Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests

2898:, and elsewhere, that SA was blocked and a ban seems to have passed because of harmless, helpful edits to articles. However, if the evidence I presented above is reviewed, the conclusion is inescapable that these "harmless" edits were intended to attack the topic ban by interpreting as mindless, testing it, then going to Arbitration Enforcement and here with complaints. The goal of these edits was not good spelling, but disruption. Too many editors have failed to notice that this request for clarification was filed by the editor who also reverted the small edits, claiming that they violated the ban, and who also filed the AE notices. That editor is a supporter of ScienceApologist, and an opponent of the ban, and they were clearly cooperating in this effort, as the evidence shows; alternatively, this editor did believe that the ban, even though a terrible idea, should be respected, but SA obviously was pleased that his testing of the ban is being noticed. Then, after the fully expected disruption occurs, it's again asserted that the edits are harmless. That so many editors have fallen for this trap demonstrates how "sectarian affiliation" can corrupt our thinking. 2623:. The plant itself may not be part of a strict reading of his topic ban, since a majority of the article wouldn't be considered "fringe science". However there is two mitigating factors in this. First of all, there is no doubt that his edit (on the homeopathic use of the plant ,or supposed homeopathic use), would generally fall under his topic ban. Secondly, he had been sanctioned under the Homeopathy ArbCom case as an AE action previously for this very same article, for the very same reasons. Now, admittedly, the sanction had been placed on him by an administrator he has a good amount of antipathy towards, but there is no doubt that he knew (or should have known) that this was either a violation of his topic ban, or at the very least, something he should have gotten clarification on before doing. 2436:. That's not a spelling correction, and is more debatable. I think SA thinks it's fringe science. I would revert him on it, but I don't want to get into an edit war. The fact that I'm reluctant to contest this sort of thing, even though 3 studies have shown an association with SLS and canker sores (PMID 7825393, PMID 8811135, PMID 9656847 -- 2 research teams) while 1 has not (PMID 10218040), gives an indication of the degree to which: 1) ScienceApologist is willing to edit-war and 2) how willing he is to remove scientific studies which do not support his POV. Even if I were to present the balanced picture, there's a good chance SA would revert. 3348:

doesn't just apply to ScienceApologist, but to others as well), then they are verging on becoming a disruptive single-purpose account. If ScienceApologist and others are only interested in editing fringe science and related articles, and are only here to fight over the articles without engaging in productive and collaborative editing, then they need to be fully topic banned, and blocked if they persist in such behaviour. Administrators should still use their judgment though - correction of typos, for example, can be ignored, and administrators should be able to judge when the line is crossed between helpful edits and engaging in disruption.

2966:

these folk need to be shown the door. If they are so devoted to the scientific method, perhaps they can congegrate in a place that dedicates itself to pursuit of knowledge over whimsy - perhaps via brief written pieces - as comprehensive as possible whilst remaining focused and direct - dedicated to individual subjects. We can only hope that these heartless monsters, void of even a hint of sympathy for alternative flim-flammery, have not the unmigitated audacity to call that project an "encyclopedia". --

3448:@Deacon of Pndapetzim, your second and third concerns apply to both motions 1 and 1.1. I do see room for further clarification with those, however my motion begins with three month of restricted editing, meaning we have time to work out the details on the topic ban that will follow. With regard to motion 1.1, the indefinite ban option would be in the hands of the committee. The community could still issue blocks of suitable durations as before, to deal with any arising issues quickly. 2941:

its enforcement. If the previous band allowed him to edit science related articles linked to pseudoscience only peripherally, the new ban should just limit him to articles unrelated to science at all. Just say that if it is in the Science, math or medicine portals, he can't edit it, for any reason. If he violates it, then someone sends an email to the arbcom list and he gets blocked by an arb on behalf of the committee (To avoid any Giano style wheel warring shenanigans).

