If SQRT5P1D2 is using his blog to direct users to come to Wikipedia and get them to become active in the case, why isn't he eating a ban for abusive meatpuppetry? That seems a far more neat solution than adding him to the case. Jtrainor (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link as evidence of this? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was commented on in the workshop, unless I misread something. Jtrainor (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you did. I would appreciate it if you read the two comments I left. Short answer: I have no blog.SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, and withdraw my question. Jtrainor (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This answer seems slighly disingenious. No, he didn't post it in a blog, but he is the original author of the meatpuppeting appeal: he posted it on usenet, according to his own admission. That's the same meatpuppetry, and yes, it is bannable, no matter which forum he chose initially. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have. You seem to be guilty of canvassing, at least in my opinion. The meatpuppetry aspect is questionable for now. Jtrainor (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not canvassing and here is the reason why (SQRT5P1D2 you might want to use this in your defence against their allegations): For it to be canvassing, it would have to be classifiable as Excessive cross-posting, Campaigning, Votestacking or Stealth canvassing. It is not "excessive cross-posting" because he didn't indiscriminately send announcements to uninvolved editors in the form of spamming; he posted on a usenet newsgroup where some interested people might read. It is not "campaigning" because he did not use a non-neutral tone (see: "be rational and leave nationalism outside of the field" in [1]). It is not "votestacking" because this is not a poll where editors would vote or try to reach a consensus; this is ArbCom. It is not "stealth canvassing" because he openly admitted posting it, because he translated it and because usenet is open by definition. Q.E.D. --Radjenef (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Radjenef. I left a comment along these lines here. I'm green, although I support teams wearing red :) SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Jtrainor, you misread, I responded, you read my previous comments, understood them, said "I stand corrected" and then changed your mind. Fair enough. Anyway, I'm in the green area of WP:CANVASS, as demonstrated in my comments here. Canvassing, no, friendly notice, yes. There are other really questionable things, far more important, such as people taking advantage of other editors' absence and then making fun of it, as other administrators showed. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since I exposed ChrisO's latest faux pas, I have been systematically attacked by a swarm of people from the side that calls itself "unbiased". I have been called everything from a fake newbie [2] and a SPA [3], to a vandal sympathizer [4], [5]. Whatever the case, I feel threatened and perceive a heightened level of hostility in these pages. The latest culmination of all of these things is this [6]. Being that the situation is getting a little bit out of hand, I now formally request assistance per WP:VIOLENCE. I also request confirmation from the arbitrators that my contacting local authorities will not be viewed as a violation of WP:NLT. People have attempted to squirrel their way into accusing me for all kinds of things as of late, so I guess it's best to be extra careful. --Radjenef (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly sorry to see that piece of vandalism on your user talk page. We've had a few such attacks through anon IPs. I've blocked this one as an apparent open proxy. As for the other pieces of criticism against you you mention above, I'm afraid you'll have to live with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking that IP address. I honestly appreciate that. --Radjenef (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to report this on the evidence page under your own evidence. It s vital you document the abuse you have received since questioning ChrisO's 'faux pas'. I cannot stress enough just how important it is. Reaper7 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest entirely removing the section entitled 'Fut.Perf. is requested to offer a full and unreserved apology to Avg'. Such self-aggrandizing and petty behaviour has no place in arbitration, and, quite frankly, it's annoying to see it at the top whenever I look at the page. I'm surprised one of the arbs didn't remove it already as off-topic or something (not bagging on you guys, you have a ton of cases open atm). If I was a party to the case, I'd make a motion that everyone sit down and shut up until some arbs have a chance to deal with everything that's up already. Jtrainor (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. It's pointless anyway - it has about as much chance of being endorsed by the ArbCom as would a section entitled "Avg is requested to kiss Fut. Perf's backside". While that might be an entertaining spectacle, it's not going to happen. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I've already called for its removal on the workshop page itself, I certainly would have to agree here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Jtrainor, such a "request" as he indicated has already been made. Considering that Avg was blocked for three days yesterday, however, I personally might wait to leave it there until he is unblocked and we can see how he might choose to deal with it then. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with John. It would also be nice if the tone of this section became more civil. Dr.K. logos 01:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing incivility here.

