849:
a harsh environment I felt myself in. I already felt I was being attacked by Lar's supporters and I had observed for some time that Lar was extremely patronising in his comments. The second one is an observation which I back wholeheartedly and am simply disappointed that arbcom has not been able to see the negative longterm effects of Lar's involvement in this area, if we are banned from making remarks such as this I fear for wikipedia. The third diff was reflective of my despair and was a response to another tiresome "you are the cabal" putdown where there was an attempt to discredit CC editors en masse because of supporting the same viewpoint in the RfC/U on Lar. The forth one is a legitimate observation during this arbcom case and I can make a whole watertight case for the observation with plenty of diffs if required, it is a sad day when we cannot make frank observations during an arbcom case on a case talkpage, a sad sad sad day indeed for wikipedia.
1008:
people NewYorkbrad/Arbcom are proposing to sanction, we group those sections (findings of fact and proposed remedies) together, and do likewise with the sections specifically about administrators (all of those on the
Proposed Decision page already have "Administrators" as the first word in the section title). Beyond that, since we'll want to go outside that order in some discussions that just won't fit in these topics, just add new discussions to the bottom. I think this is intuitive and simple, and even easier to see the organization rather than to describe it as I've just done. Since I've commented so much below (in part in order to show how the organization works), I'll refrain for a while. --
292:*I am extremely disappointed with ], it completely fails to address the personal involvement an administrator may have had with a user such as I outlined in the case relating to Lar. I stress this involvement was not the result of provocation or due to his previous admin duties. Also "content dispute" generally construed on any article, no matter how minor will ban a user for ever acting as admin on any CC article is a terrible judgement from arbcom and not well thought out at all. This will simply end up with the status quo of the regular enforcement admins deciding where the line is drawn to suit themselves. ] (]) 09:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
285:*I am extremely disappointed with ], it completely fails to address the personal involvement an administrator may have had with a user such as I outlined in the case relating to Lar. I stress this involvement was not the result of provocation or due to his previous admin duties. Also "content dispute" generally construed on any article, no matter how minor will ban a user for ever acting as admin on any CC article is a terrible judgement from arbcom and not well thought out at all. This will simply end up with the status quo of the regular enforcement admins deciding where the line is drawn to suit themselves. ] (]) 09:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
880:, it completely fails to address the personal involvement an administrator may have had with a user such as I outlined in the case relating to Lar. I stress this involvement was not the result of provocation or due to his previous admin duties. Also "content dispute" generally construed on any article, no matter how minor will ban a user for ever acting as admin on any CC article is a terrible judgement from arbcom and not well thought out at all. This will simply end up with the status quo of the regular enforcement admins deciding where the line is drawn to suit themselves.
1327:. I see proposed principle 15 and 16 addressing the policy. I see proposed enforcement 2 defining the term "uninvolved". This wording is slightly, but not materially different than the current wording. I do not see a clear position from the committee regarding the dispute. Based upon the proposed definition of uninvolved administrator, should Lar or Stephan or both be considered involved or uninvolved. Without guidance from the committee, I suspect editors on both sides of that dispute will simply reiterate their positions.--
1082:" when enforcement clause 2 omits both sentiments. I'm sure I'm not only editor that's been annoyed -- or even felt threatened or anxious -- with the inconsistency of how much "involved" admins tend to get away with... nor do I think I'm the only admin who's been hesitant to do something because they're unwilling to put up with accusations of bias. With the multiple and oftentimes conflicting definitions of "involvement" on various policy and arbitration pages, clarity from the arbitrators on this would be appreciated.
505:
93:
810:. Moreover, while new administrators are welcome, they are also hard to come by. The topic area is a complex one, with vast scientific literature, and vandalism is, by now, often subtle. I have some doubts that an administrator with enough interest to understand the domain well enough to recognise these problems will be able to (or should be expected to) refrain from editing for a purely tactical advantage.
841:
status even though I hadn't tried to use that status to influence any decisions at the time. I was trying to absolve myself of the responsibility rather than to disrupt. I understand why this failled and I am wiser now but it was not disruption. The continuation of the special flack one recieves as an admin even when not acting as such has been in evidence in this case by the submissions of
738:- while I like the idea of "cameraderie and mutual respect", I don't think that this should get equal footing with "high-quality, free-content encyclopedia". WP is primarily an encyclopedia, nor a social network. Also, I would like some clarification that honest but vigorous discussion is not in conflict with this (while dishonest behaviour, no matter how sugar-coated, is).
693:
formal statements if they wish to do so. Once the proposed decision has been posted, if you want to make a statement please add it below as a subsection of this section. One single, signed statement per editor (can be revised but only within the word limit). No discussion here (threaded or otherwise). Limit of 500 words (as at requests for arbitration).