151: 2251:

probably what Arbcom intended and they could certainly object to it when they saw it, so this specific issue isn't my concern. Admins can't just unilaterally rewrite ArbCom decisions, and especially not admins with histories on conflict with the person it'd affect, and I can't believe it's even necessary to have to clarify that to people, but I guess it is. Admins who pull things like this should be firmly warned and removed if anything similar happens again.

372: 2631:

to the Committee that this is utterly uncontroversial. I did not re-write the decision, as people above me are claiming. I logged it in a section marked "Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.". That is what I did. I stated it was an AE action, not a "Speaking for ArbCom" action.

2363:, and does a poor job of deciding who is really a problematic editor (ImperfectlyInformed? Seicer? Elonka? No, I don't think so), and (b) his approach is un-Wikipedian: if WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVILITY mean anything, they mean we don't resolve disputes by chasing away editors with a stick. The germ of truth in his statement is that we do need to be stricter in policing content, but his approach is all wrong. 2143:

science in present or past, because of the wording of "broadly construed" - or we can use a common sense approach in reading the topic ban. Excessive obsession over wording minutiae leads us away from the obvious, but I will indulge anyway to point out this: both Bainer and Coren referred to the "topic area" which implies it is the content itself, not the title of the article, that is the problem.

3491:. The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts on his return and further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email. 3720:

anonymous accounts for editing and a clear unacceptance of "the authority of the administrator making the block the arbcom's insistence that the topic ban is reasonable in any way." ScienceApologist has still to understand fully that it is all about the attitude that harms collaborative editing and that is irrespective of whether it concerns anonymous or registered accounts. --

3744:, ScienceApologist removed a whole post while keeping only one phrase which suits him. That is a violation of WP:TALK: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so." ScienceApologist could just have removed all Abd's comments and that would be fine. 2) 2517:

Arbitration Committee's ruling, for fear of being tarred and feathered as fringe science promoteres and apologists. There is a widespread misconception that ScienceApologist does a lot of good work, when most of his edits are actually controversial not because they are good science, but because they are pointy and non-neutral. Good editors who combat fringe science such as

2744:, who reverted the allegedly harmless edits, took matters to AE without necessity, and filed this request for clarification. I urge the committee to take this seriously, and to order the ban to be enforced strictly, but excluding edits promptly self-reverted or simply proposed in Talk. I will provide diffs for what I have asserted here in the collapse section below. -- 2082:

because it failed to understand how heated and wikilawyerish the fringe science area is. Either you ban somebody completely or you topic ban them in a way that leaves little doubt. SA is a science editor. Virtually all science articles have some sort of fringe component. The ban as currently written might was well be a siteban if it is going to be construed

1461:. I've looked at the talk page of the article as well, and note the interaction is civil and respectful; it appears the key question is the degree of exclusivity of this honour society, and I urge all parties to look for reliable third party sources (i.e., something other than the websites of honour societies, such as books on honour societies) to find a 3967:(I will allow myself to point out ministerially that there is an ambiguity in the motion: in the clause "unless it is approved by the Arbitration Committee", does the word "it" mean the page, or the specific edit? The next paragraph suggests the former, but this might well be clarified. This comment can be removed if the wording is adjusted.) 3028:. I'd suggest this is a product of the propose and rush decision making process the ArbCom decided for some obscure reason was best way to do such things. There is a chance here for the Committee either to undermine SirFozzie or else reaffirm SirFozzie's good faith attempt to deal with this issue. It would be best if they did the latter. 2719:. I am surprised that the ArbCom tolerate this blatant challange of the authority and trust they have been given by the Knowledge community. If the ArbCom don't make a swift and visible statement that spitting them in the face is unacceptable any troublemaker can copy this strategy and begin to ignore ArbCom rulings. 2345:

whether to be gentle or firm with SA in the wake of his just having been through Arbitration. I certainly understand that AE admins' jobs are not easy, but it would be good to "get everyone on the same page", and in that light Coren's comments below are helpful (as was Sir Fozzie's attempt to move toward clarity).