To John, why? Avg's being blocked or unblocked has no bearing on whether this material is suitable for the workshop page. It either belongs or doesn't, regardless of what Avg says about it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To give him the chance to possibly remove it himself? His choosing to do so or not do so might be useful information to the arbitrators. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess the clerks won't be likely to make such a decision if he doesn't do it himself, and the arbs will hardly bother. Of course, we could register the request for removal as a proposed temporary injunction itself. Then we'd have a "Fut.Perf. is requested to offer a full and unreserved apology to Avg", followed by "Request to remove the request for Fut.Perf. to offer a full and unreserved apology to Avg", which would likely be followed by a "Request to ignore the request to remove the request ...", after which somebody might see the absurdity of the situation and offer a compromise proposal that "Fut.Perf is requested to offer at least a half-assed apology instead of a full and unreserved one". Given the fact that the arbs show few signs of expeditious attention to the case, this could go on for a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to embark in an ego trip. My only intention is to have some protection from abuse. Therefore I would like your feedback on what people are supposed to do when they see their name defamed and mud thrown by the ton, ask for an apology and instead they get insults. Sure I could have gone to AN/I, however people there would (rightfully) say "this is in Arbitration, take it there". Which I did. And let me remind people that still, as we speak, in the evidence section I'm characterised by this person, along with another two editors, as "inane", "obtuse" and "clueless" and this is not considered offensive and the editor is still not blocked. --Avg (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POT. (Taivo (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Have u consider the possibility that your fellow wikipedians “the greeks” are not hyper-nationalists as you call them, but just some people with scholar interest on classical studies. Naturally, a native greek will tend to occupy himself more with the greek classical literature and less with the latin one. Anyways, for such a guy the usage of the term macedonia, that is macedonian nationality, denoting something not-greek would be plagiarism. Or something like confusing the latinos, meaning for example spanish speaking people, with the latin, meaning the classics. Or even worse, like confusing the chinese (the language) with the japanese (the language).

Now this “intellectual crime” (pls consider a somehow humorous usage of the term “intellectual crime”, although the previous paragraph was not at all humorous) has already been committed in real world. I know.

On the other hand dear greeks anyone with severe interest on the classics can “put some water in his wine” and stop worrying (or warring :-)) about “the pure” or “the classical”, or whatever, heritage of antiquity. Maybe they should worry more about the present. For example, about making friendly relationships with people around the globe. Which is not what wikipedia is about, but … it could be.--Vanakaris (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very nice possibility, and there are probably one or two of the Greek editors who fall into that category, but there is ample evidence that national loyalty is a very, very strong motivating factor for the majority of them. I specifically recall one particular posting that plainly said, "Greeks will fight this issue until they die". Not too much wiggle room for an armchair classicist there. (Taivo (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment Taivo, perhaps the Greek editors were inspired to 'fight till they die' by Herodotus's account of the Battle of Thermopylae. It, like the history of Macedon, is taught in all Greek schools as I am sure you know, as is the ancient Greek language. I think it is unfair to imagine Greeks are not aware of their past, especially concerning ancient Macedon, this is why it is a problem. History and classics that deep in Greeks is hard to forget and replace with a newer slavic nation's version in need perhaps of a past that does not tie it too strongly Bulgaria for example. I think it is important perhaps to remember what Michael Wood stated after completing the the most epic BBC documentary: In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great. He stated: The Macedonian state claim has no basis in history; it is a state-sponsored myth. I tell my Macedonian and Greek friends to ignore it. I think this is good advice to Greeks, classicists and users from the disputed, 'Republic of Macedonia.' Reaper7 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that Greeks are taught ancient history. But there's no "disputed" about Macedonia. It exists, it's there, it's been there for over 60 years, and it's been called Macedonia for that long. Get over the name thing and move on with your lives. Who cares if they think they're descended from Alexander? No one believes them on that issue. Just like no one cares that the Greeks want them to have a different name. (Taivo (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the response. (I have zero experience on english wikipedia, I edit a bit the greek wikipedia, but I'll try to keep up.) Are we talking about vandalism problems here? If so I suppose I could help a bit, something like checking over some critical pages once a day or something like that. I have really noo idea how it works around here. If there are anonymous IP's tracing to greece that do vandalism, then it seems fair that regular greeks give a hand dealing with the problem.