1379:(after edit conflict) The Committee mentions the dispute but does not seem to resolve the issue. Is this because the Committee feels that no administrator acted in a way that violates the principle, or is there some other reason why the Committee does not wish to rule on past events here? It would also be helpful to address the question of when the
191:
1663:
You've painted with too broad a brush. Self-published blogs should only be used rarely, but blogs with independent editorial oversight and a reputation for accuracy may be used as reliable sources. The format of a publication is not material, for paper does not have magical powers to impart accuracy.
1643:
I view the overblowing of a minor gripe against
Jehochman and Franamax as further evidence of JWB's personal campaign against admins as he has shown towards myself. This shows a certain amount of bitterness which should not be allowed to be cultivated in this case. I think even those who benefit from
1623:
No misconduct of administrators as administrators is described in the proposals. No admonishment of admins for bad admin-related conduct, either. I'm disappointed. My evidence against
Franamax and Jehochman quite clearly showed that they violated WP:NPA and WP:ADMIN. Franamax showed some sign that he
1578:
If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed enforcement" with the same numbering used in the table of contents at the
Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please use the numbering from the table of
900:
Good work! I can see why this took some time. I especially like the purpose statements. This may be presumed; however, the role
Knowledge has in civility producing great content should be clearly set for community benefit. That is, the content is expressly created for the benefit of the community.
848:
Disparaging remarks. This is an extremely heated area. The first supposedly "disparaging remark" was after Lar had said to me, "it was a joke son" I took this as a put down, a patronising pat on the head if you like. Put in the context of the RfC/U I had started on Lar I request that you realise what
332:
Good work! I can see why this took some time. I especially like the purpose statements. This may be presumed; however, the role
Knowledge has in civility producing great content should be clearly set for community benefit. That is, the content is expressly created for the benefit of the community.
1825:
If the FOF is true, which I doubt, it should be trivial to list a few of the accounts incorrectly blocked. As NW indicates, the accounts remain blocked, which is not consistent with their having been cleared by CU. Unless this finding refers to the largescale range blocks which were once applied. If
1693:
This is another useless principle. It's well known that blogs are only to be rarely used. So what? What about the blogs mentioned in this case, that have been a subject of so much squabbling? Should Blog X have been used in
Article Y? I really don't get this ducking of issues. It's totally unhelpful
922:
This is the place for the normal discussion that accompanies a proposed decision. This section, to be used once the proposed decision has been posted, is for free-form, threaded discussion, starting new topics in a new section below. No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive,
703:
Precis: Great principles. Good findings, as far as they go, but they needed to go much farther. Remedies, not so much. First, not enough parties sanctioned. Second, we will be back at ArbCom before the year is out, as the GS/CC/RE replacement sanction regime proposed won't work. I will expand later.
1345:
Absooutely no regard paid to the serious nature of admins involvement in the cc area. Simply a weak wishy washy statement that as I read it allows Lar to continue as uninvolved without stating this and does not allow
Stephan Schulz to act as uninvolved despite the equal statement in the arbcom ase.
1137:
If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of proposed principles with the same numbering used in the table of contents at the
Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. That way, anyone can find a discussion here
1007:
I agree with Lar and
Stephan. Here's an idea for clearer organization: We could organize by the subsection on the Proposed Decision page, as I've done below, for the most part, by following the numbering of the Proposed Decision table of contents, with these exceptions: When we're talking about the
840:
I initially requested enforcement against myself for a very good reason, not to disrupt. I wished to show that I was not trying to act as an admin. The reason for this is that I got a lot of flack from Lar's supporters when I started to criticise his actions. People attacking me because of my admin
726:
I somewhat agree with Lar here, which is rare enough. I don't see how this proposal will lead to any substantial change in the CC field. It does nothing to address the on- and off-wiki POV pushing. In particular, I have the following comments (short and incomplete, as I'll leave for the plane in an
1912:
Thanks, that helps explain; clearer wording in the proposed finding would be helpful. In general though, I think the overall approach of this PD is not doing Knowledge any good. Of course it's partly the fault of a broken underlying policy structure, plus mission creep on the project's part away
1897:
I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that's meant to substantiate the finding that WMC "has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements." Arbcom should have made a general finding that such editing is never acceptable. I'm not sure
1624:
recognized his behavior was problematical. Jehochman did not. A statement by ArbCom recognizing the problem would alert those admins and others that they need to back up what they say with evidence when challenged about their characterizations of editors or they're committing a personal attack. --
1548:
being out to get me in this case. He requests I am desysopped, banned and blocked and combs through every diff I have ever made in a very heated area and still manages to find as little as he has done. This, for want of better expression nastiness, is fairly sickenning to me and I don't understand
1433:
What evidence is there that William M. Connolley will behave without some strong action by ArbCom that sanctions him enough to get the message across that his actions have been unacceptable? It's his repetition of bad behavior that I find important -- it indicates that the lesser measures taken so
692:
An innovation for this case, intended to be similar to the statements made at requests for arbitration, but made here in the closing stage of a case rather than at the start. This is particularly intended for those named in the proposed decision, but is also for arbitrators and others to make more
974:
I don't think it's reasonable to expect contributors to constructively discuss 49 different proposals at once. Nor is it reasonable or plausible for arbiters to read through an unstructured discussion. Thus, I would strongly suggest that the clerk creates a topic structure reflecting the proposed
658:
this week. Dougweller has volunteered to clerk the case for the coming week (but is not available today), and AGK has also offered to help out when Amorymeltzer is back. The other available clerks have been asked to help out as needed. Hopefully there won't be anything that needs doing as regards
1529:
I don't think the lightness of an admonishment fits the seriousness of the repeated personal attacks. His bad behavior continued during the ArbCom case, as noted at 3.2.11 (last link), but other bad behavior cropped up just days ago, as noted on the General Discussion page set up for this ArbCom
802:- this is very problematic, as it seems to indicate that any content dispute in one part of CC disqualifies an administrator from acting as an administrator in the CC area at all. It inherently assumes the notion of strong factionalism. I don't see why a discussion on radiative heat transfer at
856:
is stretching the significance of those statments a fair bit. There had been no discussion between admins, certainly no consensus had been reached, I simply acted to keep the case open so concensus could be reached rather than having Lar's supporters shut the case down with no concensus and no
750:- I share NYB's concern that this is problematic. There has been no significant COI problem in CC articles, unless one assumes the counterproductive notion that experts inherently have a COI and that editing to properly reflect the considered expert position on a topic is inappropriate editing.