3886:

Per Kirill. Also not happy at the indefinite ban clause. In principle, I think most ArbCom bans should be a maximum of one year, only rising to indefinite if the problems recur after that. Normal indefinite bans should be the purview of administrators and community ban discussions. Would be happy for

3834:

This motion temporarily handles the ambiguity of the topic ban in an extreme way, and in a way that forces ScienceApologist to take a break from his typical editing pattern, and let others deal with the problems that he notices. If he doesnt, he is out. OTOH, I do appreciate that motion 1 will also

3425:

had the potential for confusion, because of the use of the word "clarification", which is also used by the Committee for its requests for clarification process. Stating that he was making a note of his interpretation would have avoided the confusion. As to the substance of SirFozzie's interpretation,

3326:

Am supporting this because the previous behaviour for which ScienceApologist was sanctioned persists. If ScienceApologist can follow these conditions, can edit 'fringe science' talk pages civilly and productively, and work productively on other articles for six months, then a return to editing fringe

3143:

I'm not surprised to be honest. The longest block he ever had was 96 hours, and we're suddenly talking about 3 month and 6 month bans. I guess those who support motion 1 have a lot of private evidence to justify this. But then...there is nothing private about this; I guess they wanted to keep MaxPont

2516:

While no evidence has been provided of problematic editing on my part, people nevertheless feel entitled to assume bad faith of me because of ScienceApologist's unjustified mudslinging. The widespread misinformation campaign and frequent attacks has led to administrators who are afraid to enforce the

2371:

I also appreciate that SA is under a high level of wikistress and may be more likely to "act out", but consider that he's been "acting out" all along, and is merely continuing or escalating his existing pattern of bad behavior. Seems to me it's a deliberate "fuck you" to ArbCom and those who dare to

2266:

It'd be very helpful if some of the people responding here took a minute to read and realize this is not an arbitration request on ScienceApologist. It's a request to clarify a single admin can take it upon himself to rewrite an ArbCom decision. Whether the text of the rewrite itself makes sense is a

2081:

SirFozzie can't be sanctioned because impersonating ArbCom isn't a crime. Everybody knows he's not ArbCom and that he doesn't have the power to modify a remedy. He can certainly express his common sense view on what a remedy means, which I think he did quite well. The sanction handed down was naive

3830:

I do not see this as merely giving him another chance. It is an alternative approach to how he is restricted for the next three months. It is weaker than a full ban, but if he can endure editing only a limited number of articles, what do we have to lose? I doubt that it will take much time for us

3808:

The list of acceptable pages will be maintained on a protected page in his userspace. Requests to add pages to the list must be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email, and two Committee members must approve of any addition to the list. Any committee member may remove a page from the list,

3719:

I wouldn't have chosen to comment if there has been no 1.1. So, I am giving it another 24h to see if there would be any good signs of a change in behavior. So far, nothing has changed judging by what I've just read at ScienceApologist's talk page; same usual attitude plus a kind of temptation to use

3016:

I hope the Committee will use this clarification request to tighten the wording of the ruling and support SirFozzie's action. The wording of the ruling was little less than an open invitation to gaming and a recipe for confusion. If you set that kind of thing up, you gotta give the people you expect

2965:

As everybody knows, an encyclopedia is a place where everybody feels welcomed at all times. If unrepentant tyrants of fact and the scientific method persist in their disruptive efforts to introduce and/or maintain an academically honest, intellectually valid tone to articles on fringe subjects, then

2940:

We should not treat this as a discipline problem where we punish science apologist for flouting the topic ban, but we also shouldn't lift the topic ban on the premise that his 'good' edits within the topic area have made the band absurd. We should simply reassert the ban and expand it, and simplify

2932:

Abd has a point. There is a problem when a user violates the spirit of a topic ban by making innocuous edits (or, more accurately, edits which would be innocuous if made by any other user) which has the apparent effect of forcing administrators to ignore the topic ban (and weaken it in practice) or

