User talk:AlexandrDmitri/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re:

That was quite nice of you. Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello,sorry to disturb with a question as this is not something wich has to see with the wiki.en. And very sorry about my english too. I'm sysop on a little wiki and faced with an user who ist cutting article's text to put them on another page just to avoid other noticing his dids and to write them as he wants, destroying like that he page history. I was wondering wich would be done on a big wiki, knowing he is not at his first wrongdoing. --Kadwalan (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like you need to do a history merge. There are lots of helpful technical explanations on how to perform them. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Delegitimization_as_a_tactic

Tenmei created this page as part of his inflammatory rhetoric against his opponents in the ArbCom. Maybe you should review this and decide if it is relevant enough to stay. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We should let Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Delegitimization_as_a_tactic take its course. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Marriage of "content" and "conduct"

This is a response to a question Newyorkbrad asked. It took time for me to craft it.

Do I need to ask your permission to add this at this time? If so, this is my request.

If permissible, where do I add this? --Tenmei (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1 . Newyorkbrad asked a question:

I do not understand specifically what you are driving at with this proposal. Please explain in a bit more detail (but only a bit more, please). -- Newyorkbrad 00:44, 22 August 2011

2. This was my initial, short response.

These concepts are illustrated in the diffs of Qwyrxian and Bobthefish2 in one short thread Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972. --Tenmei 19:49, 24 August 2011

3. This is an untimely expanded analysis:

In this ArbCom case, "content" and "conduct" are sometimes married, not divorced. Synergies in the marriage of information asymmetry and delegitimisation is a significant factor which ArbCom may have overlooked.

According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about....".

In part, the case is about tit-for-tat diffs. Stepping back, the ArbCom case is also about Information asymmetry (ja:情報の非対称性) and Moral hazard (zh:道德风险)

Information asymmetry. Without using the term explicitly, Magog acknowledges the information asymmetry, e.g.,

"... it's just so difficult to read that page history and figure out what's gotten some people upset and what hasn't." -- Magog the Ogre 06:43, 13 August 2011

The term "information asymmetry" implicates the study of decision-making where one party has more or better information than the other. In effect, Magog acknowledges an imbalance which might cause decision-making and its consequences to go awry.

The genesis of this ArbCom case is distilled in one thread. At Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972, STSC and Bobthefish2 attempt (a) to modify an intransitive verb and (b) to add "by the Americans". Both the verb usage and the three words have significant ramifications which are recognized immediately by John Smith's, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari and me. Qwyrxian doesn't "get it", and he marginalizes what he doesn't understand, e.g.,

Okay, you know what, it's not really that important to me (other editors may speak for themselves). I am still firmly convinced that the sentence with "by the Americans" is grammatically incorrect, and that, by definition, grammatically incorrect sentences cannot be "precise," but it really isn't important enough to fight about ...." -- Qwyrxian 09:44, 27 January 2011

In subsequent months, the significance of this diff is emphasized by Qwyrxian when he repeatedly points to arguing about three words as the proof that outside intervention by mediation or arbitration is needed. Characterising others as " pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is demonstrably a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Moral Hazard. Economists distinguish "moral hazard" involving hidden actions from "adverse selection" involving hidden information. Both are special sub-sets of information asymmetry; and both exacerbated in Wikipedia by the unexamined consequences of the hortatory WP:Assume Good Faith.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman explains moral hazard as "... any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly."

A. Bobthefish2 proposes contriving conditions which cause Senkaku articles to be locked, e.g.,

"Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on and go mess with better-monitored pages like 'Japan in World War II' and 'Nanjing Massacre'." -- Bobthefish2 08:45, 27 January 2011

B. The strategic thinking is underscored by repeating the proposal, e.g.,

"Anyhow, the lack of any constructive efforts on this page is evident. Perhaps locking this will allow some people to go off and contribute their time on something like Nanking_Massacre_denial." -- Bobthefish2 21:34, 27 January 2011

C. Locking an article stigmatizes everyone in the manner of Mercutio's "plague o' both your houses!" which overwhelms all else ... which is part of the objective the gambit was intended to achieve.

Qwyrxian was only partly correct in assessing the impact of Bobthefish2 and others, e.g.,

"Of course, the problem is that any comments I make like this are useless ... and really, even if you could be blocked (say, if this went to ArbCom), you have nothing to lose, since you're not really interesting in actually editing Wikipedia, anyway." -- Qwyrxian 00:20, 9 June 2011

Summary. In our collaborative editing context, "delegitimisation" refers to a process in which an editor or editors are strategically undermined. WP:Delegitimization as a tactic is about deflecting attention away from writing or content, focusing instead on the writer or writers. Information asymmetries exacerbated the short- and longer-term consequences.

I'm pretty sure that the extended reply is far and beyond what was meant by a 'bit' (which was italicised in NYB's original request for emphasis). Secondly, as both drafting arbitrators and I have tried to convey to all parties concerned, the time for additional presentation, summarisation and discussion of this case is long passed. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

Hi, can you advice me how to proceed with this dispute ([1], when there's no higher instance at the Macedonian Wikipedia, and the administrator there are violating the pillars of Wikipedia, enforcing their own rules that have nothing to do with Wikipedia? --StanProg (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is no dispute resolution mechanism on the Macedonian Wikipedia, then I suggest filing a Request for comment on Meta. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Toyohara Chikanobu

I would greatly appreciate if you could take the time to review what has been done to the page: Toyohara Chikanobu. I began this page (and continue to edit it) to provide as much information as I can to those interested about this comparatively unknown Meiji artist. I do not regard this page as "my baby"; I am open to any reasonable change and/or new, verifiable information. One of the editors has "changed/edited" it to make the page (in my opinion) far less comprehensible. Thank you. GaryD144 (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check

Hello AlexandrDmitri, can I please ask you to chime in here? I declined Puffin's request for accountcreator and a long discussion has ensued; since I don't want to appear bullheaded, I'd welcome outside input. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Δ case

The Δ case was tentatively to be called "Review of Δ sanctions". With the improper titling, it is biasing the case against Δ. The point is to review the sanctions, not to lynch Δ. Please rename the case to what the ArbCom tentatively agreed to call it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As I noted under the motion, the Arbitration Committee explicitly instructed that it be named Betacommand 3 via the clerks' mailing list. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ACC

Good Morning (Or whatever it may be, wherever you are.)

I was a user with ACC and had to focus on other responsibilities. I have 'come around' and am willing and able to come and help again.

