Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Template:Arbcom-talk See also Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks#Arbitration committee, Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee, Wikipedia:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal), Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy comments, and the mailing lists.

There are currently three archives:

• December 2003 to May 2005
• May 2005 to April 2006
• April 2006 to present

Hughes Network

If these god damn admin don't stop banning me because I simply have Hughes Net I am going to scream. I have been banned at least 1000 times because of this not once is it ever me.

Is wiki going to ever stop this or do I have to take this up with people in charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.17 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please email me if this problem continues Fred Bauder 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could create a user account.

--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Topic bans

I am in need on clarification of topic bans. Usually, editors are banned from a topic and its related articles. What exactly is a related article? What is the rule of thumb to determine whether it is related or not? How broadly or narrowly is such an injunction interpreted? Does this need to be raised under the clarifications section by user and case on WP:RFARB? Sorry to be a pain. I am just trying to be clear on the issue. Thanks so much! Vassyana 19:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that no one noted your query here before the present. In general, these issues are addressed on a case-by-case basis with the ultimate goal being to avoid a recurrence of the problems that led to the need for the arbitration case and the remedy. It is hard to say more as a purely general proposition. If you have a more specific question, please let me know. Newyorkbrad 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

On my computer (using a standard 1280x800 resolution) the text in the third paragraph between "all serious disputes" and "with the authority" is blocked by the infobox. I don't know anything about formatting, but that seems to be a fairly important piece of text so... can someone fix it? Bduddy 04:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see neither of those sections on this page. And what's an infobox? Do you mean the table of contents? If so, it's likely a problem with your web browser mis-interpreting CSS, not something WP can fix. What browser are you using? Ceran 11:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Other languages

Some Wikipedias in other languages, like the Chinese Wikipedia, does not have an ArbCom. Would the foundation mandate all of them to have one. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. While the English Wikipedia's ArbCom was established by Jimbo, those of other language editions sprouted up independently, and are not required by the foundation at all. See also m:Arbitration Committee. Picaroon (Talk) 01:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

interwikis

From the source of the page (WP:AC):

ru:?????????:??????????? ???????

there is an error: the cyrillic letters replaced with the question marks. Why? the correct iwiki is: [[ru:Википедия:Арбитражный комитет]]

Please correct this. --89.1.33.123 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

complaint

I wish to make a complaint against an arbitrator whom placed a request that I be subjected to an exceedingly heavy punishment without providing evidence, reason or even loose explanation of why he felt such a punishment was necessary. His request was made in an arbitration in which he recommended that users who had committed multiple violations of POV, civility, 3RR etc (for which he provided evidence of their wrongdoing) should be subjected only to probationary punishments. In fact it was among the heaviest of the punishments that was requested anywhere in the arbitration, despite the fact that I was not actually cited as being disruptive to either entries or other users.

He request came within 1 hour of my reverting an edit that he made to my user page, which I believe was the catalyst for his request. As such, I believe it was an abuse of his position as an arbitrator and request that the case be looked into with the objective of having his request struck from the record.