2715:

I sometimes see other users express surprise about the fact that ScienceApologist stir up so much controversy and that they don't understand why ScienceAplogist constantly is targeted by other users in ANI, 3RR, RFA, etc. I wonder why. It is obvious that ScienceApologist is gaming the system as much

2669:

The issue at hand is whether individual administrators have the authority to make interpretations of Arbcom's intent that are binding on other administrators. It is up to Arbcom to decide whether they want to allow this, but in either event they should make it clear. The specific concerns about SA's

2402:

threads is 1) what we've been seeing for months in this topic area, 2) therefore utterly unsurprising, and 3) the reason why some of those engaged in it are likely to end up permanently site or topic banned due to a demonstrated inability to edit productively in a collaborative environment. I think

1293:

article is protected, but being edited daily by Lhakthong. Please settle dispute over why there is preferential treatment given by admin (unknown to Angtitimo) to Lhakthong who is being allowed to edit a protected or semi-protected article as of 02/29/2009. Lhakthong is editing it daily apparently

3812:

The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts after the three months of restricted editing. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be

3347:

and so on - there are a wealth of science articles out there that ScienceApologist could usefully edit). ArbCom cannot force people to move away from a contentious area and contribute in different areas, but if someone does persistently edit disruptively and tendentiously in the same area (and this

3284:

recourse left to the committee is the regrettable option of excluding him from participation entirely. I am dismayed and disappointed by his stated intent to ignore the restriction and am forced to remind him that this will inevitably result in a complete ban unless he changes tack immediately. —

2630:

I did not block SA, although many would argue I had good reason to at this point. Instead, I issued a clarification from myself as an AE admin, to make it clear where the boundaries are, to avoid him or his supporters claiming that I had "moved the goalposts on him" if a block had occured. I submit

2615:

This is a rather rough situation. The case involved, Fringe Science, closed about ten days ago. Since then, AE has been flooded with the same people, who are still fighting the same wars, in the same ways. We have a user, who's openly declared that he intends to push the boundaries of his topic ban

2564:

Unless I've missed something here, I must endorse Dreamguy's position. Administrators cannot just alter Arbcom decisions willy-nilly according to their own interpretations. Surely such actions are reserved for this very "Clarifications" section! Whether SirFozzie's interpretation is right or wrong,

2344:

Reasons for admins' lack of action seem to include their disagreeing with the decision and therefore refusing to enforce it (shouldn't they just recuse in that case?), opting to err on the side of decorum over difficult enforcement decisions, and not quite knowing what balance to strike in terms of

2331:

Those are a lot more worrisome to me, in terms of the topic ban, than the correction of spelling errors. SA has continued in his battleground mode, trying to make life as miserable as possible for those whose content views he opposes (and I also agree with I.I. that for a supposed "science editor"

3397:

An addendum that I meant to write in earlier,but didn't: when I voted to support the topic ban, it was meant to be a topic ban. Fixing typos is blatantly trying to "slightly violate" it so that those that support SA can say "Oh, he was only correcting typos" when it was pretty clear that it was at

3127:

sanctions are not appropriate. As with the old ArbCom before the recent election, the main interest here does not appear finding a good solution that allows SA to resume productive editing, but to uphold the authority of the Committee no matter what. But real authority does not derive from process

2730:

My conclusion from review of what SA has written about these edits is that he is deliberately pushing the edges of the topic ban, and that he's being supported in that by at least one editor. There is substantial evidence for disruptive intent. ("Harmless edits" to articles and sections covered by

2250:

a rewording to ArbCom, but it should be explicitly agreed upon by all the people who voted for the conclusion or else it has no validity. I don't care what the issue is, it's a matter of principle and simple functioning of this site in general. The reason I didn't post originally is I figured it's