Thank You. Fumitol|talk|cont 12:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've unsuspended you. Take a moment to review the guidelines, as they do evolve over time. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello Alexandr (I think we've never bumped into each other before), I just wanted to let you know that this popped up on my watchlist. You may want to hide the revisions. Thanks, Lynch7 18:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerking at the Arbitration Committee

I'm interested in getting involved in the Arbitration Committee by first starting as a Clerk. How do I go about doing this? --Thehistorian10 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration committee clerks are experienced and respected Wikipedians who have demonstrated their ability to handle difficult situations where tempers can get frayed, and emotions run high. Whilst involvement in other aspects of dispute resolution is not required, it is definitely an advantage to have some experience. I myself took on a couple of WP:MEDCAB cases before applying to become a clerk. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

I don't understand this edit. Why is that on the talk page? I suspect that you intended it for the main page instead, but I'm not sure enough to change it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That was me archiving the request for clarification which has now been closed. As the clarification does not refer to a specific case, it is temporarily archived on the request talkpage, for reference, until the archive bot comes along and archives it permanently. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Overspill

If you don't like overspill, ask the arbitrators to accept of decline the case already. It is cruel to keep an editor (Malleus) hanging in limbo like they are doing. If the community wants to discuss the matter, let them. Closing the talk page discussion will only shunt it to other venues, which probably aren't as appropriate. What we really need are evidence and workshop pages... Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The community is discussing it, as evidenced by the sprawling mess that is the request page. The talk page discussion was wholly inappropriate, given that the arbitrators have not voted to accept a case yet. Finally, I have absolutely no influence on the arbitration committee other than adding a statement as an individual editor, which given the number of statements already is frankly going to make no difference whatsoever, other than to force me to recuse on all things related to Malleus. I will say though that I do agree that the arbitrators should make a decision one way or the other in a timely fashion. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom template

Apologies about that change, I didn't mean to remove important elements of the template. I saw the error explained in NW's edit summary. Just thought it was an easy fix. Won't happen again. :-/ Lord Roem (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Timid Guy appeal

Some parties have yet to post any evidence. If large amounts of evidence are posted just before the evidence deadline, will appropriate parties be given an additional day or two to prepare a rebuttal? Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are any major surprises on the evidence front, we'll take it from there. I'm not sure that this is a bridge we are going to need to cross though. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion, let's address the situation if and when it arises. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Will Beback is going to post a large body of evidence at the 11th hour.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Evidence extension on Timid Guy appeal

As anticipated, Will Beback has posted his evidence 8 minutes before the evidence deadline. I therefore request an extension so that participants may prepare rebuttals. Also, Will Beback has circumvented the 500 word and 50 diff limit by linking to a sandbox with 63 diffs and yet another with 186 diffs. If this is permissible, then I will follow suit with sandboxes of my own, that contain additional diffs and additional evidence. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, a large body of evidence added by user Cardamon at 2 minutes after the deadline and Littleolive oil also was making additions to her evidence in the last half hour. So to be fair to everyone an extension is in order.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA

HI Dmitri, could you please have a look at this diff when you have a chance? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I left a warning about decorum after this comment was made. I don't think I have, at this stage, anything to add. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Content and Diff Counter Missing

Hi Dimitri, It seems that the content counter is missing in the evidence section of Doc James @ TimidGuy Appeal. James does not appear to be over the limit or anything, but it might be a good thing to correct in case he decides to add more content. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The bot seems to ignore sections that have links in the headlines. I've removed those and I'll let the bot's owner know about the bug, if it is not already the case. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Technical glitch on Arbcom page

Hi, just wanted to notify you there was a technical glitch here [2], which I now fixed. The previous poster had accidentally signed with four literal ("nowiki"ed) tildes [3], which accidentally turned into my signature in the next edit when I was merely trying to fix a broken html comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Serves me right for not checking the history thoroughly before trying to clean up the request. Thanks ! --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Public record

Hi Alex,

I recently looked for the permanent record of the motion you enacted here. I expected it at WP:ARBCC, like three other motions related to the case, but could not find it. It took some digging to get to the proper diffs. Is this an oversight?

Bye,

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the first amendedment by motion listed, which I enacted by changing remedy 5.6 here and noting the amendment by motion here. The vote is noted on the talkpage. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I'm blind. Sorry for bothering you...I though I checked all three, but must have overlooked one. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I had to check about five times to ensure that I had indeed done things correctly back then. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that's a hint that we could use a better filing system ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Votes needed in Betacommand 3 case

With 16 active Arbs, it takes 9 votes in favor to pass a remedy, right? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Provided that no one abstains, correct. The majority calculations, including the number of support votes required in case of abstensions, are set out on the top of the proposed decision page. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong?

Can't you take criticism of your actions? I am not a vandal. You have no right to just remove my statement without even the courtesy of leaving me a note. If you don't want to behave professionally, you should resign your position of arbitration clerk. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to clear up the misunderstanding on Magog the Ogre's talkpage, but we can have a conversation here if you prefer. I read your comment and had nothing to say to "I dislike you very much". That's not criticism of my actions, that's just being rude. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was upset. I was telling you how I felt at the moment you erased my post, and didn't leave me a note. For the future, please just ask me to fix anything that needs fixing. I try to be agreeable when people leave me a request. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well again, I apologise for any misunderstandings and I'll certainly talk to you first next time. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Good! Thank you. It is strange how the least little thing can lead to a useless dispute (though this is not evident in the midst of it). Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pam-Crash and Alkermes (company) articles

Dear AlexandrDmitri,

I was wondering if you might be able to help me with this. An article I wrote ("Pam-Crash") had an advert template placed on it in November that I believe is no longer necessary. I have since revised the article and eliminated (I think) any excessive use of the product name as well as any jargon and backlinks. When you have a chance, could you possibly look at the article and let me know if my changes have been sufficient to warrant removal of the template? Also, if you could do the same for the "Alkermes (company)" article, I would be very grateful. That article has a "close paraphrasing" template on it but I made changes to address that. Thank you!Michael Leeman (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS case

Thank you for letting me know it has been opened. Those of us who have commented on it (most of the parties) were aware it had been requested, however. JCScaliger (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Case wording

It currently says "As this case is currently open, no changes to this page should be made and any unauthorised additions reverted." If it said "...any unauthorised additions will be reverted by the Case Clerks", that would avoid well-meaning-but-clumsy edits like mine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, although the instructions, as you can see, are sometimes ignored. I'll ponder and talk to some of my fellow clerks. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal advice

I am inexperienced in arbcom and policy proposals. As I understand it my proposal in the AT/MOS case (i.e. to end bold edits on policy/MOS pages) is not something that arbcom would decide. I am considering proposing such a change in an RfC at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. In your opinion would it be appropriate make that proposal while this case is proceeding or better to wait until it is resolved? Or would you advise some other course of action/inaction? Jojalozzo 02:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This strikes me as an idea you could present in the workshop. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

your assistance is needed at Rinat Akhmetov' article

Dear AlexandrDmitri,
I need your help at the above mentioned article. We've had long discussions with Львівське whose allegations seem to insinuate reputation of Rinat Akhmetov, who is a living public person; recently I have thoroughly reviewed and restructured the article Rinat Akhmetov, removed poorly sourced statements having put proven facts in chronological and logical order. Львівське is now systematically restoring his version though it includes statements violating WIKI policies about Verifiability, Biographies of living persons and gossip. Kindly assist on the matter. If you are interested, I'm open for discussion at my talk page --Orekhova (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm a bit busy at the moment, and I don't have the ability to devote the time necessary to help resolve your dispute. I suggest requesting a third opinion or informal mediation. I hope that these suggestions help. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How should this be done?