1104:
I think it is simply structural - the enforcement items do not need to repeat all principles or findings or fact. However, I do agree that clarifying the definition of "involved" should be done - I'm working on a response that says, in essence, the finding that there is no clear definition of
1297:
If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Findings of fact" or "Proposed remedies" with the same numbering used in the table of contents at the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please use the
592:
post on this page until the proposed decision has been posted and is being voted on. For discussion that took place on this page previously, please see the archive of this talk page, and if you wish to continue a discussion that was previously taking place here or elsewhere, please do so at
933:
Although I am an uninvolved party I have followed this case out of personal interest. From what I have read on various pages, one of the major problems that has not been addressed in the proposed decisions is that the WP:V is being applied too stringently. That sources that are normally
1202:
333:
This is why we serve Knowledge. As such, it becomes clearer how obstructing NPOV content can actually be harming the community. In addition, it may become clearer how bias content may not be beneficial. NPOV is the best way to serve a diverse community. ] (]) 14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1163:
in CC article discussions. It's one of the most toxic problems on these pages. If editors do this repeatedly, they need to be blocked. I wish the proposed sanctions against one editor would have indicated that ArbCom was taking this more seriously, but more on that below. --
250:
174:
1849:
a WMC BLP vio (the 5th diff in the supposed list of them)? It removed a contentious label. I haven't examined the others. The Solomon article currently doesn't say "environmentalist" for what that's worth. It is a pretty bad article either way in my opinion.
1674:
Conditionally agree. My own notes, as I read the clause: "Is this a contraction or simply a reiteration of the usual rules?" I read Jehochman as expressing concern it is the former. That was my initial impression, but I hope I'm wrong. Clarification would
901:
This is why we serve Knowledge. As such, it becomes clearer how obstructing NPOV content can actually be harming the community. In addition, it may become clearer how bias content may not be beneficial. NPOV is the best way to serve a diverse community.
744:- historically true, but the committee should be aware of the fact that "good-faith content disputes" are not the primary problem, but that there are significant politically and ideologically driven disputes, some of which masquerade as content disputes.
1383:
of involvement (e.g. an ongoing dispute with an editor, a perception of bias against the editor, etc.) suggests that an administrator step aside, even if they feel they have been entirely fair, under the "best practice in cases where an administrator
85:
186:
115:
53:
50:
1223:
182:
111:
1428:
1474:
834:
1434:
far have not been strict enough. If there's evidence to the contrary, I'd sincerely like to see it. Any arbitrator considering these sanctions needs to consider the ongoing repetitions, even after admins imposed sanctions. --
628:
1530:
case. I don't see how he can still be trusted with admin tools, given his conduct. Further, I see a double standard here: lighter treatment of administrators than for other editors. It should be the other way around. --
1405:
1952:
1047:
A discussion page for each section that might ultimately be overkill (highly doubtful) is addressible and easily corrected after the fact. Structure it now before it becomes the leviathan task of structuring it later.
523:
1364:
in which numerous editors expressed reservations about Lar's conduct. Some parts of the PD can be construed as applying to him, but without specific guidance it is, like much of this PD, simply of no value whatever.
1443:
1314:
877:
624:
1423:
1196:
1213:
Self selection of administrators is one of the serious problems here, as was noted on the Workshop page. The proposed decision does not address it. What did you find lacking in my arguments about that? --
1340:
1835:
1355:
635:
post here, as this page is for discussing the proposed decision while it is being voted on. This post is an exception to that, as it is a notification post directing people to the discussion location.