2142:

should also fall under the microscope. Otherwise, in order to make the restriction effective, we must go with the plaintext reading, leaving ScienceApologist topic banned from any article that touches the subject of fringe science or fields that are pseduoscientific, or have been related to fringe

3431:

On the related matter of ScienceApologist's ban, there seems to be some confusion, for some unknown reason. Under the ban, ScienceApologist "is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months." There are no exceptions. If an article

2948:

But it avoids the appearance of a non-binding remedy. It avoids the inevitable spiral that flouting with topic bans brings. And it avoids the drama around blocking and reblocking a member of the community about whom many admins have strong feelings (whether they know it or not). Or, to be more

2739:

complicating arbitration enforcement, which would be self-reversion, allowing other editors to quickly incorporate truly non-controversial edits. When we topic-ban an editor, we lose something (possibly valuable contributions), and we only do it when it's considered necessary to avoid disruption.

2652:

I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of civil disobedience. I do not believe it is WP:POINT violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Knowledge by doing this. I

2146:

It is my opinion that SirFozzie's clarification serves an obvious purpose: he is essentially publishing his interpretation of the remedy's intent and wording, and thus putting upfront under what conditions he as an administrator will block under - and other admins can endorse his opinion (as I do

2129:

fringe science - paranormal activity, UFOlogy, and so forth. Unfortunately, confounding the issue, some science is "fringe" in that it is generally not considered science, and some science is simply unpopular or in legitimate dispute (is my position that Pluto is a planet "fringe?"). In addition,

4260:

has acted appropriately and within administrator discretion by interpreting the remedy and by clearly explaining his interpretation despite misunderstandings about the best form and forum in which to clarify his reasoning. The Committee thanks and commends him for this, and his considerable past

2155:

has shown, the administrators are not getting it. It is the natural result of this situation that AE admins are left to make interpretations on the fly and on the ground - and that overriding such a decision should only be done when there is significant need. If the Committee chooses to disagree

2104:

There are two basic ways to interpret SirFozzie's action. First, as part of the normal discretion implied and neccesary in having to interpret terms such as "broadly construed" and the generally wide berth that admins are given to enforce arbitration remedies, or 2. as an extra-procedural, but I

4032:

2) Administrators are given interpretive leeway when reasonably enforcing arbitration decisions and are expected to explain their rationale at their earliest opportunity in discussion or edit summary. Formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a

3588:

No sign of a behavior change. Yesterday, I gave ScienceApologist 24h to see if some light appears at the end of the tunnel but unfortunately nothing has changed. See at 'Comments' sections below. As an aside note regarding the typos, I'd say it is behavior that should be fixed rather than typos

2150:

If it is the opinion of the Committee that SirFozzie's action was confusing or distressingly extraprocedural, the solution is to quickly come to a clarification, preferably one endorsing SirFozzie's interpretation. Let me remind the Committee however, that Aribtration Enforcement is a difficult

3318:

In my view, Sir Fozzie's clarification should not have been done as an Arbitration Enforcement action and logged at the case page, but should have been filed here as a request for the arbitrators to make the necessary clarification. Having said that, I would endorse such a clarification, as my

3270:

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the restriction is meant to prevent ScienceApologist from interacting in topic areas where he has already shown difficulty maintaining the appropriate decorum, and where his interactions with other editors have been antagonistic and destructive. Editing

3283:

ScienceApologist would do well to remember that the topic ban was implemented as a last resort to allow an otherwise good editor to continue contributing in areas where he is not so prone to cause disruption and drama— and that absent serious intent to correct the behavioral problems the only

2692:

If SA corrects a spelling error (or reverts clear and blatant vandalism) on a "fringe science" article, and someone blocks him for it, that will be stupid. If he does the same, and someone reports him to AE for it, they should be cautionned for being vexatious, and blocked for repeat offences

2410:

I also think Chillum's suggestion is likely what is needed to change this user's current behavior pattern - the boundary needs to be made very clear and any crossing of that boundary needs to result in sanctions. Currently the boundary we have is an article space topic ban, and Sir Fozzie's

