User talk:John Vandenberg/Archive 5

RfAr

I've replied there btw. dorftrottel (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw, and reviewed, but ran out of time to act. I'll get back to it sometime soonish. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No hurry, I suppose, just my usual impatience... :) dorftrottel (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, see here. If you still think it's a useful idea, it should be done soon so that any potential response can be evaluated and weigh into the proposed and final decision. dorftrottel (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As one final precaution, I've discussed your suggestion with an arb, and they didnt see a problem. Im just about to head out of the office now; I'll do it in an hour when I get home. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Good to hear. dorftrottel (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and good idea imo with the dedicated Workshop section. I hope you don't mind my amendment according to my explanation here that comments by the parties regarding the evidence presented against their own behaviour are the most valuable and should be specifically asked for. dorftrottel (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw, and it was good. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot problems

It's patrolling outside article space, and I don't see any connection between the bot's actions and the whitelist. DS (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the problem with letting it patrol any userspace edits made by the users themselves is that it's marking-as-patrolled userspace spam. This makes me uncomfortable. DS (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot no longer autopatrols user/user talk on enWP. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource upload

Hi again, John. I've uploaded a similar document to the one you helped me with some time ago, here. I've also uploaded it to Commons here. I wrote up a summary on Wikisource here, but am not sure how to match it up with the uploaded file like you did for the other file I uploaded previously (this one: B-23). Can you take a look and tell me what I need to do? Thanks for any help you can provide. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ENCA

Dear sir,

could you take of the speed deletion from ENCA.

I believe that ENCA is enough to have an own article in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuleote (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that, find good quality reliable sources to prove it to the rest of us. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your second welcome

Thanks for welcoming me here as well! Stratford490 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comment and clarification. It is much appreciated. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me to ask this question, based on the initial warning that I got from ChrisO here : [1] Am I to understand that the Arbitration committee regarding the Israel-Palestine Conflict area has recently passed some rules allowing administrators more leeway to discipline editors in that area? Is it also my understanding that they are supposed to come out with some report about this any day now? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, the Arbitration Committee has imposed what it calls a "general sanctions" regime on that and a number of other topic areas. See Wikipedia:General sanctions. In general, what it means in practice is that administrative action may be triggered sooner and more robustly than might be the case in non-sanctioned topic areas. I'm not aware of any report being produced on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your comments at my talk page. I have decided to come to you a little early in light of what is happening now at the Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah page. I have tried to stay away and edit other things, and indeed I have done so [2], though I can't help but look in now and again. It appears that the edit which MZMcBride said demonstrated that I could not productively contribute, ie this one, has held for the last 6 days and has not been substantively changed [3]. The argument has moved on. In light of this & in light of a number of positive unsolicited comments by other editors here [4],[5] concerning the value of my contributions to this article; and in light this argument by Elonka , who was/is moderating the page, and in light of the new bans placed on other editors, namely ChrisO & Julia1987 [see Administrative notes and section following] -- it seems to me that the sanctions placed on me (3 months for both the article and its Talk page) are uniquely heavy.

Considering that as of tomorrow I would have had a week off from the article itself, I would ask that at least the Talk: be opened to me now as a token of good faith and as a matter of fairness. I would very much appreciate your thoughts. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been following Tundrabuggy's progress, and have been very pleased with what he has accomplished. He has made some excellent contributions to other articles, and based on the improvements at his userpage, is working hard at understanding the culture and improving his communication style. If you have no objections, Jayvdb, I'd like to see Tundrabuggy resume participation at the Muhammad al-Durrah talkpage, and then if things go smoothly after that, I'll look into allowing him back to editing the article as well. --Elonka 04:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the talk page ban should be lifted. Go for it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone involved. I will try to not to disappoint you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I appreciate the opportunity to work on some of those subjects. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb, FYI, Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) asked me about lifting his editing restrictions.[6] I reviewed his contribs, and feel that he's done an excellent job working in other areas and creating some good stubs, just as we advised him to do. So I went ahead and restored his editing privileges, along with a caveat that he continue to try and maintain at least a 50-50 balance between work on the al-Durrah article, and other areas of Wikipedia. If you feel that any further restrictions are recommended, please feel free to modify. Thanks, Elonka 01:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Semi-Protection From Anons