I have used some three hundred words on a small aspect of the MOS case, but I do not think I have been verbose: Born2Cycle's account of the events at WP:TITLE alone is much more than 500 words, and is incomplete. How can we possibly describe these things, especially when the crux is a pattern of behavior, in 500 words? Subpages? Reference back to the opening statements? JCScaliger (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The approach you need to take in the evidence phase is that of summarising the main aspects of the case. The format that works best is "X, Y and Z did A (diff), B (diff), C (diff) which results in such and such problem/flouts WP:RULE_A". As it stands, your evidence is more a descriptive narrative of what happened. The tendency for parties in cases is to give blow by blow accounts of every minutae, which is not what the arbitrators are looking for. They are looking for a précis, backed up with diffs. Finally, to quote the text at the top of the evidence page "Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 words will not help you make your point." --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the evidence I have presented into such a format; but saving the links and diffs. That's what I'm trying to do. JCScaliger (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed survey

Alexandr, re the caps and title case, I am considering launching a new information poll at WT:TITLE, to get a better idea of where people stand on the changes that Born2cycle has proposed. I have drafted a poll in my user subpage at User:Dicklyon/Recognizability poll. I'd like to post this to WT:TITLE soon, if you think it won't be disruptive to the ongoing process. It might even solicit some opinions that people can cite in evidence. Does that seem productive? Do you think I should bother the arbs about saying if it's cool or not? Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a question you need to ask the drafting arbitrators. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Final decision page for Muhammad images

Hi. There still seem to be a few errors in the final decision of Muhammad images. Should someone not have decided between the two versions of Tarc (conduct)? 5.1 does not appear to pass and the record of votes for 5 needs formatting. The header levels of many of the principles and some of the remedies are wrong. Discretionary sanctions 8.1 does not at the moment have a visible title. Should "Alternative" appear in the final decision for principle of least astonishment? Remedy 6.1 also appears to pass, since John Vanderbilt voted late (in fact he was voting while the final decision was being prepared.) Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, Mlpearc has been working on closing his first case as a trainee. Unfortunately there have been a few glitches, in part due to John Vandenberg's lage voting. I've sorted out the Remedies section; now I need to check the rest. I'll update here when I've finished checking everything. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC) - Update: I've been through everything and everything should have been ironed out. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I guessed this was a training exercise :) Thanks to you both. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Should there not be a note about discretionary sanctions for articles related to Muhammad on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions with a link to the case page? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there should have. I've added in the case, and updated our procedures, which ommitted that step. Thanks for drawing my attention to it ! --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Alexandr Dmitri (talk)

Hi AlexandrDmitri, thank you for your interest in the tool. I've approved your account, please feel free to login and test the system.

As part of this beta test, we'd like everyone to test every aspect of the tool. This includes acting as blocked users - we'd like each of you to file at least two appeals and respond to them as though you are blocked. Please try to act like a blocked user new to Wikipedia, unfamiliar with common terms and probably a bit frustrated at the situation.

When reviewing appeals, please act as though you are reviewing real blocks. You should be able to comment on any appeal, regardless of who has reserved it; reservations only ensure that reviewers don't send conflicting emails.

If you encounter any bugs (things not appearing to work right, and especially error messages), please file a bug report on JIRA. You will need to register an account there. New features can be suggested there as well, but please add the "after-beta" label to these so we can easily prioritize between bugs that must be fixed and features that can be added later.

Thank you again for volunteering to beta-test.--v/r - TP 23:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! It's good to know that we've not lost you from Wikipedia and tools forever, from ACC to UTRS! :) The Helpful One 23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear AlexandrDmitri,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions about an ArbCom case

Hi Alexandr.

Thanks for your work in setting up the ArbCom case Article titles and capitalisation.

It took me completely by surprise; and I have never been involved with such a thing before. My time is fully occupied in the real world (and will be for at least the next couple of months); but I have attempted to do what is required at this early stage. As you can see from the request page, I flagged my intention to post a statement. I was thinking what to put in it, when suddenly that page was closed and the contents were transferred to the main case page. I had no idea such a thing would happen. The result is that minutely detailed and prejudicial statements are made on the main page about me, yet it seems I have no way to make the short statement I was developing. So:

• Is it now possible for me to make that statement, and have it incorporated with the rest on the main case page? I can have that ready within 24 hours of your permission.

Also, I have had to work fast to see that certain parties are named who were excluded from the initial list. Sarek (the requester of the case) makes it clear: he had expected that more should be added. Let me stress that I am inexperienced in these matters, and I acted in good faith and for good reasons in augmenting that list. For example, some of the additional parties have been indirectly implicated by parties already named; so I wanted them explicitly named, even though I have nothing negative to say about them at all. So:

• May I now ask that you add two or three more names at my request? Of course the question of who stays on the list and who is removed is yet to be resolved. But I would like to add them to the mix for now. If I cannot do that, am I at liberty to seek actions in respect of non-party editors later on? I had thought I would be entitled to do that, of course; but would it be fair, if they have not been forewarned by being named as parties in timely fashion?

I appreciate your help with these matters. I am sure there will be many further procedural questions. Is this the right place to come for advice?

Noetica^Tea? 13:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll attempt to address the main issues right now, but if there are any details I overlook, don't hesitate to ask. Both myself and User:Worm That Turned are indeed here to help with any procedural questions, or other matters pertaining to the case, although he as a trainee on his first case, he might not yet feel as comfortable as more experienced clerks.

The case has now been opened and is the evidence phase. Statements made requesting the case have been archived, and whilst you could comment on the main case talkpage, if I were you, I'd concentrate more on presenting your evidence.

With regards to adding parties, that would require the consent of the drafting arbitrators. Either you can lobby them directly, or I can do so on your behalf. In any case, I would notify any additional parties that they had been added to the case.

Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Alexandr. I await your considered response to this question (see above): "If I cannot do that, am I at liberty to seek actions in respect of non-party editors later on?"

• As for new parties to the case, I hereby request you have these added on my behalf:

  Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

  LtPowers (talk · contribs)

(I may request more, depending on your answer to that question about seeking action later.)

• I am distressed that I am unable to make my opening statement as I indicated, and that the main page prominently displays grossly prejudicial accusations and inaccurate assertions about me. I understand that the case is moving on; but please inform me: am I permitted to apply to the drafting arbitrators (or others whom you might suggest) for a special insertion of my statement, with the same status as the other statements? As SMcCandlish has noted, there appear to be anomalies. Editors deciding to add themselves now as parties (or even later, it seems, may may such statements. Is this correct? Note the wording on the page: "Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case."
• Please tell me: what evidential status do those opening statements have? Is a participant (party or not) entitled to refer, in any other page of the case as it progresses, to all or any detailed part of her submission (as if it were, in effect, evidence)? And to other statements, beyond her own? (I might have further questions about this, depending on the answers to these ones.)

Again, I appreciate your help. I will centralise my enquiries here (in this same section: please don't archive it!). And where possible I will make requests through you. This keeps some things simple in what promises to be a rather complex process.

Noetica^Tea? 21:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me try and address all of the issues:

a) List of parties: if you intend to present evidence against someone, then yes, they should be listed as a party, and as soon as possible. It's best if you finalise your list, and let me know.

b) Opening statements: these are made in order to convince the Arbitration Committee of a need for a case. Once this happens, the parties' statements are archived on the main case page and non involved users on the main case talkpage. Additional statements may be made on the talkpage: User:SMcCandlish has done so, as may you, but generally speaking the talkpage has few watchers, and you'd be far better served by posting to the evidence and workshop pages, as this is where proceedings now take place: the workshop and ultimately the proposed, then final decision, will be based on the evidence submitted on the evidence page, not at the request for arbitration (main case page).

c) New parties to the case are simply listed on the case page; they do not make a statement on the case page (although, as I said above, should they really wish, they may do so on the talkpage). Otherwise only arbitrators and clerks may edit the page, which until the final decision is posted, rarely happens.

Unfortunately I recognise that the rules, which seem simple for a clerk with a couple of years experience in these matters, seem Bizantine to outsiders. For what it is worth, both drafting arbitrator User:AGK and myself have had a similar discussion with SMcCandlish here. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Alexandr. That helps. I will very soon draft a complete list of those I am thinking to present evidence against. That is, if things must be put adversarially, which is not really my intention! You will appreciate, given the immediate and tightly focused attacks from some parties, that I have to think defensively in an incredibly uncertain and shifting situation.