2868:

SA has stated that he's practicing "civil disobedience." Those who do so know it is disruptive, and they expect to be arrested. Accordingly, even though normally SA would not have been blocked for minor technical ban violations that were truly non-controversial, some of the edits weren't so

2626:

I decided that a firm clarification was necessary to ensure that the boundary was made clear. I made it clear that I did not speak for the Arbitration Commitee, or any of its members (In the interests of full disclosure, I did briefly discuss the situation with one member of the Arbitration

2511:

and also, in that edit, clarified that the epidemiological studies finding lower heart disease among high vitamin E consumers was not orthomolecular, but mainstream. No explanation has been provided for removing the material, but it appears that I will have trouble working it into the

2431:. It's a typical edit for ScienceApologist, where he changed "a homeopathic mixture may have few to no molecules" to "there is none" and it obviously relates to fringe science, broadly construed. It's a fairly pointy and trivial edit; I don't see why this clarification is necessary. 3275:

the spirit of the restriction by making minor or trivial edits in banned topic is a deliberately provocative maneuver of the kind that has been warned against in general. Such edits are not acceptable, despite the legalistic rationalization proffered (indeed, the invocation of

3031:... And also, it'd probably be good if -- for the sake of clarity -- one of the arbs launched a motion tightening the wording in the ruling. We're here now anyway. :) Note also that the wording is, I suspsect, particularly unclear to admins with a non-scientific background. 2245:

I almost posted to the ArbCom decision page to ask how on earth some random admin thought he had the authority to rewrite the text of one of the conclusions and present it as if it were valid. ArbCom should be the ones doing that stuff. He is certainly within his rights to

2108:

The exact wording of the remedy is as follows: "3.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles."

2046: 2944:

That solution is unpleasant for a number of reasons. It puts pressure on the arbs, of whom there are far fewer than they are admins watching AE. It broadly (and probably unfairly) restricts science apologist. It opens the door for other topic ban considerations.

2953:

and more that his struggle represents the balance in the encyclopedia as a whole between openness and rigor; between allowing cranks and banning dissent. In cases like that, the community becomes a relatively poor judge of conduct and the committee must step in.

2905:

that he could indeed make those harmless edits, quickly, and with much more overall efficiency than the permitted Talk page edits. The reason is obvious: this would require voluntary cooperation with the ban, in order to improve the project in spite of it. SA can

3017:

to enforce it leeway to uphold the ruling's spirit. SirFozzie's action was an attempt to do this. In my case, I wasn't quite sure the clarification would "stick", and added my support so that it might. If SirFozzie wished to be more judicious, he could have used

3804:

page in any namespace outside his own userspace, unless the page has been approved by the Arbitration Committee. Any instances of misbehaviour during this three month period will be dealt with by an indefinite ban at the discretion of an individual arbitrator.

2873:

and given the manifest disruptive intent, he should be short-blocked to confirm that ArbComm sanctions will be enforced, and he should be warned that continued violations, even if merely "technical," will result in further action. It is not about spelling.

1865: 2936:

We can't know science apologist's state of mind, so we don't know if this is testing the water, practicing civil disobedience, or simply the course of normal editing by an editor with a powerful routine. As a practical matter, there isn't a difference.

2340:

WP:AE admins are declining to sanction SA for valid complaints users have brought over his continued misconduct: and I don't mean just the spelling errors, I mean SA's frivolous complaints to AE, which are self-evidently escalatory and vengeful.