perfectblue 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is unlikely that anything will be "struck from the record," but you should probably re-post this to the proposed decision talk page of the particular arbitration in question, where the other arbitrators may be likely to see it before they vote on the different proposals. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Per this, I would like to know: how deeply involved is Jimbo Wales in day to day matters? A.Z. 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Very, very little. Raul654 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 may be a little out of touch. --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say about 95% of the arbcom discussion occurs on the arbcom mailing list. It is true that I have not been reading the arbcom mailing list with any great regularity lately. However, to be blunt - I have access to it, and you do not. I can say with great deal of certainty exactly how much involvement Jimbo has - it's, to be frank, it's not all that much. Maybe an email or two a week, on a list with a very high volume. Raul654 14:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As someone who reads that list daily, Raul's characterization seems reasonably accurate. Paul August ☎ 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, did someone mention the arbcom mailing list? I don't have access to that. I was referring to Jimbo's involvement in day-to-day matters on English Wikipedia, which in my experience is quite considerable. I don't think those matters are the business of arbcom. I would expect arbitrators, however, to be a little better informed. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the context of the question -- i.e., the talk page of WP:ARBCOM -- led Raul to think that just maybe the question related to ArbCom day to day matters; why would someone ask a question about general Wikipedia matters on this page? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Jimbo's comment was ambiguous. Perhaps he expected arbcom members to back him up on his fairly strong (but not overwhelming) commitment to Wikipedia matters. Well obviously he was wrong there. On the other hand from other mailing lists that I'm on he's obviously involved, and his recent editing history suggests that he's really in the thick of it, particularly on policy formation. Two pretty radical changes to deletion-related policy in the past month, too. A nice bit of nick-and-tuck on a BLP mid-month. And he was on his hols, too! --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can also attest that Jimbo is deeply involved in many aspects of our encyclopedia. However given the page we are on, I assumed — and I would suppose that so did Raul — that the question was about Jimbo's involvement in ArbCom matters. The answer to that question is that he rarely gets involved in individual cases — which is as exactly as it should be. Tony's insinuation that the remarks here imply some sort of lack of support by the ArbCom for Jimbo is simply preposterous. Paul August ☎ 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't appear to make any such insinuation, but if I did I apologise. I thought I was expressing surprise at an apparent case of ignorance, which has now been fully explained. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Paul surmised, I assumed from the location he asked it that A.Z. was asking about Jimbo's level of involvement in the arbcom (which, as I said, is not all that much) Jimbo is definitely heavily involved at the Foundation level, but I wouldn't have called the Foundation-level stuff he does "day to day" operations. ("Day to day" wikipedia stuff, to my mind, means editing articles, clearing, AFD backlogs, fulfilling rename requests, promoting users after succesful RFAs, and a million other little-jobs that nobody notices unless they go unfulfilled). Raul654 20:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain this? Concerning the Paranormal arbitration.

Can someone explain to me why the arbitrators working on the Paranormal arbitration have yet to even introduce the key issues to be voted on by the arbitrators? Minderbinder started the case due to the disruptive actions of specifically Martinphi which arose from sockpuppeting, disruptive editing and a RFC which resulted in a huge consensus agreeing that his edits are disruptive. So far none of the arbitrators have introduced any remedies concerning Martinphi. There were also many issues with other editors including but not limited to Davkal and Tom Butler. There has been a substantial amount of evidence presented implicating all of these users in disruptive edits and there have been numerous proposals put forward in the workshop by various editors however so far none of the arbitrators have even introduced these remedies concerning these users. It seems they are missing the entire point of the arbitration and focusing on 1 or 2 editors who's edits have been a minor problem at most but ignoring the most disruptive editors who use sockpuppets, engage in edit wars, etc. I have left messages on the talk pages of most of the arbitrators and this has led nowhere as far as I can tell. All I am asking is that the arbitrators working on the case present some drafts from the workshop concerning these aforementioned editors and introduce remedies concerning them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The major remedies are article probation and the revert parole. Further proceedings are anticipated with particularly troublesome editors. Fred Bauder 14:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you introduce remedies concerning those specific users? Martinphi in particular, there is overwhelming evidence of his disruptive edits which should warrant a ban from paranormal articles or wikipedia all together. Martinphi has made meatpuppets, edit warred, been blocked for 3rr etc. Here's his meatpuppet case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi which confirmed he had made a deceptive meat puppet. He initially claimed that it wasn't him but his "roommate/girlfriend" who was making the exact same edits and then he admitted that it was indeed him. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi for further evidence of his disruptive edits. Martinphi is probably the most troublesome editor followed closely by User:Davkal who has also created meat puppets and engaged in edit warring and 3rr etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else want to comment? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, this page isn't used for discussion of specific cases, but for the functioning of the committee as a whole. Newyorkbrad 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My posts on the specific pages concerning this Arbitration seem to be overlooked or ignored. I've also tried talking to all of the arbitrators directly and still no response. The case itself seems to have gone stagnate the past couple of weeks without out any arbitrators making any edits to it or voting or introducing new proposals. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Another checkuser?