Here is something I need to take further with you:

• While the arbitrators, deliberating with probity and detachment, are concerned only with evidence presented and duly discussed at the correct pages, you did not tell me whether participants may make mention of their opening statements, or the opening statements of others. May they? And may they refer to diffs or anything else presented there? Please answer fully, or I will have to ask for more detail. This will affect how I proceed, as I move on to the evidence stage myself. One concern, among several: some editors may form their own attitudes, and decide whether to make submissions and what the content would be, based on the main page. It is very likely that they would read that first, and it is highly prejudicial and inaccurate. They are far less likely to read the talkpage, as you point out.

Looking forward to clarification, since it is all quite mysterious, and yes: Byzantine.

Noetica^Tea? 00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Participants in the case - be they involved parties or not - may present evidence and workshop ideas. The basis for the evidence can be actions anywhere on Wikipedia. This does mean that anyone can refer back to an opening statement, though it has no more value per se than a reference to an edit on an MOS page. In reality, the request for arbitration has been made, accepted and now we are in the centre of the proceedings: the evidence phase. This is where you state your case. Honestly, neither the case page nor the talkpage are particularly relevant at this stage of proceedings: the main case page is a pair of bookends with one side a snapshot ot the case being opened, and the other side the closure of the case with its final decision. The real stuff gets worked out in the evidence, workshop and proposed decision phase.--Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Alexandr. That puts me at an irremediable disadvantage. I would welcome the opportunity for a collegial, community-wide discussion of the problems facing WP:TITLE and the inevitable tensions that a many-page manual of style must provoke. I myself have repeatedly called for such a wide discussion. That seems to be the spirit in which Sarek requested the case; and as I have indicated to him, I appreciate it (see his talkpage). Since there was an effective attempt to divert the process to an attack on me (and a couple of others), and there appears to be no way to balance their unsupportable allegations at the top of the main page, I have little option. It would be an easy task to dismiss their allegations in evidence; but this means I would have no words left from my 500 (and my 50 diffs) to focus on the constructive work that lies ahead (see Casliber, at the main case page: "... would an RfC with broad input from the editing community at large provide a foundation for settling these disputes?"). Clearly that cannot happen, given the present state of the pages for the case.

Please notify the Committee of this exchange with you; and please formally notify them that if no remedy is implemented for the problems I outline here, I am withdrawing from the process. Last year I took a leading role, under ArbCom supervision, in fashioning a permanent solution for the problems with WP:DASH, resulting in clarity in all titling decisions involving hyphens and dashes. And peace! I donated several weeks of full-time work (that's just me; many others donated their time and professional skills also). I cannot assist in the same way this year, under such conditions as this.

I will watch for discussion here at your talkpage; but I will post nothing at all in the case itself, if no fair remedy is found. If any sanction whatsoever is eventually imposed on me in my absence, I will have no option but to leave the Project entirely. That is my inflexible and principled decision.

Noetica^Tea? 02:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The community-wide discussion would be an outcome to implement as a result of this case, not during it. The evidence section is for you to present succintly what you feel is the heart of the problem. The workshop, based on the evidence, proposes solutions. I shall ask that the drafting arbitrators add their input here. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Alexandr. Yes, of course any RFC-style process would follow the case, not be a part of it. I mean that I would want to work constructively with my allocation of evidence to advocate for such a process, and for how it might best be implemented. I cannot do that if I start under attack on the main case page, with no opportunity to moderate the polemic atmosphere that has been established there. What's more, there is conflicting and confusing advice in the case already about the role of "parties". I am not interested in attacking newcomers; but they have been implicated by innuendo and in generalities. Of course no harm should come to editors of good will; but many editors are involved, as a matter of plain fact.

I am placed in an impossible position; all I ask is that my position be made manageable, so that I can best assist the Committee in deliberating on this crucial case, which needs to focus on systemic problems – difficulties that were always absolutely predictable, as the Project grows.

Noetica^Tea? 06:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I see Noetica has not been offered any accommodation as yet. I have offered him the remainder of the word count on my evidence statement for whatever he wishes, if he so wishes. This is done routinely under Robert's Rules of Order; I hope it is permitted here.

Regards, Neotarf (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding was the Noetica, per the post below, is still considering whether or not to participate in the case. If I missed the fact that it was purely the length of evidence submission that was preventing participation, I would have addressed this point earlier. That was not the impression I got, however, though Noetica, please let me know if an additional allowance for evidence is all that is holding you back. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

←Noetica for the purposes of drafting a case decision only the evidence presented on the evidence page is looked at. You should make your points there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you David. I have been waiting to see if there is more response from the drafting arbitrators. Will there be?

Alexandr, I have requested above that you add these two parties to the case:

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• LtPowers (talk · contribs)

Please have this done as soon as possible; and here is one more (who has been been taking part from the first days of the case):

• Enric Naval (talk · contribs)

Please add that name also. That is my final list.

Thank you!

Noetica^Tea? 21:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt very much that the other two drafting arbitrators will say anything different to what David and I have already said. I will contact the three of them about adding the three additional parties, as I'm not sure they frequent my talkpage much. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, I'm not sure if you've already did so, but to add an editor as a party to an open case, you must propose a motion to that effect on the workshop page. Instructing Alexandr to add the parties, or compiling a list of users on his talk page, will not achieve any change to the list of parties. Regards, AGK [•] 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, AGK. I am completely naive about the workings of ArbCom, so I have come to one central point (Alexandr's talkpage) for advice. I would not presume to instruct him to do anything; but I asked for something about parties and he replied (see above): "List of parties: if you intend to present evidence against someone, then yes, they should be listed as a party, and as soon as possible. It's best if you finalise your list, and let me know." So that's exactly what I did. I will be ready to propose a motion on the workshop page if and when a remedy can be found for the extraordinary disadvantage I have been placed under (see above). The last thing I want is to be difficult; and I understand that ArbCom works firmly according to rules. My hope is that the case can be made less personal, and focus on the development of a community-wide process to fix what has not been working. But it seems I am faced with a massive job of defending myself; and that must inevitably involve counter-claims against others.

Alexandr (and drafting arbitrators), I need to know this very soon: given the conditions of his year-long topic ban, is PMAnderson permitted to take part in any way in the present case? I have assumed he is not, since it concerns MOS. But he may want to speak on the workshop page against some parties. If PMAnderson is not explicitly excluded at this early stage, I would reluctantly move that he be made a party also, and propose actions regarding him. He has been a main contributor at WP:TITLE and WT:TITLE, which are central to the case.

I appreciate your consideration of these issues, and I'll wait here for replies.

Noetica^Tea? 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

AGK has posted advice about adding / removing parties here. I would include your request concerning Pmanderson there as well. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Workshop

Alexandr, some of the editing at the workshop page has been chaotic, and certainly does not meet the need to confine evidence such as diffs to the evidence page. (I will need to ask you questions later about presentation on the evidence page later; it too is developing chaotically, to say the least. I don't want to add to that chaos!)

Of particular concern is a disruptive development that I have notified and summarised in this section at WP:ANI. The actions by, and triggered by, party JCScaliger affect the present ArbCom case in several ways. Can he be restrained, or at least admonished, about pointy and provocative edits in policy (or guidelines) that directly affect the case? Can you do something about this? It is unfair that I should embroil myself further, since I am already placed in a vulnerable position. Yet a core policy page is being manipulated in prosecuting the case. Please advise what can be done, and how, and by whom. Is an injunction concerning tampering with policy in order?

Thanks. I'll do nothing further till I am advised here.

Noetica^Tea? 11:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(I have added in a section break for ease of editing)

If you wish to request a temporary injunction on the editing of a core policy page, you can do so here.