--Vanakaris (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been claimed that over 95% of the Greeks are against the name of "Macedonia" for their neighbors, I didn't see any evidence on Wikipedia that Greeks editors have other attitude than the general Greek population. man with one red shoe 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also, I can confirm that the statistics over general population are something like that. They can vary depending on suffix, no-suffix, not-at-all-Macedonia and crap like that. Also there are of course macedonians (northen) greeks (greeks greeks from macedonia (region), not macedonians macedonians who live in greece --hahaha/-)))) and southern greeks and many many islands as u know, and there whould be some variation on the statistics, but I doubt there has been such research. Also it would be outside of the scope of wikipedia as being too specialized and not encyclopedic, probably. Also maybe u are an intelligence service from FYROM trying to collect information,:-))) hahah. I'm joking. Now, ... myself ...I would prefer ... a suffix. I really dont know how other greek wikipedians feel about this, mostly I read engineering related articles, so far.--Vanakaris (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth filing another "motion" for. The arbs won't bother to have an extra voting for this one; most likely they won't even see it until in several weeks time, the way things look now. That's why we already have an injunction that covers this. Shadowmorph, just my recommendation: remove that "motion" (it just clutters the page), contact any uninvolved admin, explain to him why you feel the move is potentially contentious, and ask them to simply do it, under the existing injunction.

I would do it myself, but I'm not "uninvolved", I suppose.

Oh, and when you do it, you might choose to not mix up a matter-of-fact technical request with your usual ideological rantings about the other guy's perceived political orientation, as you did here. Did you really think the arbs would want to read that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. If nobody enforces the injunction, what is the purpose of it? I fear others will start moving articles around too, and pretty soon we will get into chaos. My opinion about that user is derived from the users page.Shadowmorph (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the motion. You'll know how the arbs work better and I'm glad you starting helping me over Wikipedian matters and correct courses of action. Now, if only I could find an uninvolved admin. Shadowmorph (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I already listed it at the "requested moves" page. Just wait a day or two and somebody will get to it there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<comment by FPAS removed...> — Rlevse • Talk • 02:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's just sensationalizing nothing. I watch American TV and see the promos for "A baffling mystery solved" and then watch the program to discover that someone's bronze statue had turned green with age. In other words, nothing is made to sound like the discovery of the century just to get viewership. This is neither the time nor the place for marketing tricks, SQRT. (Although phrases like "the acclaimed British Museum" and this overblown praise of the Library of Congress show that hype is part of your basic tool kit.) (Taivo (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think it was a mistake to add as a party a single-purpose account created for the specific purpose of participating in this arbitration. Note that although SQRT claimed to have edited before as an IP editor, he provided no evidence of this, nor did he cite any articles he'd contributed to. I strongly suspect he's someone whom we've seen before under a different username. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: @SQRT please say what you want to say with evidence and no mystery-solving; I was baffled too. @ChrisO if you have evidence of sockpuppetry give them, don't let such accusations hanging around. Thanks.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that he wants to make a point, and the point is that one side is accused of having a COI just because they happen to have a certain (real or alleged) ethnicity, while at the same time, it is virtually impossible to know if there is any real COI involved in these proceedings. I referred to this here:[7]. Isn't it true? What do we really know about our interlocutors here? And of course, there is only one correct answer which is we don't know and we don't care. The only thing anyone can really be judged for is their edits, not who they are (or claim they are). And this should be the case now and always. No ad hominems.--Avg (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be the case of a new editor asking if the arbitrators know anything that the rest of us don't. If it is, I think it is a perfectly reasonable question, as a newcomer would not necessarily know one way or another whether any evidence might be submitted to the ArbCom through any other means than the evidence and workshop pages. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Unless you can read SQRT's mind, Avg, or unless you have off-wiki communication with him, then your polemic is just blowing hot air. My guess is that he is once again broaching the subject of ChrisO's and Future Perfect's emails prior to writing MOSMAC2 and prior to the move of Macedonia. He has made a big deal of this in the past and was told by the majority of interested parties that it was irrelevant. My guess is that he is trying to drum up interest in the off-wiki emails again by using good old American marketing to create curiosity where none is warranted. So, we have your guess, Avg, and my guess. Which actually makes more sense given what we know of SQRT's editing practices? Both are worthless because neither is based on facts, just suppositions. BTW, Avg, here's my university webpage and, of course, you can check out User:Taivo as well. So now you know one of your interlocutors. (Taivo (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Taivo, I hope you're not offended if I do not visit your page. I'm not interested in who you are, only in what you say. When I say something I believe in it, I'm not just saying it to score a point.--Avg (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, please move on and enjoy the rest of wikipedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be easier to "move on" if a natural response to a sensationalist question didn't result in a final warning. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I thoroughly disagree with Rlevse's warning and have told him as much, I think one thing he is right about is that we should move on here and just ignore the rubbish we're getting on this workshop, since thus far the clerks and arbs aren't showing signs of cleaning it out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should SQRT's contentless questions be deleted? (Along with this thread that went nowhere?) (Taivo (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Why so much concern with his questions? Just ignore them, that's the best policy. man with one red shoe 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it'd be better to ignore them. The problem is, though, that Fut. Perf. pointed out that they were nonsense, and got warned for doing so, while SQRT got no warning. So, the natural conclusion at this point is that it's ok to make vague insinuations about your opponents' political affiliations, but it's not ok to call out people for doing so. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident the arbiters are serious enough to ignore such insinuations or even take them into consideration against the party who makes them, but being too concerned with questions (being them made in good or bad faith) is not OK, let people ask... I mean I understand Fut. Perf. reaction but I also understand arbiter's reaction. So, let's move on. man with one red shoe 04:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that the people posting the rubbish are harming their case rather than making it... -- ChrisO (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the opinion of two other arbitrators beforehand and they both agreed with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like editors have got too bored to make their case and started to snap at each other. Maybe we should stop for a moment and let arbitrators ask questions instead of snapping at each other. man with one red shoe 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they've been snapping at each other since the beginning, hadn't you noticed? ;) But, yeah, I think we are more or less getting to the point of decision sometime soon, and it probably isn't in anybody's interests to give the arbitrators additional cause for action then they already have, particularly in regards to themselves as individuals, anyway. John Carter (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if they ban me that would do me a favor, I would waste less time here :) man with one red shoe 14:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stated when I became an admin that I would be open to recall. Frankly, I have to conclude that I may be deserving of such as a result of my behavior in this case. I also have to say, frankly, that I may not be the only one that is true of here. However, I do not necessarily at this point trust my own judgement on this matter. Anyone wishing to supply me with what they consider reasons for me to consider doing so, either on my talk page or by e-mail, is free to do so, and I will consider the evidence, and, if I think it merited or if there are sufficient respected parties who have expressed that opinion, I will recall myself. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is needed. I've found some fault with some of your statements but you haven't done anything that comes even close to making me doubt that you should be trusted with admin powers. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not necessarily at this point trust my own judgement on this matter." then step back from the case and, how somebody else said, "enjoy the rest of Wikipedia" but there's no need for the dramatics of self-recalling (at least not from what I've seen) man with one red shoe 18:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This shows extreme class John. I hope no-one seriously is considering taking such a step. You have been a breath of fresh air both in the Macedonia topics and in the Arbitration. And just because of the topic title, here's something quite relevant(Q7)[8].