There seems to be a small consensus forming here that we could use at least one more checkuser. (I'd be willing to do it, but I'd need a bit of coaching. Probably one of the checkuser clerks, or someone like that would be ideal.) Thoughts? Volunteers? Grandmasterka 17:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three users agreeing is not what I'd call a "consensus". But we'll take it under advisement. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that wasn't a good word to use. But thanks. Grandmasterka 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • We just need to get more checkusers involved in the page. Often 1 or 2 people run it entirely, get tired and do less, and the page falls behind, until someone else comes. Probably we should get a balance of checkusers maintaining the page, which we can do, rather than 1-2 people, that way no one burns out. Voice-of-All 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison comes to mind as one who is judicious, widely trusted and uninvolved in wiki-intrigue; however, I'm not at all certain he'd want to do it.Proabivouac 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree--Sefringle^Talk 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do it if there is a need, but getting more existing checkusers involved per VoA above, or rotating in some of the checkuser clerks, seems like the easiest way to go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ban enforcement?

There's a request on WP:BOTREQ to create a robot which will watch for edits from people who ArbCom has banned from editing certain pages, or who ArbCom has banned from reverting, or so on. I've made some code, but I'd like ArbCom's and clerks' opinions before I request approval - is this necessary? Would it help? How many levels of blacklisting would we need - i.e., banned from all articles, banned from certain articles, banned from reverts on certain articles - anything else? Does ArbCom ban from certain namespaces? --ST47Talk 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as a bad idea. It would be extraordinarily difficult to keep the bot accurate and up to date. There are three general classes of restrictions; revert parole, article or topical bans, and probation. Revert parole limits editors to one content revert (obvious vandalism excepted) per article per time period. The time frame varies; in different cases editors are limited to one revert per day, or one revert per week, and sometimes even more complex formulations. Some reverts must be justified by discussion on the talk page; how will the bot determine whether there actually was discussion, and will it be possible to make null edits to the talk page to fool the bot? The bot would have to distinguish between content edits and reverts, and would have to be able to detect "sneaky reversions" as defined by the 3RR policy. Some revert paroles are indefinite, others have expiry dates. Article and topical bans are sometimes imposed by the Committee; usually editors are banned from editing "[[Article X]] and related articles;" where related can be open to interpretation and admin judgement, and would have to be coded into the bot some how. Probation would be the most difficult to enforce by bot. Editors on probation may be banned from articles or topics they disrupt for an appropriate period of time by any admin. To police this by bot would require the banning admin to edit the bot code somewhere in addition to logging the ban on the case page, the user's talk page and the article talk pages, as currently required, and then removing the code when the ban was lifted or expired. For example, I recently enacted a one-month ban on a user from editing certain templates or editing how those templates were used on articles; enforcing that ban by bot would require someone listing all possible templates he was banned from, and all the articles those templates were transcluded on. And then I lifted the ban early, so even automatic expiry in the bot code would not be helpful here. Finally, I'm not sure what problem this is meant to solve. There are relatively few complaints posted at WP:AE, at least compared to the volume at WP:ANI, and at best the bot would be advisory only (I hope no one is suggesting to give the bot blocking ability!). Thatcher131 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of Thatcher's points. Your desire to help out with enforcement is appreciated, and the idea for the bot is a very creative one, but it would extremely difficult to keep the bot up-to-date and accurate for all the reasons already mentioned. Also, a large part of ArbCom decision evasion is done through sockpuppets, which the bot wouldn't pick up anyway. What we really need are a few more admins watchlisting the arbitration enforcement messageboard. Newyorkbrad 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. --ST47Talk 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Recusation of James F. as an arbitrator in my case

moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

"all Arbitrators serve at Jimbo's discretion"

Is this still true? Doesn't the ultimate formal authority for Arbcom (& everything else in Wikipedia) now rest with the trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation rather than with Jimbo personally? This is consistent with the comment in WP:10T that "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales occasionally acts as a final arbiter on the English Wikipedia, but his influence is based on respect, not power; it takes effect only where the community does not challenge it." Now that the board has a majority of members elected by the community, this point is no longer moot. If such a change has taken place, some significant text on this page now needs updating, e.g. also the suggestions that Jimbo has the power to overrule Arbcom in his own right. PaddyLeahy 17:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the arbitration system has changed, however, even if the Board has. While the Board is now the highest authority for all Wikimedia projects, the English Wikipedia still seems to have a special relationship with Jimbo as a person, unconnected to his role as board member and Chairman Emeritus. He is still the one who appoints arbitrators, and to my knowledge nothing else has changed about his role, either. Maybe ask him, since he probably knows better than everybody else. ;-) Picaroon (Talk) 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it really matters; Jimbo (or the Foundation) would respect the opinion of the community if it loudly disagreed with his removal of an arbiter. Grandmasterka 07:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom's power doesn't come from the Foundation; it's entirely a community-based body. Jimbo has the role he does in dispute resolution as the benevolent leader of the English-language Wikipedia, and because most people accept his decisions, not because of any formal role. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser backlog