If you feel that the editing of a core policy whilst the case is in progress is pertinent to your evidence, enter it as such.

Clerks are mandated by the Arbitration Committee to maintain order and decorum on arbitration pages. Should I intervene myself in the matter brought to ANI, I would do so as an administrator, which would make me involved in the matter and force me to recuse on this case. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood, of course. I'll think about my options. I am still not convinced that I can take part in the case at all, given the unresolved and still distressing difficulty that I have discussed at length above.

Actually, can I request an ArbCom injunction outside of the case? I mean, as if I were coming in "cold": not as a party, and not on the pages for the case itself? Meanwhile, it would be impossible to regard the fluctuating provisions at WP:CONSENSUS as having any force at all while this is going on. It is not my role to save the world! But I do think someone should put a stop to that churning.

Noetica^Tea? 12:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you decide not to take part in the case, that is your choice, but the case will continue and you will remain a named party. Any editor may make a request for an injunction where I indicated, but that remains the only place to do so. Why anyone would wish to ask ArbCom elsewhere, when there is somewhere specifically for it during a case that is particularly relevant, makes no sense. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Late evidence

Hi,

I see that the Evidence page was closed and locked with edit summary, "contact a case clerk if you want to make a submission"[4]. I would like to make a submission, so I'm contacting you.

Prior to the page being closed and locked, my evidence area was hidden[5] for being late.

I'm sorry, but this is the first ARBCOM case in which I've ever participated and I didn't realize the deadline was so strict. Frankly, I figured it would be locked (as it eventually was) once no more edits were allowed. I spent hours of my Sunday getting that stuff in yesterday before midnight (midnight my time, PST). Besides, I had most of my evidence in before the GMT dead line (is that the official dead line?) in this version, except for paring that I had to do per what the bot said (as you and I discussed on the talk page). I promise I'll never make that mistake again! Can you please do something to allow my evidence section to be considered in the case? Thanks so much. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

AGK has said that he will answer the request you made on his talkpage directly. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Δ case

It might be a good idea to archive the talk pages over there. At this point the continuation of dialogue on them is unlikely to be productive anymore, even if it's still quite polite. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkay, it's degenerating now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvio dealt with it by the time I was able to look at it properly. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

it was kind of obvious

who else would have written "Statement by Elen of the Roads"? Nobody Ent 19:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The TG case probably needs an update of vote counts

The Arbs who just voted to close the case seem kinda impatient and are doing it themselves. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've gone through the votes with a fine toothcomb again, and there were a number of discrepancies, though none that change the outcome subantially. I'm not sure I concur with your conclusion that the arbs are impatient (we usually get a polite email when they are), but then again, they don't usually update the implementation notes themselves. That might be because despite my initial reluctance to use the template, it does actually make the calculations more transparent. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the votes necessary for case closure are in already, so I guess my crystal ball worked this time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your crystal ball seems to confuse impatience with being satisfied that the case is ready to be closed. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think you did a good job clerking this case. Just the right touch of policing the pages, but without being too heavy-handed. Thanks for your work. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, in your summary of the decision that you are placing on the involved editors' talk pages, you might want to mention that TimidGuy's ban was overturned. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's never an easy job striking the right balance. Concerning the summary the ban being overturned is the first line "1. Jimbo Wales' ban of TimidGuy is vacated." Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My request to close the Workshop page

Alexandr, I have posted this at AGK's talkpage (and cross-posted this at Worm's page):

AGK, it is distressing to me that this ArbCom Workshop page is still open. No one wants to suppress free discussion; but a new and irregular posting has now been made, interrupting my life yet again to answer it. I have conformed to all procedural requirements the best way I can, and it is unfair that others are permitted to take advantage of that (perhaps hoping to get the last word, I suppose).

Please close and protect the page now, since your revised deadline has long passed. Anyone can carry on discussion at the talkpages for the case, if they really must.

But perhaps the matter is for a clerk to deal with, so I draw your attention to it also.

Noetica^Tea? 21:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let it be

I meant it generally, of course, and no reflection on you in any way. I had no wish to offend.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure, as it came in response to my comment. I wasn't offended per se, just wanted to make my position clear. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Workshop talkpage note

Feel free to revert this if it's inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to fix a link

There's a request to fix a link at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Evidence#Link_update_request. I have no idea if I'm able to handle this or not, so I'm posting it here since you're the clerk that was active most recently. Tra (Talk) 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the link. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Alex, is there a way of conveying to editors in the instructions that links should be permalinks? It would be nice to save clerks the trouble. Tony (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the instructions on the evidence page state "You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide." (my emphasis added). As with not editing in another editor's section, respecting the word and diff limits etc. these instructions are not read/forgotten/ignored by some. Suggestions are welcome. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Will Beback Auto

Hi. I just happened to notice this account in an article's history. Hand-ball. Alarbus (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The account hasn't been used in a while, but I blocked anyway. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any of that, but know the broad strokes. He knew the ban applied and wasn't using the account. Alarbus (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Arb request

Alex, does it make sense to ping the arbs to look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Proposed decision#Appeal already: "Locus of the dispute" finding? Or can I assume that they'll all see it, even if they've voted already? Is there some other process I should use to help this case come to a sensible conclusion? Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't vouch for each and every one of the individually, but they as a whole do appear to be taking notice of comments on the talk page. If you have received no reply in 24 hours, I can ping them. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What?

"Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors."

What?

Where have I ever not reflected a receptiveness to compromise such that there is room for improvement in that area for me?

Whose views have I ever not been tolerant of? What were those views?

Totally lost. There was no evidence of any of this in this case. AFAIK, no evidence of this exists.

I don't know what to do with this except ignore it. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Scaliger

Hi, I'm struggling to understand why the user page and talk page of the sock of a banned user have not been deleted, and thus why it's been necessary to post a note about the ArbCom decision on that talk page (as though it's of a legitimate user). Tony (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Muhammad Images

Hi. Can you deal with this as appropriate? Ed Johnston suggested I ask you. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is warranted, but if you want to submit a formal amendment to the case, this is where to file it. I wasn't the clerk for the case, so you might get a more enlightened response from case clerk User:NuclearWarfare; alternatively you could sound out drafting arbitrator User:AGK. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Can You Help Or Give Me Advice Pls .... An external link was deleted unfairly

hi . Pls excuse my newbie attitude to wiki but I've only just joined as i feel i have a great deal of knowledge and information to offer in my field . I recently added a external link which i feel didn't break wiki policy's

but it has been edited and unfairly removed when links still remain to business's . We are a non-profit non-funded shooting team for the london ambulance service ( a large organisation ) and wiki appeared to have incomplete articles on shooting subjects (event though some are heavily externally linked so non have showed any benefit to wiki )

here is the ' talk in progress link ' ..... Talk:Clay_pigeon_shooting

can you help pls at all as i feel it isn't being edited fairly ... yes i admit i may have put a link in the wrong place but as I've said i am new to wiki and I'm not an IT guru (actually I'm a paramedic)

any help would be great and appreciated and i feel myself and some of the contacts within the team could benefit wiki and i am more than willing to spend time in finishing the incomplete articles related to shooting .. but not if they will be edited unfairly and business's allowed to provide external links which where over looked by the editor in the articles when our genuine links have been deleted.

the editor in question claims the links where 'spam' ... this i can't understand at all . we are not a business in making money, we are not a shooting ground making money, we are not trying to sell any product ... the links where provided to provide / promote further information into the sport in question to everyday people. if you have another questions pls ask. thank you .

