`  == Moving other's comments ==   posted some replies in the middle of my comment at . I would like to keep my comment in one piece, but I am not sure how strictly moving comments of other users us handled on these pages. If it is not allowed for non-clerks, could you please move his comments to a separate section? Thx.    :Done. Posting in the middle of people's comments, as User:HistoricWarrior007 did, is certainly undesirable and something to be avoided wherever possible.     == Quoting emails == Increasingly, some parties are quoting emails from the leaked archive (ex. . I thought that this was not to be done (``No quoting of any email is to be done by persons other than the author or intended recipient(s)``)? Am I mistaken? |  :I believe the intention of the provision you have quoted, is to prevent wide-scale quoting of entire emails and entire email exchanges; that is the assumption I will work off when taking affirmative action (as opposed to reactive action, such as this), although I invite you to have the Committee comment on my interpretation of it. Regardless, I'll ask Offliner to paraphrase what you wrote on the mailing list, although having him do this could be to your disadvantage as it provides him the opportunity to represent what you said on the mailing list in whatever way and with whatever language he chooses.    ::Daniel, I don’t mind you removing my entire section (at your discretion) for as long as you read it, by going back to my post, and relating to the particulars listed in it. However, there’s nothing in the initial provisions of this case indicating that you’re supposed to prevent only wide-scale quoting of entire emails and email exchanges. – That is your own interpretation of the warning which needs to be confirmed by the Committee. Meanwhile, quoting of illegally accessed emails includes also explaining in ones own words what’s in those emails, which in a way is even worse, because paraphrasing other people is obviously tainted by personal agendas. Cheers,    :::Quoting, out-of-context and possibly doctored emails is creating, IMHO, more problems than paraphrasing, as it gives an air of legitimacy to this harassment campaign. PS. Offliner is not the ony party quoting @s, Russavia is doing that as well. |  :::(edit conflict) I'm charged, as the Clerk of the case, to interpret the directives I receive. Until such a time as I am explicitly overruled by the Committee, how I interpret those directives is how the case will be run. I have interpreted the directives and disallowing the quoting of the contents of emails, allowing the subjects of emails, and allowing the paraphrasing of content of emails where said paraphrasing. If you're concerned about mis-paraphrasing, the other alternative is to give permission to be quoted; otherwise, your emails can and will be paraphrased within reason. If you believe a paraphrase is misleading, you are free to address it in your own evidence section. :::These are the rules for the case.    ::::And in response to Piotrus, either allow yourself to be quoted explicitly, or refute the paraphrasing in your evidence section, or else appeal my decision to the Committee by email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. I will be happy to have my interpretation, which is binding on the case absent a contrary directive from the Committee (see above), overruled by them should they agree with your contentions.    ::::(edit conflict, again) Russavia is fixing the quotes (see my comment at the bottom of his talk page).    :::::I am now confused if we agree or not: I am against quoting (of private communications, publicly and without permission) and for paraphrasing. |  ::::::I know. I'm saying that paraphrasing is allowed, regardless of whether you're against it or not. If you disagree with my interpretation of the directive that paraphrasing and summarising is allowed, then I provided alternatives, including allowing your emails to be quoted, refuting 'bad' summaries in your own evidence section, or appealing my interpretation to the Committee by emailing their mailing list.    :::::::Then we agree ) Yes, paraphrasing is allowed, per freedom of speech and such. Thank you for offering the other options, I think none will be needed. |  ::::::::Oh, I see. Crap, my apologies. I misread the first word of your 17:20 comment as ``paraphrasing``, not ``quoting``. Yes, so we do agree. ) I blame the hour, which is somewhere around 0320, and my friends, who still haven't called to get picked up, hence why I'm still here )     :::::Please remember that an offer to paraphrase these emails one by one in a continuous string was already made (out of the blue) by user Novickas. However, all users have also been advised to limit themselves to the on-wiki evidence of possible misconduct, with the assumption that such restrictions, given the private nature of most of the likely evidence, would cut down on the size of the evidence page. The size of that page nonetheless is growing quickly, and so, there's no need for none-arbitrators to boust about being in possession of an unethically obtained archive and dwell on its content, which is not publicly accessible for the third-party confirmation.    ::::::The people whose conduct is being discussed in relation to the emails have access to them, and so they have the ability to respond. In my opinion, paraphrasing is acceptable, and until I receive explicit instruction from the Committee otherwise, that's the way the case will be run.    :::::Fair enough. As I understand, some of the list participants deleted these emails, and in spite of their repeated requests, they have not been given access to the illegal copy. However, trying to correct the ill-advised interpretations of their own words would be useless – one way or another – given the aggressive language of all stacked up accusations. You do what you think is best.     == Thank You! ==  For helping me out with the formatting responses in ``Eastern European Wiki-Cabal`` Arbitration. Formatting is a pain in the ass for me, so that's for showing me how to do it right. D     == Hiberniantears' post ==  He posted his evidence in the wrong section.    :I'm assuming this has been fixed, as I can't see it.     ==Request== Dear Daniel,  I completed my Evidence secti