`:While I appreciate your intent in the remedy you have imposed (er, suggested) the clerks apply, I still have very serious reservations about the way you've gone about implementing it.  As a recused Arbitrator, you still have multiple venues by which you can seek to impose restrictions in the climate change area, without overreaching the community's limitations on Arbitrator authority. :*You might ask your fellow non-recused Arbs to consider a motion embodying your remedy.  This would allow for discussion of the pros and cons (and potential alternative solutions), offer clear and explicit terms for the remedy, and give an unambiguous statement of how the unrecused ArbCom (who are the only Arbs who should be enacting remedies here) feel about the remedy.  Unlike all of the other parties to the case, you enjoy special, direct, unfiltered access to the ArbCom mailing list and Arbitration wiki. :*Another alternative would be to file a request through the existing climate change probation process. :*A third option might be to open a discussion at AN/I. :What you should not be doing (and I can't emphasize how much I do believe that you've done this in all good faith) is giving instructions to clerks to take content-related action in an arbitration case from which you are recused.  I plead with you to withdraw your instructions to the clerks pending the outcome of any proper, community-approved process.  Your last comment hits the nail on the head here — ``I know you said we shouldn't do it, but it was REALLY REALLY important.``  Well, the content of these articles is really, really important &dmash; but the instructions you've given the clerks are something that you shouldn't do.      `