1772: 1314:

rule. I have suggested that the third and fourth sentences be qualified to indicate that other similar societies are factually just as large and selective, if not larger or more selective. There is factual and verifiable information I listed in

1008: 3070:

This doesn't clear it up. It is still unclear if edits about fringe science in articles not necessarily within the fringe science topic count. Also, remember not all admins are scientists who'll know what ... plants are and are not subject to

3330:

To expand on that: I supported the topic ban of ScienceApologist in the hope that he would restrict himself to civil and collaborative talk page edits regarding fringe science topics and articles, and would also work on other articles (such as

3756:

again before blanking his talk page. That's enough evidence that ScienceApologist believes he can still keep doing what he likes to do even under ArbCom lenses. I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. I am therefore supporting a ban. --

2048: 2054:

The Arbitration Committee was appointed to decide difficult cases. Decide. Don't fob your responsibilities onto the admin corps. No two users seem to agree on what the topic ban covers. Does it cover a simple article on plants, such as

3398:

best testing whether or not we were going to follow though on it. Not sure how my fellow arbs interpreted it when they supported, but when I see a topic ban, then the party better not be editing that topic, i don't care what the edit is.

3432:

relates to fringe science topics (whether this condition is met is a matter for the enforcing admin, or the consensus among enforcing admins where more than one admin is involved) then ScienceApologist may not edit it. Simple as that. --

2267:

side issue (people can agree that it would make a good clarification without agreeing on whether it the edits were made properly), and everything else is a completely off-topic tangent that doesn't belong here. 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1778: 1014: 3421:, or some other relevant venue. It's entirely reasonable, and indeed desirable, for admins to be making note of the way that they are interpreting decisions when they take enforcement actions under them. However, SirFozzie's posting 3025: 1612: 2661: 2124:

on any such article, even the most uncontroversial. In other words, un-watchlist and walk away, you don't belong here. What others have interpreted it as is articles only tightly related to fringe science, or which the subject

1802: 1038: 1820: 1796: 1056: 1032: 2684: 2462:

The above allegations ignore the fact that I have probably done as much or more to suppress fringe science than he has, because I use references and clarify the facts. For example, I added the first critical reference on

2800:

Note that the community wasn't "punishing people for correcting mispellings." The problem with the minor corrections wasn't raised by general community members, who were mostly counseling ignoring these edits, but by

2171:

ScienceApologist is not improving the encyclopedia by making typo fixes in a topic banned area. Perhaps he was trying to, and I'm sure the fixes themselves were helpful, but the level of drama and disruption that was

3320: 3008: 3589:

because this is a collaborative project and making it look like a bloody battleground is really more harmful than leaving 2 typos unfixed —someone may fix them but ScienceApologist still has to fix his behavior.--

2156:

significantly and say so, it should also be the first of many acts showing the dedication of the Committee to become more responsive and involved in the administrator work done to enforce Arbitration decisions.--

1593:

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at

3115: 2420: 3214: 2137:

Fozzie's interpretation more accurately addresses what I believe was the intent of the committee: to keep ScienceApologist from editing on topics he has shown a history of problematic behavior, and thus the

2957: 2355:"I'm not at all convinced that the way I've been doing it clearly won't work. It is important to piss off people who are problematic. Otherwise they stick around and make the entire endeavor problematic." 2050: 2191: 2878:(A self-reverted, non-disruptive edit should not considered violation, but merely a more efficient "proposed edit" than if in Talk, and any editor, taking responsibility, can then implement in seconds.) 2446: 2579: 2271: 2456:

He has said that "it is important to piss off people who are problematic. Otherwise they stick around and make the entire endeavor problematic", and he seems to think that I'm one of those people

4022: 2980: 1833: 1069: 1354: 2556: 2033: 1986: 2722: 2407:

behavior change their editing habits and edit collaboratively with those with whom they disagree, but this sort of behavior, unchanged, is likely to end up with some of them site banned.

2237: 2387: 1270:. Lhakthong and Angtitimo agreed on 03/10/2009 to bring the contentious issue to arbitration after failing to agree on wording of lead, and continuing, daily edits by Lhakthong of the 3327:

science articles would be possible. If the behaviour persists on other articles, I would support extending the topic ban to other areas. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

2670:

behavior should be dealt with separately after the larger issue is clarified, and there should be no sanction against the muppet Knight Batchelor for taking initiative in a gray area.