--Avg (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avg, I hope you'll stop attacking other people on this case, don't think this is an "open personal attacks" opportunity. man with one red shoe 19:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your conduct here would justify a recall. I do think, though, that you have a tendency to engage in hyperbole, which can inflame the debate, and you have a tendency to personalise issues. It would be helpful if you could lower the temperature a bit in your comments. Please take this comments in the spirit that they're meant - i.e. constructive criticism - and not as any kind of personal attack. Avg, I suggest you stop the attacks - you are not exactly making a positive impression of yourself. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I see no attack. The fact that I saw John Carter speaking about being open to recall, reminded me that Fut.Perf. is also open to recall and posted the relevant diff. I did not use any epithets, made no qualifying statements, used any incivility, I just posted a diff. If you can please show me why this is an attack, I'll delete my comment. I mean it, because I had no such intention.--Avg (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are too preoccupied with Fut. Perf. person. Bringing about his recall is meant to scare him, what's the purpose? Or do you want to canvas editors against him? I'm not sure I get it. Try to make your case and not discuss so much people involved, especially that in this case Fut. Perf. was not even involved in this discussion. man with one red shoe 22:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm no longer "open to recall" anyway. My experience with non-free image work last year convinced me that to do good admin work you sometimes have to risk making large enough groups of editors angry at you that recall wouldn't be a good idea, so I removed myself from the category at some point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, so my mistake, you're not open to recall. Of course I'm somewhat surprised, I was under the impression that anyone's commitments at an RfA cannot be retracted at will since the community voted based on those commitments. I did at least and it is the first time I hear that you're no longer open to recall.--Avg (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think your conduct justifies a recall. It is the mark of true humanity that we can be self-reflective, so I honor your willingness to be self-reflective. We all need that on occasion. We look at what we expect of ourselves and if, like most people, we have set high standards for our actions, then our actions don't always live up to our standards or expectations. We look, evaluate, and then move the rudder a little to the left or a little to the right and sail on with a new course and the wind in our sails. No recall, either self-imposed or other, is necessary in this situation, John. Move your rudder a little to the left or a little to the right and sail on. (Taivo (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You (and some other uninvolved admins) have shown the most sensitivity in not crossing the line of neutrality and also genuine interest in the topics of Macedonia; I respect that. Your respect to the values of Wikipedia and the importance of community cooperation is hardly a reason to recall, rather the opposite. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although Taivo has not revealed John Carter's email address on Wiki, I think his canvassing of his received mail from John Carter to Future, and ChrisO (redacted; see history) is unethical and against the mailing policy if he did not get a permission from him to post it to his opponents. I don't know what ground made John to send it to Taivo via email, but I think the content itself far from being inflammatory, but Taivo's behavior is worthy of giving him a warning. --Caspian blue 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should not have posted the email, but "canvassing" is hardly the word for asking two admins I respect for their evaluation of the content. I asked them "Is this an assessment that you would agree with?" In other words, I was getting some independent feedback before responding to John Carter. Since I received the email at 08:44 am (Mountain Daylight Time), read it and posted at Future Perfect's and Chris' page at about 09:47, and (after deleting it, reading John Carter's posts, etc.) it is now just 10:39, I find this demand for an immediate response and the outrage, well, overkill. Future Perfect removed the email from his Talk page and I removed it from ChrisO's talk page. I should not have posted it, but discussed it with Future and Chris in private. Asking two people to comment on its contents, though, is not "canvassing". (Taivo (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And, please, my user name is "T A I V O", Caspian, it's not that hard to spell correctly. It's not an arbitrary string of letters and numbers. (Taivo (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for my misspelling on your name. However, please Read WP:Canvassing. I respect both Future, and John, and regardless of your feeling toward the three admins, you spread the private email without any permission is a totally unacceptable behavior. You tried to get some "negative" feedback from the both admins. I think clerks should know of this since your such conduct is within the ArbCom case. You're not in a position to enrage about the posting of this thread.--Caspian blue 17:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. That's not canvasing, if you have a shred of good faith you'd admit it and apologize for baseless accusation.