1309:
594:
425:
1809:
Maybe NW could also clarify just what he wants ArbCom to include in their proposed decision about these two accounts that he has identified as not definitively belonging to a particular individual.
1775:
1698:
It's like an umpire not calling balls and strikes, but instead making an announcement over the PA system: "All ball players are advised that balls that don't go through the strike zone...." etc.
1518:
1494:
1874:
1818:
1802:
1178:
1922:
1907:
1892:
1285:
1080:
f course, an administrator who has had significant prior disputes with a particular editor would similarly be considered 'involved' with regard to a request for sanctions involving that editor
37:
1781:
Even at the low end of the range, this is an abysmal state of affairs. Just in case it gets missed, 100 good blocks and 20 bad blocks may sound like "merely" a 20% error rate, but it means a
1076:
an administrator may be deemed too 'involved' to block an editor if the administrator has had significant prior disputes with that editor, whether or not directly related to the current issue
94:
1544:
This shows the pressure of being an admin when you have someone you have never had a previous conflict or any dealings with suddenly popping up at an arbcom case and out to get you, such as
1462:
1238:
1707:
1549:
it. And just so you are aware of how difficult it is for me to be open if I had made this statement a week or two ago it would be a diff chalked up by JWB as a personal attack against him.
1256:
668:
585:
420:
1721:
1688:
1653:
1397:
984:
1501:
The two RFCs in FOF #7 are presented in a context that seem like they are evidence of WMC's misconduct, but they actually largely supported WMC's actions. Could that please be clarified?
1374:
1270:
409:
1125:
1002:
823:
1057:
1034:
1017:
644:
1613:
1539:
1173:
403:
392:
1633:
1590:
910:
1149:
680:
889:
866:
806:(where we have some really really persistent and really really not educated editors time and again) should disqualify an administrator from administrative action one.g.
611:
606:
781:
398:
387:
1934:
1739:
That percentage, especially the latter end, seems very high to me. Could a checkuser please comment on whether it is actually accurate? Most of the accounts blocked in
1291:
1918:
1888:
1524:
1470:
943:
777:
1097:
1751:
716:
1859:
857:
credible argument. No edit warring was involved. This is a far far weaker action by me than you are making out and is certainly not good evidence of disruption.
381:
29:
667:). I'll be setting up this page later in the day for comments on the proposed decision. Please don't post here in response to this, but direct questions to the
1668:
1746:
The statement also doesn't mention a number of accounts that have been blocked recently that are very probably but not definitively sockpuppets of GoRight –
1731:
1638:
1740:
623:
As work is continuing apace on the proposed decision, I have raised the question of making preparations for discussing the proposed decision. Please see
1560:
376:
1883:
makes Knowledge look terrible. More to the point, where is the BLP vio? At most I can see a possible POV issue in WMC's edit, but that's different.
1736:
FOF #5: "...a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated."
567:
1940:
584:
This page is to be used to discuss the proposed decision after it has moved to the voting stage. Any other discussion should take place on the
1138:
that is specifically related to a section there. Please use the numbering from the table of contents when you create a subsection title here.
1595:
1847:
969:
1154:
618:
1281:
Since this is a fairly universal concern thus far, does anyone have a concrete suggestion for a finding that would address the problem?
1039:
A rather logical proposal but the scrolling (not to mention server demand) will become off-putting even with direct linkage to sections.
807:
721:
25:
1948:
537:
1567:
Knowledge talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Administrators: 3.1.14 to 3.1.17 and 3.3.13 to 3.3.15
729:
Clerk, if the structured discussion proposal I made is accepted, feel free to move these to the corresponding sections. Thanks.
655:
1712:
The concern with ruling on specific cases aside, the Committee may at least wish to reference the "news blog" exception. -
1851:
216:
1618:
895:
1914:
1884:
649:
220:
21:
1475:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2#Removal of the revert parole imposed on William M. Connolley
828:
1944:
1572:
565:
and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try
553:
1131:
1898:
the current rules are too explicit on that, which is why a strong statement of general principle needs to be made.
961:
923:
contentious or off-topic discussions. Clicking "new section" above should produce a subsection within this section.
990:
49 (+1) separate areas may be a bit much, so maybe some grouping? But StS is right, one giant pile won't work. ++
579:
209:
1831:
1865:
It certainly does say environmentalist, so I can only guess that you haven't looked. Why don't you try again.
1319:
The committee made a good start with a proposed finding that there has been a dispute regarding the status of
928:
698:
835:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Polargeo personal attacks and disruption
133:
1604:, which gave more guidance to administrators. I think you should copy those suggestions in the decision. --
1477:, where the revert parole was found to be unnecessary and was revoked, is made. Could that be fixed please?