Hi. I'd like to ask you for semi-protection of two articles, Sheylanli and Minkend, from editing by anons. There are many IP's which teamed up for edit warring on those articles as you have blocked one. They don't give any useful summary for their edits, and the materials they add is inappropriate for the articles. I've observed that they push registered users into edit war and got them blocked on violation of 3 reverts rule. Thank you. Gülməmməd ^Talk 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected one, and full protected the other, both for a duration of two weeks. Hope that helps. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely that will help. Thanks once again. Gülməmməd ^Talk 14:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

White listing

Hi there great idea having a bot automatically patrol the elite editors and contributors. I was wondering if you could extend the same courtest to User:EJF who is an active and able contributor. PLease see his contributions and then make a decision cheers ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion to User talk:JVbot/patrol whitelist. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rivers

Hi, thanks for all of your past help on the Rivers page. I've only been adding things in patches these past few months because my time has mostly been taken up with university and research for his biography but I have added an 'extensive' bibliography. A little too extensive I fear. Is there any way to create a new page for it? I'm not good with technical stuff :-P Thank you! --Pudupudu (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC) --- Sorry to message again. I copied the list to wikisource, should I delete it from here and what should I write in its place? --Pudupudu (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving the list to Wikisource is a good idea. The usual practise is to include on Wikipedia a smaller bibliography, including only the more influential works. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Lrr06.jpg

I've tagged this Image:Lrr06.jpg because it's missing the fair use rationale. I would have added a rationale had the source been somewhere on the image page. Cheers Kevin (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The image was at the URL provided by the article. Sorry, I am at work at present. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the boilerplate rationale with your link. Kevin (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Tool Newsletter

WikiProject Tool Newsletter Danny Carey was the Collaboration of the Month (for a couple months) but that didn't really go anywhere. Pomte made a good point here that I didn't see until just now. So, the current CotM is Lateralus. I hope everyone can get motivated to contribute to this article; striving for GA, maybe even FA. If you need some inspiration, go listen to the album! :D Thanks everyone. And welcome to our new members! LaraLove|Talk 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Tag on Israelinsider article

Not sure how to deal with this (see my talk page and the history). Running off for a few hours now. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I already handled it. Tundrabuggy's stub was inappropriately tagged and then deleted within 60 seconds of creation (even though it had sources, an assertion of notability, and was being linked to from multiple other articles). I have had a word with both the tagger and the deleting admin, and the stub has been restored. --Elonka 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. Please see my comments on Elonka's talk page. I am reverting the {{nn}} tag, as it expresses my belief that the site is probably not notable, but gives everyone time to work out the issues without going (yet) to the formal AfD. I believe that AfD is the avenue of last resort, and we aren't to that pont yet, and may not get there at all. But that is yet to be seen. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource and 1911EB template

Can you help? Would like to try and get people to use wikisource in addition to attribution templates when copying in large chunks of PD stuff. Some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Before you try to get other people to use Wikisource, I strongly recommend that you try it yourself. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Were you serious about the "5 hours" thing? My entry into all that plagiarism stuff was because of an ANI thread about someone copying (with minimal rewriting) some botanical website. That turned out to be copyrighted, but the "minimal rewriting" stuff led to accusations of plagiarism, which led me to invite people to this discussion. I'm now looking at User:Magnus Manske/Dictionary of National Biography and wondering if it is worth doing anything with that, or where one would start? Those are actually short enough entries that they would only be the basis of a stub and pretty much worked up and rewritten with only a little bit of effort. More relevant, it would seem, would be the full text of a PD copy of the DNB. Let me see if the wikisource search engine works... wikisource:Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900. Hmm. That's a lot of redlinks. When (not if!) I register an account (I should already have a SUL "reservation"), where is the best place to go to learn the ropes and ask questions such as where effort is best directed? Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Five hours is a worst case scenario; for you, it should be less than an hour to get up to speed.

