the like, or you risk discouraging people altogether. I asked this question on-wiki for a number of reasons (it incidentally was directed at Carcharoth, but he passed it onto you), but it's abundantly clear that it was a good thing that I did this time. As the editor in chief has already indicated, others can scrutinise what has been said here and come to their own conclusions. I've done everything I can to keep things absolutely transparent, including highlighting the issues you've repeatedly evaded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we are going in circles now. I have explained my actions, you obviously hold a different view. I have explained my (and other's) thoughts on your point of view (and provided links), and have done everything possible to be open about the process while balancing the need to keep things private for a short period of time. The sad thing is, if we had just referred you to the announcement in the beginning, instead of trying to provide additional information and be more transparent, none of this would have happened. KnightLago (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The sad thing is that despite indicating to you several times here that what you conveyed ("27 inquires") does not carry any meaning even gramatically or in the context of what was being asked, you've made (and are making) absolutely no attempt to add meaning to that - this is the reason this seems to be going in circles, and it indicates anything but transparency, despite intentions. I won't waste anymore of my time. That said, I end this discussion with a note: people will have good questions over the so-called balance, and what it is you've accomplished since the era of dissatisfaction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time you have even come close to asking for clarification of what was meant by "inquiries". An inquiry (as used) is a request for information, or a questionnaire. As I have said, I think a non-biased journalist would have reacted completely differently to what was a very minor misunderstanding. Instead, we have engaged in this long circular discussion, that only now, days later, has yielded something positive for your readers. This is hardly a productive way for a journalist to seek information. KnightLago (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That was the 4th occasion where I clearly indicated that "inquires" (a verb) does not mean anything in your sentence. A sensible arbitrator with a sufficient level of clue would have responded to that much earlier by explaining why he/she thought it might be helpful, what it is he/she was meaning to convey, and apologise for failing to communicate effectively/unambiguously. You did none of that; instead you made circular and illogical arguments, you refused to address the justified concerns, and then you made accusations regarding non-existent bias, and have continued pushing bad faith suggestions. Your conduct has been totally unbecoming of an arb. Furthermore, your above response in particular gave the meaning of "inquiries", NOT the word you used in your original statement ("inquires") - this was the subject of concern, not "inquiries". In other words, you've done nothing positive for readers except clarify that you miserably failed to take sufficient care when you made your original statement. Equally, readers can see that your attempts to conceal this or shift the focus away from this have been utterly hopeless. Good day. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The very first thing I did was point out the misunderstanding in a cordial way. The second thing I did, in reply to your initial comment in this thread, was apologize that the number of inquiries was not useful. Regarding "inquires", I misspelled "inquiries" initially and continued to do so and did not realize it until now. I meant inquiries and have read each instance of "inquires" in this and all other discussions as "inquiries". In one case, I even used both words in the same reply. I apologize for that error, I guess I am a bit dyslexic.

I still find it hard to believe that you deny your bias. Have you read your posts in this thread alone? "In the future, if it ever becomes necessary for me to speak to you, or certain other colleagues of yours (such as Risker who I have also criticised for the exact same communication issue), I hope this will not be the sort of responses I encounter." How does Risker even enter into this conversation? "[P]eople will have good questions over the so-called balance, and what it is you've accomplished since the era of dissatisfaction." Era of dissatisfaction, really? Coupled with the 7/19/10 report, and the last report where you made serious allegations with zero factual basis to support them leads to an obvious conclusion. This is just a summation of your very recent history with the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And after an edit summary like this, I consider my point about your neutrality to be conclusively proven. Please stop posting on my talk page. KnightLago (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern about your fitness as an arb is fully justified. Evidently, you had not been reading my queries, responses and concerns with a sufficient level of care, and/or you have not taken that level of care when responding - this is not what the community expects or wants from arbs. This concern is active by the fact that you have continued to misstate what it is I said or the reasons for which I said it, and you have continued to make statements which address concerns other than those that I've expressed at this page. The exception to this is that you've now finally acknowledged that you did not take a sufficient level of care with your communication and apologised for it. We're human; that's fine. But getting to this point should not require this much time or responses; this incident resembles what happened in early February which is very relevant to a summation that needs to be made in public about ArbCom; perhaps you should check your emails from that time. I won't post here again, but I suggest you, as a group, think twice before making vague threats in the future. I'm taking your page off of my watchlist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Let it go already. This whole discussion is over one word. A single word you misquoted and I mistyped/misread. I do not think I have misstated anything you have said. And your bias as the writer covering the Arbitration Committee is a relevant topic when you react as you did when you realized you made a mistake concerning your coverage of the Arbitration Committee. I freely acknowledge my mistakes (imagine my consternation reading this discussion and not understanding why you kept harping on "inquires" when I was reading it as "inquiries"); you have yet to acknowledge yours. Does this lead to concerns as to my fitness as an Arbitrator? I think most people would answer no, and disagree with your comments and edit summary. I think much of what you write is based on your past negative interactions with or perceptions of the Arbitration Committee. I cannot help that is how you view the Committee, but let us not deny it when the evidence is staring us in the face. I also agree this matter could and should have been handled differently, and that we could have discovered our misunderstanding long ago if this matter had been approached differently initially. KnightLago (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)