198:
1069:
1879:
I see, it's in the infobox but not in the paragraph. Still a poor article, and the one about his book
17:
756:- this is unclear. I fear some editors will read this as a general equivalence of sourcing (as in the
1827:
1031:
999:
713:
122:
1855:
1769:
1747:
1694:
for Arbcom to render Delphic pronouncements that everybody already knows, when what's needed is to
1512:
1488:
980:
934:
satisfactory (i.e. New York Times) are being excluded by parties who say they aren't good enough.--
819:
1789:
individuals have been shut out of WP. That's not a 20% error rate, that's a error factor of 20. --
1105:'involved" is not the problem, the problem is that there are very clear definitions of 'involved'—
1449:
In my view, the proposed sanctions for WMC are strong. I'm surprised how few people are named. --
770:- actually, a clear definition of involvement was at least given, if maybe not broadly accepted.
1261:
This whole thing is at the heart of the problem. Arbcom have completely failled to grasp this.
1107:
two, at least, and they are in conflict. (Have to review to see if my recollection is correct.)
1053:
562:
441:
878:
Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Uninvolved administrators
1629:
1609:
1586:
1535:
1439:
1419:
1305:
1219:
1192:
1169:
1145:
1013:
548:
466:
88:
1903:
1870:
1814:
1796:
1703:
1682:
1456:
1370:
1334:
1250:
1234:
1119:
1110:
A cursory review did not highlight the issue I thought I recalled, so I struck the comment.
957:
949:
676:
640:
602:
452:
1159:
I hope administrators in the future will consider this principle encouragement to enforce
975:
decision below (plus a general section), so that proposals can be discussed one by one. --
8:
1761:
1717:
1504:
1480:
1393:
1324:
1091:
976:
906:
815:
660:
205:
1658:
1649:
1554:
1351:
1266:
1203:
3.3.13 Administrators who participate in Arbitration and Community Sanction enforcement
915:
885:
862:
685:
224:
1282:
1049:
803:
436:
129:
1841:
790:- this essentially adopts the community probation, which has been a mixed success...
1625:
1605:
1582:
1545:
1531:
1435:
1415:
1301:
1215:
1188:
1165:
1141:
1009:
842:
488:
477:
461:
38:
1754:, among others. Could perhaps a sentence or two be added about those accounts and
1899:
1866:
1810:
1791:
1699:
1677:
1451:
1366:
1329:
1245:
1230:
1114:
953:
939:
784:, and I'm surprised to see the overturned sanction here, but not the overturning.
672:
636:
598:
447:
158:
1713:
1665:
1601:
1412:
William M. Connolley and Marknutley, were involved in seven of eight edit wars.
1389:
902:
664:
169:
replacing post I removed earlier, this is the best place for it after all"
140:
533:
1645:
1550:
1347:
1298:
numbering from the table of contents when you create a subsection title here.
1262:
1160:
1027:
1022:
I think you came up with a pretty good scheme and propose it be continued. ++
995:
881:
858:
709:
504:
1943:
of the PD. The substance was essentially the same, but it was more concise.
1362:
69:
1565:
Please don't comment here. Please put comments or new subsections above at
1229:
Agree. This is a meaningless finding, as it will have no practical effect.
1085:
1566:
659:
keeping discussion orderly, but if there are problems, please post to the
1880:
1414:
It's the repeated misconduct that shows tougher sanctions are needed. --
483:
472:
539:
935:
654:
Posting a note here to point out that the case clerk (Amorymeltzer) is
1644:
the position of JWB should display some principles and be rational.
1664:
We've had substantial discussions about this issue over the years.
1320:
1023:
991:
705:
535:
1211:
encourages other experienced administrators to share in this work
854:
two other uninvolved admins stated they felt it should be closed
1913:
from writing an encyclopedia, neither of which arbcom can fix.
1826:
so, the finding is badly confusing, and needs to be re-written
540:
1758:(especially for new and immediately controversial accounts)?
1743:
are still blocked, which is why this statement seems iffy.
1429:
William M. Connolley: 3.2.7. to 3.2.10 and 3.3.3. to 3.3.6.
1074:
I'm confused as to why principle 15 includes the language "
782:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2
761:
778:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute
774:
William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped
1473:
is mentioned in proposed FOF #7. However, no mention of
663:
or e-mail the clerks mailing list (address should be at
1243:
I agree, I was expecting a more concrete suggestion.--
76:
1406:
3.2.6 Edit warring on Climate Change related articles
1361:
The proposed decision makes no mention of the Lar RfC
1179:
Administrators: 3.1.14 to 3.1.17 and 3.3.13 to 3.3.15
498:
1785:editor has been correctly blocked 100 times, while
1741:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive
1600:This is lighter than the restrictions mentioned at
1315:3.2.4 Disputes regarding administrator involvement
794:William M. Connolley topic-banned (Climate Change)
1579:contents when you create a subsection title here.
1185:Feel free to add new discussion subsections here.