DNB00 is a freshly minted project, started by a newcomer at that; you should start by creating an EB1911 article in order to stand on the shoulder of giants. I will take the time to assist you once you log onto Wikisource with your SUL account, and poll me on my talk page over there. Or, come onto #wikisource ^connect which is a nice quiet environment unlike its wikipedia equivalent. You might even need to yell a bit in order to attract someones attention. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I hadn't forgotten this. It might take me until next week now, but, like Commons, wikisource is one of those projects where I definitely want to get more involved. I would ask you to nag me if I forget, but I really should remember myself as I've been mulling over a few things but without the time to follow them up. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as you have seen, I'm well into the crash course. I'd like to thank you for helping me get settled in over there. The discussions at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism rumble on. It turns out that this has been a bone of contention at WT:CITE. The WT:Plagiarism page now has links to those old discussions, which you might like to read, and I've pulled a load of quotes out (inside the collapsed box). Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Electrical Experimenter

Hi, I got a note a few months about about collecting Electrical Experimenters. Sounds exciting. Are they in the public domain now? I don't have any issues, but I have Xerox copies of the Nikola Tesla articles and a few others. DonPMitchell (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:DonPMitchell#Electrical Experimenter. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Login

Here are me, I'm user Vatrena ptica. I'm anonymus user, I only add interwikies.--Vatrena ptica (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for saying hello! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource account

Um, I hadn't actually created an account. It seems the SUL software finally got around to kicking me off Wikipedia, and forcing me to log back in again, thus creating the SUL account. Please do forgive me if I seem to be off doing other stuff. I haven't forgotten my promise. Keep updating the section and I'll get there eventually. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the software is telling your something. ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow

You have some nerve. Discussion of a fundamental change in the way in which the community operates is "clogging up a notice board". I find your dismissal of such concerns to be deeply offensive. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It was not in reply to you. Close case notices on AN usually only attract a few comments, usually to clear up a few things. As you say, and FT2 has pointed out, this is a fairly radical departure from the normal case, and I fully expect lots of discussion. I am not trying to prevent it. I was merely suggesting that the standard practise is to discuss cases on the talk page, and I wanted to make it plain to everyone that was the case. I'll also go suggest that a VP thread might be useful to look at the broader issues. Surely you can see that this isnt an administrator-centric discussion, and having a very long discussion about this on the noticeboard where administrative notices are posted will clog it up; i.e. having it there will negatively affect normal administrative operations. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Again - I wasn't the only person disturbed by this major change in policy, so saying "it was not in reply to you" does not lessen its offensiveness. A discussion of a fundamental change in the way that Wikipedia operates doesn't belong in the talk page of an RFAR. Your suggestion that is does is offensive. Wikipedia isn't an oligarchy run by the arbcomm, much less the clerks. Maybe you've missed that. Guettarda (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I didnt say you were the only person. I didnt dismiss the content of what you or anyone else said. I am not suggesting it isnt a major change in policy. I have already posted twice now to try and clarify that I was only suggesting a change of venue. If you believe it is the right venue, so be it. It was a suggestion, and I think that is quite plain from the bland language I used. If people dont like my suggestions, they usually come up with better ones, and everyone is better of for it. I've clarified what my suggestion is because it seemed to me that you had misinterpreted it, but other that clarifying, I have no interest it pushing the matter.