the editor did inform me directly when the post was removed and suggested i ' talk' in the talk box before relinking .. which i did ... then the editor point blank refused again

once again

thankyou (Jinxy72 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC))

Cecilia Chailly

hello, I would like to know what problems there are with the voice Cecilia Chailly, is the English translation of the Italian page, and on that I had no problem. please let me know, thank you, Cecilia Chailly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.12.56 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbComOpenTasks

Thank you Alex, I see you added "nocaselink = true" I was working on getting it linked. Didn't know about that parameter. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's listed on the ArbComOpenTasks template documentation, but to be honest it is the sort of thing you learn by breaking the template and seeing how others fixed it. At least that's how it worked for me. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Me also (just now) :P thanx Mlpearc (powwow) 19:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

I see you archived the clarification request. Could you make sure I noted it correctly at ER? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks for correcting my oversight. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Query

Regarding your notification to me about Lyncs (talk · contribs), am I allowed to respond and make a statement at the Requests for Amendment page about this? — Cirt (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Any input on this? — Cirt (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier Cirt. I sent an email out to clerks and arbs alike, because I'm not 100% sure what the correct answer is, but with the weekend I dropped the ball and haven't followed up. I'll poke everyone again and get back to you asap. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You may respond and make a statement, though everyone involved is reminded that this is not an opportunity to relitigate the case. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. :) — Cirt (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Clerk

Hey, AlexndrDmitri! I would love to be considered to become an Arbitration Clerk. How should I go about doing that? If there aren't any positions open or I don't have enough experience to qualify, I hope that you will keep me in mind when a position becomes available or when I gain more experience. Thanks! At32296 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alex. The Arbitration Committee clerking team is always on the lookout for new recruits. Whilst there are no fixed criteria for becoming a trainee clerk, you have only become active recently, so I'd suggest you get a bit more experience in various areas of Wikipedia first. Obviously, as arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, you might at some point in the future like to get involved there. There are also other areas of Wikipedia such as WP:SPI or WP:ACC that you might take a look at. Finally, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I appreciate it. I will definitely take a look at the links you sent me. I will contact you again in the future when (hopefully) I have gained more experience on the site. Cheers. Alex T. (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerking documentation

Is this documented anywhere in case it gets forgotten again? If there is a place such things are documented, could that and another item (keeping Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter updated) be added? I raised both at WT:AC/C, but that page maybe isn't watched by current clerks? Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The bit about the hidden signature is in our procedures, line 12. I suspect it is more a case of the instructions not being clear to our newer clerks than anything else. I'm not sure what you mean about keeping the Front matter page updated though ; could you expand ? Finally, I myself do have WT:AC/C on my watchlist, but I'll be honest, I tend to miss changes to that page. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, reading your post on the clerks' noticeboard about the Front matter page would have helped. Understood. That has utterly flown under my radar in my tenure as a clerk. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Housekeeping on the GoodDay case

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay/Proposed decision#Motion to close, there is at least one failed proposal marked as passed. Remedy 3 had a vote of 4 to 7, with one abstention. With one abstention, seven votes is a majority, so that should be marked as a fail. Also, the vote appears to be closed, and if so, the 5 to 6 vote on Remedy 1 is also a fail. I'm sure it's not my place to edit an Arb page, so I thought I'd bring to your attention as the clerk. -Rrius (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a bug in the automatic calculations performed by the template. I'll raise this point with the coders. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure you have the power (or interested) to do this but...

Hello Alexander, I recently visited the Wikipedia article Syfy and I found extreme levels of vandalism by User:Syfail and he keeps vandilizing the page even though other users "undo" his changes. Because his/her name implies that he/she will not stop vandalizing the page, I think it would be a good method to block the users IP address to prevent any further vandalism.

...Now I have a question, where do I report exesive vandalism, because the help desk is only for questions and anyother place I look, there is no way to ask for the blocking of another user's IP address.

Thank you! James3167 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I might have of exaggerated a bit but I do think that future vandalism will come out of that user. If you decide no to block him/her, at least keep an eye on the user and/or tell the user a warning to stop the vandalism or any future vandalism. James3167 (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I agree that the two edits made so far are not particularly helpful. The first step is for you to leave a message on their talkpage. I don't know if you use WP:Twinkle, but the uw-welcome-vandal template is appropriate. The next stage is to give a second warning. Again, Twinkle provides you with the prewritten messages. Finally, if the user persists, you can report them to WP:AIV, where an administrator will take the appropriate action. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Length of rebuttals to evidence

Thanks for the note just now. You may be aware that one of the monster AE cases filed was about me. I don't wish to engage in lengthy argumentation, but would like to respond to a number of the specific diffs or representations of my behavior where I believe they are misleading. Given that the AE was 5,000 words, and I didn't have the opportunity to respond before it was closed, this might take a bit of space. I'm wondering if my rebuttal counts against my 1,000 word limit? Any suggestions you might have would be appreciated. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 21:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your entire section should be 1,000 words (give or take a few). Believe it or not, succinct prose has far more success that wordy submissions when it comes to arbitration cases. Your rebuttal need not be a word-for-word 'he said I said', but should be a presentation of your case. If you have any more questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alexandr. I understand that the workshop phase on this case closed on the 23rd, right? I'm just curious about how this is supposed to work. Homunculus (duihua) 12:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Mistaken diff on evidence page

Hi AlexandrDmitri; I realized I accidentally put the wrong diff on the Evidence page. The relevant sentence is about Ohconfucius (here [6]) The sentence says: "[42] [43] Belittling comments in edit summaries" That [43] is pointing to the wrong diff. The diff was supposed to be this one [7]. Can you replace that? If so, thank you. A mistake I hadn't noticed until recently. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)  Done Changed. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatting discussion

Hi Alexandr

Can you clarify your hatting of the Arbom content at the ANI discussion please.

Cheers, Leaky Caldron 15:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicting prevented a more timely response. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Leaky Caldron 15:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So you said you wished to be notified of further developments; what's your take on this ? Tarc (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I'm disgusted to find out well after the fact that you removed that post at the suggestion of Tarc of all people. His behaviour toward me in that ANI, which if it had been directed at Malleus would have triggered World War III by now thanks to the issues surrounding civility enforcement, is the precise reason why I made that addendum, and here you are suppressing it at his suggestion?!?!?! Cracker92 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Clarification is "Request addition of While contributing to any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship, Malleus Fatorum will limit his comments to the current candidate under discussion." It is not an opportunity to relitigate the original case, and it is not the occasion, as I have pointed out, for topics regarding the discussion surrouding you at ANI. That it was Tarc who drew my attention to your post is entirely irrelvant. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now you've explained it further, it makes sense. I apologise if you were offended by my complaint. Tarc undoubtedly takes pleasure in being the one to have alerted you though, so his involvement is not completely irrelevant. Cracker92 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you clerk this please? It's incorrect, and is an attempt to restart the discussion you already hatted. Cracker92 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Commenting here directly, as advised by an admin.[8] The rules say that undisclosed alternate accounts are not allowed to post at certain pages, arbcom pages being one of those. Cracker92 is an undisclosed alternate account. Ergo, he is not allowed to post there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This suggest otherwise. I am not an undeclared alternate account - this is my only active account. There is a difference between having past retired accounts and concurrent alternate accounts, as WP:SOCK makes clear. Cracker92 (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck proving that they actually are retired and not active. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Alexandr can handle it from here. 28bytes (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I see things have moved on in my absence. There's not much more action I can take, barring instructions from the Arbitration Committee or confirmation from a checkuser that this is the sock of a banned user. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Statements vs. evidence