588:that has been set up for that purpose. Please
1935:Brevity is the soul of something or the other
1292:Proposed findings of fact / Proposed remedies
768:Disputes regarding administrator involvement
153:
1043:49 (+1) separate areas may be a bit much...
240:
808:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
1732:Sockpuppetry in climate change articles
568:
14:
1639:JohnWBarber's crusade against admins
748:Neutrality and conflicts of interest
368:Revision as of 14:00, 23 August 2010
183:Revision as of 14:00, 23 August 2010
112:Revision as of 13:59, 23 August 2010
102:
68:
796:- this looks purely punitive to me.
249:
236:
197:
180:
173:
152:
121:
109:
35:
1756:the acceptable use of open proxies
371:
370:
57:
1963:
876:I am extremely disappointed with
742:Role of the Arbitration Committee
1561:Administrators: 3.3.14 to 3.3.15
503:
1469:WMC's revert parole imposed in
554:Arbitrators active on this case
164:
970:Structured discussion proposed
13:
1:
1945:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
1768:
1511:
1487:
1078:" and principle 16 contains "
780:was explicitly overturned by
758:Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
631:. As stated above, please do
614:. 17:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
366:
328:
319:
308:
299:
1760:
1503:
1479:
1092:
1086:
619:Preparations for discussions
312:== Statement by ZuluPapa5 ==
40:Browse history interactively
7:
1953:13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1923:13:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1908:13:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1893:13:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1875:12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1860:11:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1836:12:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1819:12:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1803:12:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1776:11:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1722:13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1708:13:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1689:12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1669:10:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1654:11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1634:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1614:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1591:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1540:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1519:13:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1495:13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1463:12:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1444:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1424:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1398:13:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1375:13:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1356:13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1341:13:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1310:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1286:13:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1271:12:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1257:12:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1239:11:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1224:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1197:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1174:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1150:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1126:11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1098:07:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1058:13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1035:13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1018:10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
1003:06:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
985:06:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
944:05:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
911:14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
890:09:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
867:09:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
824:07:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
722:Statement by Stephan Schulz
717:06:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
681:15:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
645:12:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
607:01:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
10:
1968:
1596:3.4.1 Enforcement by block
1525:Polargeo: 3.2.11 and 3.3.7
238:
162:
18:Knowledge talk:Arbitration
1208:The Arbitration Committee
1155:3.1.6. Casting aspersions
800:Uninvolved administrators
776:- the sanction of WMC at
326:
317:
306:
297:
260:
257:
245:ZP5 statement. Good work
221:Pending changes reviewers
179:
108:
1891:) (oops, address reset)
1388:involved" provision . -
561:To update this listing,
217:Extended confirmed users
788:Discretionary sanctions
669:general discussion page
586:general discussion page
241:→Statement by Polargeo
107:
1619:Jehochman and Franamax
896:Statement by ZuluPapa5
764:on scientific topics).
829:Statement by Polargeo
1828:William M. Connolley
1696:settle this dispute.
1573:Proposed enforcement
736:Purpose of Knowledge
650:Clerking of the case
458:Drafting arbitrators
1748:TheNeutralityDoctor
1132:Proposed principles
661:clerks' noticeboard
157:Signing comment by
563:edit this template
421:General discussion
195:
119:
1752:Climate surfer 23
1386:may be seen to be
966:
952:comment added by
804:greenhouse effect
760:is equivalent to
730:
615:
575:
569:purging the cache
546:
545:
497:
496:
492:
481:
470:
456:
445:
429:
418:
410:Proposed decision
407:
396:
385:
365:
181:
110:
90:
1959:
1801:
1799:
1794:
1772:
1764:
1687:
1685:
1680:
1515:
1507:
1491:
1483:
1461:
1459:
1454:
1410:Very important:
1339:
1337:
1332:
1255:
1253:
1248:
1124:
1122:
1117:
1100:
1094:
1088:
965:
946:
929:Reliable Sources
843:User:JohnWBarber
728:
699:Statement by Lar
609:
580:Use of this page
572:
570:
559:
541:
507:
499:
486:
475:
464:
450:
439:
423:
412:
401:
390:
379:
372:
247:
246:
244:
231:
213:
194:
189:
171:
170:
168:
155:
147:
137:
118:
91:
82:
81:
79:
74:
72:
64:
61:
43:
41:
1967:
1966:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1937:
1844:
1797:
1792:
1790:
1734:
1683:
1678:
1676:
1661:
1641:
1621:
1598:
1575:
1563:
1527:
1457:
1452:
1450:
1431:
1408:
1335:
1330:
1328:
1317:
1294:
1251:
1246:
1244:
1205:
1181:
1157:
1134:
1120:
1115:
1113:
1083:
1072:
972:
947:
931:
918:
898:
852:The claim that
831:
724:
701:
688:
652:
621:
582:
566:
556:
551:
542:
536:
512:
362:
355:
346:
341:
334:
322:
313:
302:
293:
286:
277:
270:
253:
248:
239:
237:
235:
234:
233:
229:
227:
203:
201:
196:
190:
185:
177:
175:← Previous edit
172:
163:
156:
151:
150:
149:
145:
143:
127:
125:
120:
114:
106:
105:
104:
103:
101:
100:
99:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
77:
75:
70:
67:
65:
62:
60:Content deleted
59:
56:
51:← Previous edit
48:
47:
46:
39:
34:
33:
32:
12:
11:
5:
1965:
1936:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1852:67.122.209.167
1843:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1822:
1821:
1806:
1805:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1660:
1657:
1640:
1637:
1620:
1617:
1597:
1594:
1574:
1571:
1562:
1559:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1498:
1497:
1466:
1465:
1430:
1427:
1407:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1325:Stephan Schulz
1316:
1313:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1180:
1177:
1156:
1153:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1045:
1040:
977:Stephan Schulz
971:
968:
930:
927:
926:
925:
917:
914:
897:
894:
893:
892:
870:
869:
850:
846:
830:
827:
816:Stephan Schulz
812:
811:
797:
791:
785:
771:
765:
751:
745:
739:
723:
720:
700:
697:
696:
695:
687:
684:
651:
648:
620:
617:
581:
578:
577:
576:
555:
552:
550:
547:
544:
543:
538:
534:
532:
529:
528:
527:
526:
518:
517:
514:
513:
508:
502:
495:
494:
377:Main case page
369:
364:
363:
360:
358:
356:
353:
351:
348:
347:
344:
342:
339:
336:
335:
331:
329:
327:
324:
323:
320:
318:
315:
314:
311:
309:
307:
304:
303:
300:
298:
295:
294:
291:
289:
287:
284:
282:
279:
278:
275:
273:
271:
268:
266:
263:
262:
259:
255:
254:
228:
215:
214:
199:
178:
144:
139:
138:
123:
92:
86:
84:
66:
58:
49:
45:
44:
36:
30:Climate change
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1964:
1955:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1941:earlier draft
1939:I prefer the
1924:
1920:
1916:
1915:67.117.145.46
1911:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1885:67.117.145.46
1882:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1848:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1824:
1823:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1807:
1804:
1800:
1795:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1774:
1771:
1765:
1763:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1744:
1742:
1737:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1686:
1681:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1667:
1656:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1636:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1616:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1593:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1570:
1568:
1558:
1556:
1552:
1547:
1542:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1520:
1517:
1514:
1508:
1506:
1500:
1499:
1496:
1493:
1490:
1484:
1482:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1455:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1426:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1382:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1363:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1333:
1326:
1322:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1249:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1212:
1209:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1162:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1111:
1108:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1089:
1081:
1077:
1070:Enforcement 2
1059:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1044:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
988:
987:
986:
982:
978:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
945:
941:
937:
924:
920:
919:
913:
912:
908:
904:
903:Zulu Papa 5 *
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
868:
864:
860:
855:
851:
847:
844:
839:
838:
837:
836:
826:
825:
821:
817:
809:
805:
801:
798:
795:
792:
789:
786:
783:
779:
775:
772:
769:
766:
763:
759:
755:
752:
749:
746:
743:
740:
737:
734:
733:
732:
719:
718:
715:
711:
707:
694:
690:
689:
683:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
657:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
616:
613:
608:
604:
600:
596:
591:
587:
574:
571:
564:
558:
557:
549:Preliminaries
531:
530:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
516:
515:
511:
506:
501:
500:
493:
490:
485:
479:
474:
468:
463:
459:
454:
449:
443:
438:
434:
430:
427:
422:
416:
411:
405:
400:
394:
389:
383:
378:
374:
373:
367:
359:
357:
352:
350:
349:
345:
343:
340:
338:
337:
330:
325:
321:
316:
310:
305:
301:
296:
290:
288:
283:
281:
280:
274:
272:
267:
265:
264:
256:
252:
242:
226:
222:
218:
211:
207:
202:
193:
188:
184:
176:
166:
160:
142:
135:
131:
126:
117:
113:
95:
80:
73:
63:Content added
55:
52:
42:
31:
27:
23:
19:
1938:
1845:
1786:
1782:
1766:
1759:
1755:
1745:
1738:
1735:
1695:
1662:
1642:
1622:
1599:
1577:
1576:
1564:
1543:
1528:
1509:
1502:
1485:
1478:
1432:
1411:
1409:
1385:
1380:
1344:
1318:
1296:
1295:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1184:
1158:
1136:
1135:
1109:
1106:
1079:
1075:
1073:
1050:JakeInJoisey
1042:
973:
932:
921:
899:
871:
853:
832:
813:
799:
793:
787:
773:
767:
757:
753:
747:
741:
735:
727:hour or so)
725:
702:
691:
653:
632:
622:
589:
583:
560:
509:
457:
437:Amorymeltzer
432:
431:
414:
375:
361:=Discussion=
354:=Discussion=
165:→Discussion
1881:The Deniers
1787:20 distinct
1626:JohnWBarber
1606:JohnWBarber
1583:JohnWBarber
1546:JohnWBarber
1532:JohnWBarber
1436:JohnWBarber
1416:JohnWBarber
1302:JohnWBarber
1216:JohnWBarber
1189:JohnWBarber
1166:JohnWBarber
1142:JohnWBarber
1010:JohnWBarber
948:—Preceding
845:against me.