I hope we meet again on a less glum day. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The OM case is clearly controversial, and arbcomm is having a hard time getting its story straight. So far we have FT2s posts, and KL repudiating them, and everyone else conselling patience. However, we also have you adding the case to the list of recently closed cases [7] and putting up a note on ANI [8] asserting that FT2's postings do indeed reflect the authority of the arbcomm. I would like to know by what signs you know that this is indeed done by the authority of the arbcomm, and whether you are still comfortable to assert that the OM case closure and result does indeed have consent of the arbcomm William M. Connolley (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you havent realised, my edits in regard to this case were at the time it was first posted, and way before Kirill or Jimbo posted. I was asked to do some clerking, and I did what was requested, so those edits can be considered to be actions by an arbitrator, which only arbs are expected to overrule.

I sure wish they had quickly decided that either the closed case was roughly what they had discussed on the arbcom list, or that the case needed to be opened for further analysis, and overruled me. Either way I would have been pleased as punch; sadly, we are all still waiting for clarification. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

re: court rulings

Hi, Jayvdb. I am still working on some of the things you put up at my talk page and appreciate the opportunity to do it and learn. I am now considering how to go find the rulings that you mentioned re: Enderlin. I found the latest one in French here: [9]. There is an English translation at Augean Stables but I am not sure that qualifies as a proper reliable source.

Not clear exactly what you mean when you say they need to be transcribed and put on wiki source. Would you clarify a little? Thanks. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just did this: [10] Copied it verbatim -- took a bit of doing. Hard to know what one is doing with mere high school French. Hope iI did it correctly. It would be great to get a certified translation next! Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. You need to create an account on French and English Wikisource, so that everyone knows who to talk to. This is especially important if you are going to be part of the effort to translate the text to English. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I made both accounts, but now I can't find my English one. Anyway, I just read the English translation and I must say it sounds like it was done by Babelfish on a bad day. Maybe someone hurried it? Who and where is it being translated do you know? Even my high school French might just be of some benefit here. Bon soir. ;O --Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your English account is here: s:User:Tundrabuggy, and s:Karsenty v. Enderlin-France2 was a cleaned up machine translation. By all means, help improve it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests

I reversed out the Orangemarlin case from the arbcom "Completed requests" page, because I think in retrospect we can agree that it was a premature filing [11]. Please check and revert if it's in error. --Jenny 04:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am avoiding taking any further clerk action in this case. I strongly suggest you revert yourself as you are not a clerk, or ask other clerks at WP:AC/CN to review your action. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mind-meld

See [12] — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some loving on Wikisource

Are your ears burning? s:Talk:Elements of the Differential and Integral Calculus/Chapter XIII. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

re: the sandbox summary

I've got no probs if folks want to take it and work further with it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pontic Greek Genocide

I think we have agreement to move the article to Pontic Greek genocide and to replace the lead with one that is acceptable to those who have recently contributed to the talk page. There is no agreement to move it to an alternative name at the moment. As you protected the page I would appreciate it if you would unprotect it, or failing that put in your reasons for continuing the protection in the section Lead on the talk page --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped it down to allow regular editing, however I am a bit confused. You mention here that there is no agreement to rename it, yet you have renamed it. I don't have time to catchup on the details of the discussion, so instead I'll just cross my fingers and a closer eye on this one for a few days. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rivers

Hi, I've been working on the Rivers page again to try and get it to be 'Good Article' worthy. At the moment I'm up to 'Beginnings of psychological career' but there's still a lot left to do. If you're still interested, could have a look through what I've done so far and tell me what you think? Although I love researching and writing about him, it does get a bit mind numbing after a while to do it alone.

Also, I fear I have committed some kind of deadly sin in using primary sources (specifically in the 'Early Life' section since I refer to information I found in his Baptismal Certificate etc). Since I have copies of them, should I put them on wikisource or something? Would that help? I have accumulated quite a vast supply of primary information about Rivers- letters, manuscripts and the like- over the past few months and it seems such a shame not to be able to use ANY of them.

Thank you! --Pudupudu (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I cant put a lot of time into this article at the moment, hence the delay in me responding here.