Hey, Alexandr, I made a comment about statements in arbitration discussions at the Cracker92 ANI topic that may not be right. Could you shed some light on it for us? In looking at the Guide to Arbitration, I thought that the 500-page word limit applied to statements by non-parties in the discussion. Someone else thinks that only applies to the submission of evidence. Rereading the guide, I can see why she thinks that, but it does get a bit muddled because the guide seems to blend evidence and "argumentation" together with many calls for "brevity". Can you clarify, either here or at ANI? If you do it here, I'll report it to ANI for you. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

yes, please refrain from 500-page statements ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer is that the 1,000 word limit for parties and 500 for non-parties is strictly enforced on /Evidence pages. Requests for arbitration, clarification and amendment are supposed to remain at 500 words. The increase to 1,000 words for parties on /Evidence pages is recent. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Alexandr.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Archived motions

Is there a reason Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests and its archives are being used to archive the full text of motions not associated with cases? It seems to duplicate what is done at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. There are also lots of other random discussion and comments being mixed up with the non-case motions. It looks like it has been going on for a while now, but taking a recent archive page such as Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 3, it seems strange that formal arbitration discussions are being placed on the same archive page as random stuff. And some of that stuff in those archives is really disconnected from its origins. It is not really clear what has come from where. Wouldn't a system like that in use at WP:AC/N and WT:AC/N work better? Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: e-mail

Responded. I should be able to provide assistance in either case, anyway. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Magog the Ogre

Can you please remove the personal attack by Magog were he is calling me a bigot[9] I had redacted it but he has edit warred it back in and then filed a spurious EW[10] report against me. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask another clerk to look at this, as there is a possibility that I will comment on this. Obviously if I do so, I cannot take any action in this area. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Case request removal

There is a request for arbitration that needs to be removed as it is no longer possible for the case to be accepted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

When the filing party withdrew, he or she requested some feedback from the arbitrators before the request was removed. I asked them on the clerks-l mailing list to comment, but apart from a short reply from JClemens, I've not heard anything that substantially answers the question from the filing party. I'll prod them again. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you please make sure my request isn't archived before the arbitrators answer my question? It's hard to not feel like they're deliberately keeping me in the dark about what they want me to do, so that I'm more likely to make the wrong choice and get punished for it. However, I don't understand why they could want that.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The response from User:Hersfold was that you were told to 'raise the issue publicly', not specifically 'file a request for arbitration'. If you need more information, it's best you take it up with him directly. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Small request

Hi Alexandr. I don't want to step into this, but would it be possible to post the same note to Ohconfucius's page? Seems it was reverted[11].... Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 17:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And I've restored. Thanks. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Incompetent bozo requesting help

Hi. I have placed templates on the following pages to nominate them for deletion according to the recent Falun Gong 2 ArbCom decision, but have been getting major timeout error signals for hours now. Would you be so kind to complete the nomination? The pages are:

• User:Homunculus/sandbox
• User:Ohconfucius/essay/rant about Falun Gong pages/user analysis
• User:Ohconfucius/essay/rant about Falun Gong pages.

I don't know wtf is happening here, but something keeps going wrong when I try. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I have no clue as to what is going on. I suggest placing a {{help me}} on your usertalk. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Restoring page from ARBFLG 2 evidence

Hi Alexandr, and sorry to trouble you again. During the ARBFLG 2 case I had created a response to an AE filing in my userspace. I added a permalink to this content in the evidence page for ARBFLG 2, and it was an important part of my submission there. The material was not posted anywhere else. An administrator involved in the dispute has deleted my sandbox. He evidently believed that my blanking of the page after the case ended was tantamount to a deletion request (it was not). The page history is now inaccessible to posterity, and the material I linked to in evidence on ARBFLG cannot be found. Would it be possible to restore my sandbox (more importantly, the history), so that the link in ARBFLG 2 evidence works again? Thank you (and let me know if everything I've said here makes sense). Homunculus (duihua) 14:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved to User:Homunculus/Falun_Gong_2_AE_submission. I've also updated the evidence page. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for the timely response. Might be best to link to this version, as I subsequently courtesy blanked the page? That's the version I originally linked to on June 16. By the way, I didn't say it before, but thanks for your service on this case. Homunculus (duihua) 15:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fae's socks

I e-mailed arbcom-l on 26 July 12 about, Saunaboy (talk · contribs), another one of Fae's likely socks that as of this moment has still gone unblocked. Tarc (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I emailed the committee and the reply was that they had received your email and were "discussing it". --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted confirmation that it didn't slip thru the cracks, thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ARBATC

Can you modify the warning template at the top of Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles to include a link to the case, WP:ARBATC? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So, seeing as you are a clerk

... please could you ensure that the arbitrators have actually seen Regents Park's suggestion on the latest farrago? I know you can't make them read or understand it, (as the original request for clarification has led to few attempts from them to clarify) but at least they could acknowledge that it exists; I think, as do others, that it is worthy of consideration. non-Wikipedian pablo 19:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've drawn their attention to the motion in an email on the clerks-l mailing list, to which all sitting arbitrators are subscribed. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ta. pablo 20:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Guide to arbitration

Re WP: Arbitration/Guide to arbitration, the sentence immediately preceding the very last sentence in the Lead section of the Guide reads: "If a case is not opened, the arbitrators will often offer suggestions to resolve the dispute without arbitration, and these are often worth serious consideration; but in any event, they may remark that, or it may be appropriate to, arbitration may become necessary in the months ahead."

I feel the above sentence may be confusing. Would it be better if the sentence said the following (if indeed this is what it intends to say): If a case is not opened, the arbitrators will often offer suggestions to resolve the dispute without arbitration, and these are often worth serious consideration; but in any event, they may remark, or it may be appropriate to remark, that arbitration may become necessary in the months ahead.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Your questions to this year's candidates

Re: this and similar

You should know that the old "teams" were deprecated some months ago, and things like a "technical" or "case management" team no longer exist. Some responsibilities were presumed to belong to the entire committee or one of the subcommittees, others are handled on an ad hoc basis by available arbitrators, and still others were deprecated because they are useless or directly counter-productive.

Perhaps you could re-phrase your question to ask what aspects of the committee's business the candidate intends to involve themselves in, which in any event may be a more revealing question than into which of the five rather clumsy teams the candidate would self-assign... Regards, AGK [•] 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the question for those who have not already answsered. I condsidered that the candidates have enough on their plates without rephrasing questions, once they have been answered. The question as reformulated is not significantly different as to penalise those who have already answered. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Call for Wikipedians in Residence in Africa

Hello,

I hope you are well and thriving!! WikiAfrica has just put out a call for two Wikipedians in Residence. One in Cape Town at WikiAfrica, at the Africa Centre; and the other for WikiAfrica Cameroon in Douala, at doual’art. If you are interested, please contact either Marilyn [marilyn.doualabelldoualart.org] for the WikiAfrica Cameroon call or Isla [islahfafricacentre.net] for the WikiAfrica position in Cape Town.