Can we have a couple of checkusers over at WP:RFCU/IP please? There was another WoW attack today, not to mention the other stuff wanting to be dealt with. MER-C 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bump. MER-C 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend emailing the committee if you want to get the attention of more checkusers. Picaroon (Talk) 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser backlog part deux

I imagine most ARBCOM members check the admin noticeboard, but just in case, an FYI about a relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#More CU's.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ongoing disputes around pedophilia, users getting blocked.

I am concerned about the ongoing disputes and differences centred around the article pro-pedophilia activism. Users seem to get indefblocked and suspended from creating accounts, with little to none visible reasoning behind this. It seems to go against the wiki principles. All those blocked accounts userpages have a notice to contact the arbcom for questions. Some visible cases are User:Samantha Pignez, who is indefblocked for 'Extreme disruption', where I couldn't come to the same conclusion reading the contribs (yes, I am aware of the previous block regarding the 3rr user:Jim Burton', also indefblocked, for 'Pattern of Pedophile advocacy' which I can find no policy against, User:Farenhorst for a really strange sockpuppetry case here [[1]], where all I read that it's not confirmed that he is not a sockpuppet of Voice of Brittain. Users are saying that self-identifying pedophiles are getting indefblocked as a standard procedure, and that there is no policy about it, but that it is done behind the scenes by invisible consensus in the arbcom (paraphrasing User:SqueakBoxs words). As I said, this concerns me. I believe that Wikipedia should indeed be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that this shouldn't rule out people that are self-identified pedophiles, as it doesn't rule out rapists, murderers, those who commit ensurance fraud, etc etc. Writing this, I am even afraid that I myself might end up being infedblocked, and I hesitate to make any edits that would put me in the bracket of pedophiles/defenders of pedophiles/people who advocate pedophily/people who defend people who advocate pedophily. I don't know if this post, together with a previous break of the 3rr in the past [[2]], would constitute to 'Extreme disruption' aswell. I really hope that policy and reasoning behind these blcoks can made clear. Martijn Hoekstra 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am getting more and more concerned about possibly getting indefblocked if I keep active in this discusson. this block, an indefinate block for a user that 'might' disrupt the project seems unreasonably harsh. The deafening silence that this post received is not a good sign either. Martijn Hoekstra 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Martijn, in case you haven't, take a look at Equilibrist's request for unblock [3]. It was swiftly deleted (within hours) and in spite of the fact that Equilibrist was asked to email the ArbCom his email was already blocked, along with the rest of his account and his talk page protected from being edited with no prior warnings or any complaints whatsoever. 193.217.56.20 05:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the moderator of the mailinglist will soon approve my email. Martijn Hoekstra 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Please contact the Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org> if you need to discuss specific concerns about your account. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 13:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I hadn't found that particular mailinglist before, and previous emails have not resulted in an answer. I have to admit that I have become sceptical about seeing this issue resolved, but I will try nonetheless. Again, thank you for the information! Martijn Hoekstra 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A complaint?

How do I launch a complaint about this user - Scorpion0422 (is that how it works?)? He's abusing power for no reason other than to feign importance and is nothing but a dictator. Please stop him, he is ruining people's abilities to give information, perverting the entire truth and distorting images. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiplebraininjuries (talk • contribs)

You haven't posted enough information for anyone to evaluate your concern, but please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for information on raising issues and concerns regarding another user. By the way, please consider changing your username, which is problematic under our username policy. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 16:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from outside observer: The dispute in question consists of Multiplebraininjuries insisting on adding language to the lead of Chris Benoit to make the claim that there is no confirmation that Benoit killed his wife and son, and other editors reverting to the version that was hashed out by consensus on the article's talkpage some time ago. Would not recommend going forward with any further RfAs on this, as MBI went straight here without any attempts at less drastic methods of resolution. Rdfox 76 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Who requested Essjay to ArbCom?