His Baptismal Certificate can be put on Wikisource. If you have an image, upload it onto Wikisource. It will help reduce the concern re: using primary sources, but it wont entirely solve that problem. If you make the collection of primary sources available on Wikisource, there is also a better chance that someone will create a second source that mentions the facts therein. I have done a quick analysis of the images on photobucket at s:Author_talk:W._H._R._Rivers#photobucket - there are a few details that you will need to provide about a few of them before we can be confident about the copyright status of those. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

--- That's quite alright! I've added another thing to the photobucket account: Rivers's baptismal certificate. The 'clerical error' that Slobodin points out appears on the Birth Register, which is already up. I'll find out the details for the other photos now. --Pudupudu (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Banned editor

Hallo, I see that you added a message to User:Yorkshirian to announce that the editor is banned: could you also add a message to the editor's talk page, as that's where people wanting to communicate will go? Thanks, PamD (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your block

Hi Jay, I would very much like to unblock Tony. I feel he should not have been blocked in the first place for that comment, especially given that he's a long-term contributor, but he particularly shouldn't have been blocked by Aaron, who's been in conflict with him for ages. As such, I disagree with your decision to take the block over. However, I'm relucant to wheel war, so I would prefer to unblock with your blessing. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"[T]old by many to stfu"? — that's a bit out of step with decorum, especially for a blocklog. El_C 03:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, SV do not have my blessing to undo a short block that is effectively arbcom enforcement. please read the AN thread, participate there, and let someone else do the unblock if consensus develops that way. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would I have to allow someone else to do the unblock? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Because you are too involved. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no involvement with Tony. I haven't even read that case, except during the first few days of it, and it's not on my watchlist. On the other hand, I've several times felt that you've been less than even-handed, as you know from our early e-mail correspondence, though I've not looked at the pages since then, so perhaps that is unfair now. I have to say, though, that this block and your curt responses here haven't alleviated my concerns. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The block is primarily due to Tonys activity on the case. You are a party in that case. That is too involved; you have strong opinions in this matter. If you wish to speak of our private email correspondence in public, are you also happy for me to publish those emails so that others can see what is being discussed? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You see, that is exactly the attitude that worries me. I mention that we've e-mailed, so you have to ask whether they can be published, even though you know that at least one of them might compromise me. In my view, this is exactly how an ArbCom clerk should not behave. It feels as though you're simply playing to an audience.

As a compromise, I will forward our e-mail correspondence to the ArbCom. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would never publish any email without your specific consent for that specific email. I havent reviewed the emails, but if you want to discuss them in public, I pretty sure that I wouldn't mind them being made public. It was not a threat to do so, but a caution to you. I object to anyone speaking of private correspondence, especially only in vague references. If you feel it was important to mention the meat of those emails in this context, why not reiterate here what you wrote in the email. I run an open book. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I bring to your attention Jpgordon's comment, where he argues this was "an obviously political block" [that] "the chilling effect of a block like this is breathtaking." [...] "That an arbitration clerk blocks for one utterance while ignoring the constant attacks upon Tony is disappointing and could easily be interpreted as a lack of neutrality" — can you comment on that? Many thanks in advance. El_C 04:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I might add to this that you demonstrated your partiality against Tony when you reversed an arbitrator's action on an arbitration page back in May. You need to back away from this; you've already wheel warred, which is not a recommended behavior of an arbitration clerk. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As you will recall, it was on this case, and I welcomed you to override me. As I recall it, you blamed your involvement in that on your cat, or something like that. If you have lost confidence in my clerking, I will resign. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that is a distressing turn of events. John has been an exemplary clerk. The incident that Jpgordon refers to was caused by Jpgordon not clearly expressing his intentions, and then not answering requests for clarification. A lesser clerk would not have been able to straighten matters out. John, I hope you wait to see what other arbitrators think before you actually resign. You're part of the solution to the mess ArbCom finds itself in, not part of the problem. ++Lar: t/c 05:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Due to the weight of Jpgordon criticisms, I cant be the clerk on that case. I doubt anyone else can either; maybe the arbs will have to do the clerking. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon is but one arbitrator among many. I hope that when morning rolls around in the US, his will be the dissenting view, not the majority view. I again say you are part of the solution, not part of the problem, and you should be thanked for your efforts by everyone of good faith who cares about the project. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do wait for the opinions of other arbitrators on the topic of your resigning. I did fully agree with jpgordon on the first matter regarding 'parties to the case' if you recall. You may be expected to recuse from the case, but I am not convinced you need to resign entirely because of 2 actions involving 1 individual and the same troubling still-unresolved case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