If you are not interested in applying, I would be very grateful if you could spread this call far and wide among your networks to ensure that both projects get excellent candidates. Here is the link for the information page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/two-wikipedians-in-residence-for-africa/

Best regards, Islahaddow

(This message was sent using Lucia Bot at 22:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

Motion Recusal

Which one of the 4 candidates is not recused? Or was there an accident with the numbers? - jc37 21:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't count correctly. Thanks for alerting me. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Miszabot doesn't operate until there are at least minthreadsleft + minthreadstoarchive sections present on the page. The default values of those parameters are 5 and 2 respectively. You only had six sections until today, but the addition of a seventh means it should run soon. And you can change those values by adding, e.g.,

|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1

—WWoods (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

template updated

I've updated {{ACMajority}} so you can include the abstained arbitrators in with the recused. See Template:ACMajority/testcases for how it looks. NE Ent 13:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at that. There seems to be a few hiccups. For example 'Test case: 11-1-2 motion' renders 'For the purposes of this (or these) motion(s), there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 2 who abstain or are recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority'. I would also prefer it if the text could read 'For the purposes of this (or these) motion(s), there are A voting arbitrators, not including B who is|are inactive, C who has|have abstained and D who has|have recused'. Is that easily codable ? --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The hiccup was in the test case, not the template, so I fixed that. It's probably codable but not something I'll be able to get to terribly soon. NE Ent 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for hatting Black Kite's posting on the Arbcom page. I had as well, but was encouraged not to do so.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb

As an open case shouldn't it be listed as open (even though suspended)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It could be argued either way: as an open but suspended case listed, as you suggest, or as a case which is not active, no need to list. I feel that there is no need to have SchuminWeb's name listed for three months whilst the editor is not active. Given that there are real people behind these cases, and we occasionally err on the side of caution by courtesy blanking, I think it better to leave it unlisted. On a related note, I deliberately did not create the evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages, given that the case is not active. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OK Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you e-mailed Hex?

Considering that Hex expressed resentment at being told only on his talkpage that I had reopened the AN thread on 1 January (my note here), I hardly think your note on his page is enough, Alexander. You'd better e-mail him, if you haven't already done so. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

I've now emailed Hex with the same note. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem ArbCom motion

Hi, thanks for being active in the Jerusalem RfArb with the motion. Is it the intention of the motion that we can start the RFC on our own once we've more or less agreed on what the question will be, or should we seek guidance from ArbCom? Also, would ArbCom select the editors to close the discussion? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it would be a good idea to talk to the committee, as deciding on the editors to close the discussion was definitely something they wanted resolved before the RFC began. The best place to ask is here. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you nudged this forward before I got around to doing it, thanks. (and you did it rather more effectively than I could ever have ;) --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerking

Hello, I've been seeking to get more involved with the backstage side of Wikipedia lately, of late I've been contributing to WP:DRN and offering my thoughts on the occational WP:ANI. Clerking seems like something that I'd be interested in helping out with. I thought I'd drop you a message enquiring about whether you'd take a look at my contributions/experience to let me know if I would be suitable to put my name forward for consideration.

Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of proposal to ban Moroccan articles from Did You Know?

Dear WikiProject Morocco member,

There is currently a proposal to ban articles concerning a large area of Northern Morocco from appearing on the Main Page of Wikipedia in the Did you know? section. This would affect a significant number of articles within the scope of WikiProject Morocco. If you have a view on this proposal, please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs‎#Proposal for one-year moratorium on Gibraltarpedia DYKs. Prioryman (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my mistake in the header at the RFAR

I have been accused of edit warring and I simply didn't realize that a clerk had altered the headers and thought I neglected to add the "uninvolved" in the title. Since KC has taken it upon herself to make the accusation of bad faith I feel there is no further point in involving myself further in that case. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Inactive=recused?

Re the recent calc you just put up, does inactive = recused or does it even matter? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In terms of calculating the majority, there is no actual difference. In this instance there are 2 inactive and 2 recused = 4, but 0 and 4 or 1 and 3 (or any other permutation) would end up with the same result. The applicable procedure is detailed here. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk Like Bishzilla Day

Hi, Alexandr. I think it's excesssively pedantic to steamroll the comment headers into conformity on the Tea Party RFAR (and presumably other cases nowadays). What's the virtue of having the TOC look like it was written by a bot? My original header was part of my comment, and I only just noticed it had been changed and (after some research) by whom. But I appreciate that you at least turned it into Bishzillaspeak. I take that as a delicate attention. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC).

It may seem a little pedantic, but it stemmed from a) from cases in the past where people would dispute the state of involvement and b) a growing tendence to veer from simple headers to things like 'Passing remark by the tangentally involved because I once dated an orange flamingo XYZ' (overexaggeration purely my own). --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And 'Statement by Bishonen' fixed. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad user name

User:‎Rodgau Philatelie is the promotional user name and owner of this website and publisher of the stamp catalog citation he edited and the spamlink he added. I think WP:CORPNAME applies. I suspect this is the same person. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration: Argentine history

Instead of simply erasing part of the text, I hid it. Let me know me if that's enough or not. --Lecen (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Alex, regarding this talk page tag which appears on the Transcendental Meditation article: {{discretionary sanctions}} At present it only appears on the talk page of the one, main article. Would it be proper and useful for me to add it to the talk pages of other articles in the topic area? I like to do it but don't know what the protocol is on this. I notice that the Abortion topic has it on multiple talk pages. any insight you can give is appreciated. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings, AlexandrDmitri/Archive 3! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Inactive on Sexology or Tea party?

Did you mean to make yourself inactive on the Sexology or the Tea party case? Your edit summary says Sexology, but you made yourself inactive on Tea party. Incidentally, if you are going to move yourself inactive, you also need to update the numbers in Casenav/data, or the majority calculations won't tally up. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It was Sexology. Could you do it for me? I had mentioned a little while ago to the Committee that I was withdrawing from the case because I felt that because the result I was expecting wasn't there, that I might be biased toward finding that result, but I had neither actioned it, nor let the Clerks know. Then as time went by it seemed as though the case would close without me needing to recuse. But after the weekend there was a feeling that it might be clearer to everyone if I went publicly inactive - especially as I am rather inactive at the moment anyway. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi, can you give me a third opinion of this situation? The conversation is taking place on both of our talk pages, and tell me both ways if you think I am wrong or right and why. Thanks.--BoguSlav 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Marina Tchebourkina

Bonjour AlexandrDmitri,

Pouvez-vous m'aider à résoudre un problème avec l'article "Marina Tchebourkina" (en anglais).

J'ai écrit cet article en anglais et il a été publié sur le site du Conservatoire Tchaïkovski de Moscou (http://www.mosconsv.ru/en/person.aspx?id=46126). Par la suite, je l'ai publié sur Wikipédia — pensant que, en tant que son auteur, je pouvais le faire librement.

L'article a été marqué comme ayant un problème de copyright. Alors, j'ai accompli les formalités nécessaires (déclaration de cession des droit sur Talk:Marina Tchebourkina + mail envoyé à permissions-en at wikimedia).

N'ayant pas eu de réponse positive, j'ai réécrit entièrement l'article. Depuis le 20 novembre, cette nouvelle version se trouve sur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marina_Tchebourkina/Temp. Pouvez-vous, en tant qu'administrateur, faire le nécessaire pour que cette nouvelle version soit publiée sur la page principale "Marina Tchebourkina" et le "Copyvio" y soit enlevé?

Je vous en remercie d'avance.

MFJE (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia MA User Group

Projet:Maroc

Bonjour AlexandrDmitri !

Merci pour vos contributions sur les articles relatifs au Maroc.

Toute l'équipe du Wikimedia MA User Group vous invite à vous inscrire pour nous rejoindre, afin de prendre part aux discussions et de coopérer avec d'autres personnes qui sont, elles aussi, intéressées par le Maroc et sa culture.

Cordialement. --Reda benkhadra (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Contests

User:Dr. Blofeld has created Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AlexandrDmitri. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)