Since the notice is no longer standing, could the members of the ArbCom around January/February 2007 please respond to the question -- did Jimmy Wales or did the Committee "request" the installation of Essjay on the ArbCom? This is referencing a possibly non-NPOV source being used on the article Essjay controversy. Thank you for helping! Libertyvalley 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I type this I'm at work, so I don't have access to my personal email archives to confirm this. If memory serves, Jimbo approached us asking for recommendations for replacement arbitrators, as there were several vacancies on the Committee at the time. We, the committee, put our heads together, and come up with several unanimous recommendations (Unanimous in the sense that nobody objected; that's generally how the committee mailing list works - e.g, "I'll proceed with this is nobody objects in the next XX days"). Jimbo then appointed them. Raul654 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your recollection, Raul654. Please provide more info when you get to your home-based archives. It was my understanding that there was only one appointment -- Essjay -- but that doesn't mean there weren't other recommendations made. And I would be wrong. Wales made the announcement, "I hereby appoint Mackensen and EssJay to the Arbitration committee. After consulting with the existing arbitration committee and others, I decided to appoint Mackensen to Dominic's seat (Dominic is retiring), and EssJay to an expansion seat in the shortest tranche." But it appears that Mackensen declined the position. Libertyvalley 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen accepted the position and has been an arbitrator for most of this year. He had been previously elected as an arbitrator and served for a short period once before; his current term expires on December 31. For a history of membership of the committee, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 02:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Libertyvalley has been banned as one of Jon Awbry's many, many sockpuppets; however, based on my email I have compiled a partial timeline answering the above to the best of my ability. I sent it to the rest of the committee asking (a) for them to fill in the holes, and (b) if it was OK to release it. Raul654 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it called *Arbitration* Committee?

Hi,

According to arbitration:

• Arbitration is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes [...] wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons such as [...] by whose decision [...] they agree to be bound

Emphasis mine.

If I understand correctly what the ArbCom does is not really arbitration, since one can be dragged through the process against their will.

(This came up during the discussions in HuWiki: we're trying to set up our own ArbCom.)

-- nyenyec ☎ 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point. This came up once before, and someone suggested it be renamed to the "Inquisition Committee". Maybe users agree to be bound by ArbCom decisions in advance by joining Wikipedia, and whether they are eventually involved in an arbitration case is merely a matter of whether there is anything to be arbitrated? That's all I can think of. Picaroon (t) 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think in many ways it's analogous to mandatory arbitration under the terms of a contract; by editing Wikipedia you agree to the terms. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was because we get to be arbitrary. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Desysoping for a time-period

For example, for user:Alkivar, the usual means are prohibited. But desysopping for 1 or 2 year(s) would be more appropriate. After 1 year he can RfA, but if he wish to become admin before 1 year time period - he will have to ask/apply to arbcom. Barring usual means for the whole lifetime would be too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft rocks (talk • contribs) 07:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunder King

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, please let me know the right place to do so if I'm wrong. I have just noticed that this guy Sunder King got blocked. As far as I could tell from his edits he was a decent editor, he has edited a number of articles on my watchlist. The template on his userpage says refer to checkuser for evidence. It took me a while to figure out how to find the Molag Bal archive (as there are no clear instructions on how to do this on the checkuser page), a look at the page history tells me that no new evidence has been added since September 2007 and there is nothing on there relating to Sunder King (blocked November 14). The Sunder King talk page has been redirected to his user page and protected, so it is impossible to have any debate about it there. This looks extremely dodgy to me, even if he is this guy Molag Bal, surely blocking people should be more transparent and less misleading. Can someone look into this case and give me some feedback please, kind regards, King of the NorthEast 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The right place would be WP:ANI, but it might be an idea to read the responses to this same message that you left on 3 admins' pages as well as here. Martinp23 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Past and Current Cases

Is there a specific place for finding past and current cases? Thank you. Nice (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)