QUOTE(Manning Bartlett @ Tue 12th July 2011, 4:52am)
@Abd, just for clarity, when I talked about 'page bans' and 'punishment', I am only referring to the discussion pages of the Arbcom case page which I was supervising.
As clerk, I did my very best to ensure that good conduct was observed on either side of the debate, and no-one was permitted incivility for any reason. (At least until the arrival of someone who was apparently exempt, according to an arb).
I had nothing to do with the judgments handed down by Arbcom when the case was decided.
I have not examined your specific clerking behavior during the EEML RfAr, but from your comments I'd assume that you were not harmful there. I've seen different results from clerks, mostly, though, it's ineffectual and ineffective clerking that is a problem. There was abuse aplenty during RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, revert warring by WMC and others during the case, on case pages and related notices, and the clerk was ineffectual, with actual damage being done as a result.
This was Mathsci, removing his name as a named party in the RfAr, editing my section. I explained the addition with
this. I accidentally reverted Mathsci, because I'd gone to notify him and came back to add the diff and WTF? It was gone! I must have forgotten to save it! So I
added it again and saved. It never occurred to me that Mathsci would remove his own name as a party.
Mathsci removed it again, deliberately revert warring. What I'd seen with Mathsci was that he was clueless as to dispute resolution procedure, he'd long been protected by the cabal. How he got the idea that a party could remove themselves from an RfAr, editing the filing party's opening statement, is beyond me.
He removed the notification diff
here.I protested, but his repeated removal of himself was allowed to stand.
The case was renamed, apparently at the request of Enric Naval. This was a case of administrative recusal failure, and later it was confirmed that WMC was acting outside of propriety. By renaming the case, it was turned into a personal conflict, which is an error that ArbComm has made many times. Supposedly the conduct of all parties will be examined, but that was a joke. What a non-admin can expect, claiming recusal failure, even if it's blatant, as it was, is that every action of theirs will be examined with a fine-tooth comb, and there is hardly anyone where something looking bad cannot be found. It is wiki-suicide, and that's been shown again and again. I'd been warned that I'd be banned if I pursued these cases. I did it by the book. And I was banned.
Mathsci
removed the case notification from his Talk page.
AGK warned him. However, the effect of his revert warring remained in place, and had I corrected it, I bet I'd have been blocked. I was, by the way,
also warned. For making what should have been my right, control of my section in the filing. Hey, AGK was neutral!