John, I know I'm a gadfly who spend most of his life being sand in the gears of this great machine. But I am sorry if my flailings, however well intentioned, have had a negative impact on you or your enjoyment of wikipedia. I value you contributions, even when I disagree with them. Sometime more when I disagree with them.
brenneman 05:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

John assured me by e-mail several months ago that if an ArbCom member asked him to stop clerking the case, he would. I hope he keeps his word. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I support him stopping clerking when asked, even by a single arbitrator. I've been public about my dissatisfaction with the performance of the committee collectively in recent months. However, the individual members still have a certain amount of gravitas, even to me. Clerking is no big deal, and they do serve at the whim of the committee. - brenneman 06:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully John is just talking about resigning from this case --not in general (I don't have an opinion on whether he should resign from the specific case or not). Frankly this case is a touch more poisonous than most and to a certain extent I understand why a block occurs when a bright line is crossed but nothing is done when needling sarcasms and insults are ongoing. From what I've seen those are pretty much part of any ArbCom case. The fact is there seems to be little anyone can do under the current process to stop it. Sure there are a lot of admins watching, but most are involved. Then there's the committee itself, any premature action on their part leaves them open to accusations of prejudice and partisanship. . .thus leaving the lone case clerk. . .no group defense there but equally open to charges of bias should he or she take control (and that's if they are an admin, which is not always the case). So John, I hope that you're not resigning from clerkship altogether over this case, that would be a shame. R. Baley (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope not also; I have no opinion positive or negative about his work on any other cases, which is exactly how it should be. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have resigned clerking entirely, which is what Jpgordon requested above. There is absolutely no way I can continue to be an impartial clerk on this case due to this mess, and I have no desire to be a clerk if any single arbcom does not trust my judgement. No big deal; I have far more important projects to work on. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was sorry to see the way this seems to have panned out, and would encourage you to keep your own counsel about the best next steps... there sure seems to be something odd in Denmark (as in there's something rotten at play somewhere...) - and you may well be better off taking a step back.. on the other hand - I'd echo some of the above words in that I personally always felt your brand of clerking was strong, and helped.... follow your nose, I'd say... and I hope this hasn't bummed you out at all..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)by the way, I've been quite unbelievably cheeky and fixed your obvious mistake in the last sentence of your previous post... :-)

You have some stinking hide to alter my comments!! yes, I will come walk in your garden, but you owe me some wind. Selah; and, I will be with you shortly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

sure do! - and fair enough... - you have my sympathies with your wind problem... I'll go do some reading / validating... glad this doesn't seem to be getting to you unduly :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This foolishness isn't really worth resigning over; you shouldn't have offered on the say-so of one arbitrator. Go ahead and recuse from this case (who'd want it anyway), but don't give up altogether. Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this assessment together with that of Ncmvocalist expressed earlier (I shall endeavour to avoid creating more problems by offering my own commentary :). Orderinchaos 12:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of giving up or in or even giving head.

Jpgordon thinks my block was political, accused me of wheel warring, said he has lost confidence in my clerking & requesting that I resign, and has obviously got a grudge against me (accusing me again of being partial against Tony, despite having put that matter to bed with his puppy ^{(not a cat as I incorrectly recalled above)}). I reject every single thing that Jpgordon has said in this case, and consider his participation inappropriate and it exposes a nasty vein which I have no intention of following for fear of opening the mother lode that is under the Omnibus case. I dont think I could be impartial when it came to Jpgordon, or at least I dont think that anyone would trust me to be impartial, so my clerking would be neutered and would end up in disgrace to someone somewhere down the line. Better that it end now rather than later.