462:Newyorkbrad
433:Case clerks
251:Next edit →
225:Rollbackers
54:Next edit →
1900:ScottyBerg
1867:Weakopedia
1811:Weakopedia
1793:SPhilbrick
1700:ScottyBerg
1679:SPhilbrick
1453:SPhilbrick
1381:appearance
1367:ScottyBerg
1331:SPhilbrick
1247:SPhilbrick
1231:ScottyBerg
1116:SPhilbrick
954:Dougweller
916:Discussion
833:Regarding
686:Statements
673:Carcharoth
637:Carcharoth
599:Carcharoth
448:Dougweller
159:Dougweller
1714:Wikidemon
1666:Jehochman
1390:Wikidemon
597:instead.
595:this page
524:Archive 1
200:ZuluPapa5
146:2,551,656
1646:Polargeo
1551:Polargeo
1348:Polargeo
1263:Polargeo
962:contribs
950:unsigned
882:Polargeo
872:Further
859:Polargeo
754:Sourcing
610:Updated
510:Archives
399:Workshop
388:Evidence
261:Line 46:
258:Line 46:
210:contribs
161:- "
134:contribs
78:Wikitext
28: |
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
1846:Why is
1675:help.--
1602:WP:GSCC
1087:east718
665:WP:AC/C
276:Further
269:Further
124:SineBot
1783:single
1161:WP:NPA
590:do not
484:Risker
482:&
473:Rlevse
471:&
446:&
89:Inline
71:Visual
1659:Blogs
1283:Shell
936:*Kat*
232:edits
230:6,447
148:edits
16:<
1949:talk
1919:talk
1904:talk
1889:talk
1871:talk
1856:talk
1832:talk
1815:talk
1770:Talk
1750:and
1718:talk
1704:talk
1650:talk
1630:talk
1610:talk
1587:talk
1555:talk
1536:talk
1513:Talk
1489:Talk
1471:2005
1440:talk
1420:talk
1394:talk
1371:talk
1352:talk
1323:and
1306:talk
1267:talk
1235:talk
1220:talk
1193:talk
1170:talk
1146:talk
1093:talk
1054:talk
1014:talk
981:talk
958:talk
940:talk
907:talk
886:talk
863:talk
820:talk
762:PNAS
677:talk
656:away
641:talk
629:here
627:and
625:here
612:here
603:talk
489:Talk
478:Talk
467:Talk
453:Talk
442:Talk
426:Talk
415:Talk
404:Talk
393:Talk
382:Talk
206:talk
192:undo
187:edit
141:Bots
130:talk
116:edit
26:Case
1842:BLP
1581:--
1321:Lar
1300:--
1187:--
1140:--
1024:Lar
992:Lar
706:Lar
633:not
1951:)
1921:)
1906:)
1873:)
1858:)
1834:)
1817:)
1762:NW
1720:)
1706:)
1652:)
1632:)
1612:)
1589:)
1569:.
1557:)
1538:)
1505:NW
1481:NW
1442:)
1422:)
1396:)
1373:)
1354:)
1308:)
1269:)
1237:)
1222:)
1195:)
1172:)
1148:)
1112:--
1096:|
1090:|
1084:—
1056:)
1026::
1016:)
994::
983:)
964:)
960:•
942:)
909:)
888:)
865:)
822:)
814:--
731::
708::
704:++
679:)
671:.
643:)
605:)
460::
435::
419:—
408:—
397:—
386:—
243::
223:,
219:,
208:|
167::
132:|
1947:(
1917:(
1902:(
1887:(
1869:(
1854:(
1830:(
1813:(
1798:T
1773:)
1767:(
1716:(
1702:(
1684:T
1648:(
1628:(
1608:(
1585:(
1553:(
1534:(
1516:)
1510:(
1492:)
1486:(
1458:T
1438:(
1418:(
1392:(
1369:(
1350:(
1336:T
1304:(
1265:(
1252:T
1233:(
1218:(
1191:(
1168:(
1144:(
1121:T
1052:(
1032:c
1030:/
1028:t
1012:(
1000:c
998:/
996:t
979:(
956:(
938:(
905:(
884:(
861:(
818:(
714:c
712:/
710:t
675:(
639:(
601:(
573:.
491:)
487:(
480:)
476:(
469:)
465:(
455:)
451:(
444:)
440:(
428:)
424:(
417:)
413:(
406:)
402:(
395:)
391:(
384:)
380:(
212:)
204:(
154:m
136:)
128:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.