2. Once you get an e-mail it belongs to you and you can do whatever you want with it including posting it into newspaper (yes it might not be morally OK always but from the point of view of law you are entitled to do anything with it) -- man with one red shoe 17:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition of canvassing, Canvassing is the systematic initiation of direct contact with a "target group of individuals" commonly used during political campaigns. You can replace the during political campaigns with the ArbCom case. If Taivo just contacted one admin, I can think that act is a result of frustration. However, he contacted the two admins who are opposite side of John Carter. Do not falsely throwing such "baseless" nonsense. Since the ArbCom is scrutinizing any involved editor's conduct, the inappropriate conduct should be recorded on the open place. On the other hand, you're the one assuming bad faith on me and I do not your bear your bogus accusation.--Caspian blue 17:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpret a snippet of text to make a point. This is obvious not canvasing since the people were already involved in the discussion, canvasing would be if he would try to attract other people in a "campaign" (BTW, this is not a campaign either). You totally twist the meaning of canvasing" to suit your personal attacks, if you don't know the meaning of words then don't launch in accusing people using words that you don't understand. man with one red shoe 17:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please, read WP:CANVASS "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion" -- this is clear not the situation. So, stop it. Now. man with one red shoe 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you feel justified that Taivo were spreading the private email to John's opponents to get some responses. My duty was already done after I asked Taivo whether his act was in agreement with John, and notified to John Carter, and the committee here. So the clerk and arbitrators can judge or decide what to do with the "incident". If Taivo apologized John, this is not a big deal, but I see that he attacked him instead. Why don't you stop "your accusation"? I don't think bickering is helping for anybody.--Caspian blue

That's his choice, and I have my own opinions that I don't want to share with you, but my points are clear: 1. it's not canvasing. 2. he had the right to post it, continuing your accusations on this line is nothing else than a personal attack. Please concern yourself with other issues on this case, don't discuss so much what other people do or say. man with one red shoe 18:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that you're wrong on the matter and misunderstand the policy. I do not enjoy your continued bogus accusation and personal attacks. --Caspian blue 18:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't enjoy you twisting the meaning of words and policies to further you cheap personal points against oponents. I also don't like that there's nobody here with some authority (clerk or arbitrators) stopping this type of behavior. False accusations are very demaging to any discussion, and it's plain clear that canvasing accusation is bogus. man with one red shoe 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"you cheap personal points"? Go on. I don't enjoy your continued personal attacks based on your bad faith and titled view. You said his posting to the admins (obvious breach of our policy) is okay and his right. Such wrong defense does not add you any credential. I don't see why you think I can take your ad hominen attacks into account.--Caspian blue 19:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't canvassing, it was simple complaining. There would be no way to cause a change in the judgement based on repeating the e-mail, and such changing in outcomes is more or less implicit in canvassing. Basically, all I see it as was simple bad behavior from someone whose actions in this discussion have been dubiously on target most of the time anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to be lenient and patient in this case, but behavior by several parties, on both sides, is totally unacceptable. Everyone is now on final warning. Any arb clerk or arb will now ban and/block any case participant who continues the mudslinging, insults, posting of private info, etc. Post your evidence or proposals factually and in neutrally and professionally toned manner. Stop the clerk shopping and if have complaints about others evidence, post in your own section or email to the arbitrators. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! I've been waiting for something like this to happen. Hopefully the workshop will become a little more readable now. Jtrainor (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IOW, slow down, calm down, and talk to me or the case clerks. Disengage from each other and wait for things to get resolved. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The draft of the case Proposed Decision should be done this weekend. After other arbs review it, it will be posted on the case PD page. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who aren't as familiar with arbitration cases and where to find things, would you mind posting the link for that in several places (like here) when you are ready to publicize it? Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The PD page is located at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Proposed decision. KnightLago (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision has been posted in the above section. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit the above page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the PD's talk page. KnightLago (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]