My opinion of arbcom is at an all time low, and I definitely dont want to "work" for them while they continue to snipe at each other and the clerks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's time for arbcom to just go away and be completely remade from scratch. They rushed to desysop Adam C last year for trumped up charges. They have far worse admin abuse in the current case but choose to ignore it. They accepted the Giano wheel warring case in record time, but see no problem with Phil unblocking Tony a whopping TWO MINUTES after the block (and no attempt whatsoever at discussion). I don't really put much stock in an arbiter's opinion of your block right now because right now, they have a conflict of interest in it. They have demonstrated an either an inability or an unwillingness to consider the evidence of the case, so having the waters muddied as much as possible is in their interest. Blocking a user for disruption is obviously correct and you made the correct decision. This case, the Orange Marlin lynching, and the Adam C lynching have demonstrated to me that arbcom is not a solution - it is the problem and it's time for them to go. --B (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem is jpgordon, who has clearly shown that he is unable to be impartial about SlimVirgin or Tony. I think it is he who should resign, his behavior towards John has been an utter disgrace. Tony has been intentionally baiting left and right, yet he accuses us of being in the wrong? I just love how he paints Tony as the victim when it is clear that Tony takes up at least %30 of the edits on those talk pages. Shame on him! If arbcom reform is to proceed, people like jpgordon must go! He's a disgrace to this project. John has contributed far more high-quality content then either SlimVirgin or Tony, who are here mostly to play political games, ever will. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can't blame you for quitting, either, JV. (FWIW, I was amazed that you stuck around after the puppy incident.) If the committee are going to lead their clerks such a life as this, leaving them to do their own clerking seems the wiser course. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC).

Continuing the general discussion with B and Dragon695, I am leaning to agree with Dragon695 that it isnt arbcom as an institution that is at fault. As I see it, individuals within arbcom are acting up, the lack of unity within the committee is causing the mayhem, an (consequently?) increasing element of the community has been revolting against arbcom.

"A house divided can not stand".

However I can certainly see B's reasoning, and am starting to share this enthusiasm for calling for changes to the governance of the project. We need to go further than tweak arbcom. Moving large organisations forward is hard - the most difficult part is not finding the right path forward, but to figure out how to get out of the rut.

In real world circumstances like this, a working group would be established, their recommendations would be developed in private consulting with experts and stakeholders as required, and the board would consider the proposal(s) and make any decisions necessary based on the recommendations, and then put the plan into action. This is a tried and true method of letting everyone progress with only a little speculation about the future, and a well reasoned plan to come out. Obviously this approach would have problems in a wiki community, but I'm even more convinced that that fundamental changes cant be developed "onwiki" in the current climate - there are too many stakeholders would would be constantly ripping all ideas to shreds. The people who would want to think hard about significant changes are also going to draw in people who dislike the people who are working on it.

So, that leaves us with the only two ways of change that have been known to work on Wikipedia: ramming a half baked solution down everyones throats, or the two-steps-forward-and-one-back gradual improvement with a well oiled feedback loop.

Perhaps the arbcom members need to be re-elected every year, given a maximum of two years terms, or .. something (I've only recently lost faith so I am a bit green and need to think a bit before I am going to have good ideas). We have more than enough people who could do the job, and many of them can be found quietly working in their favourite part of the project without any allegiances or grudges. These are the type of people who should be called upon to give unbiased decisions.

Perhaps we need to establish a steering committee; a diverse group of people who are not dealing with the regular and repetitive spats that usually end up at arbcom. A group that is entrusted to deal with structural improvements and decisions.

This is the mad ramblings of a slightly annoyed worker bee after midnight. Disregard or distil at your own risk. There is no safe option. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)