2096: 3831:

to approve a few articles for him to work on each week. If it is working well, but consuming too much of our time, we could ask another member of the community to do the approvals.

2067:

in that article, can he remove it? SA has many antagonists who are ready to jump in and claim that SA is violating the topic ban. The decision in this case has made a total mess at

2486: 3220:

As stated on the proposed decision page, I have recused on issues relating to ScienceApologist because of his role in helping set up the New York meet-ups and Chapter meetings.

2112:

The key terms are "any article" and "broadly construed" The simplest and plain text reading of the remedy would allow any administrator to block ScienceApologist if he edits on

1809: 1785: 1045: 1021: 2134:

is not restricted, even if it is to say "Chinese medicine is a pseudoscientific fraud" - which is clearly related to fringe science topic, but is not a fringe science article.

1975: 2176:

has NOT improved anything. Improve the encyclopedia does not mean "I'm right, and the rest of you can go to hell." That attitude belongs in your own private space and work.--

4048: 2679: 3162: 593: 128: 3527:; sadly, ScienceApologist seems to have confused this Committee's attempt at giving him an opportunity to contribute constructively with a game to be "won" or "lost". — 2924: 2707: 3382:

Coren hit the nail on the head. If this continues a ban will be in order, quite simply. As Carc said as well, an admin cannot unilaterally change the meaning of a case.

2840:

I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of

2052: 3252:

meant to include article whose primary topic is fringe science and pseudoscience. The notation that the topic area is to be "broadly construed" is exactly that — the

3047: 2859:

If he believed that the edits were not disruptive, the ensuing flap, with multiple AE reports and this clarification request, should be ample evidence to the contrary.

1748: 1414: 984: 790: 630: 462: 3835:

give him time to clear his head, and will endorse that remedy if he does not like the look of motion 1.1, or if he rants and raves when he comes back from his block.

1393: 249: 112: 100: 2607: 2279: 1553: 1732: 1377: 968: 2220:

Motion 1.1 is pretty good as it makes others accountable for fringe science while enabling me to continue editing the 5 to 10 articles I normally edit each week.

1536: 1519: 775: 395: 116: 96: 2822:

I will continue to edit fringe science articles to improve them to protest the idiocy of arbcom as an object-lesson in how irrelevant and out-of-touch they are.

1496: 1474: 1445: 1298:; and 2) Improper editing by Lhakthong. Lhakthong continues to edit contentious lead by making the non-neutral, POV, misleading and unqualified "claims" that 108: 3460: 2702: 2229: 1675: 911: 624: 3916:

Per Kirill, plus (i) he's already had his chance with the topic ban and (ii) no indication whatsoever that he understands the problem with his behaviour. —

3042: 2854: 2658:

I apologize to the Committee for the length of my statement, and if anyone wants to summarize, I will move the remaining part of mystatement off this page

2529: 4380: 4148: 3887:

some form of the above to take place after three months, or to be discussed during the suggested review after one month referred to in my comment above.

3123:

This is an amazing failure of ArbCom so far. Yes, SA is brusque. But he is an overall positive force for the project. Escalating and increasingly shrill

3107: 1323:

on the part of anyone because information is available and factual concerning equally very selective honor societies which were reference in Talk Page.

3924: 3583: 3056:

1) "Any instances of misbehaviour during this three month period will be dealt with by an indefinite ban at the discretion of an individual arbitrator."

2551: 4430: 4330: 4098: 3560: 3153: 3896: 3076:

3) "Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email."

3021:

and placed any restriction to the same effect. So it'd be the same, whether or not the Fringe science case explicitly ruled on discretionary powers.

2735:). I have suggested how SA could make truly noncontroversial edits such that I would vigorously defend his right to improve the project in such ways, 2634:

ScienceApologist has stated in various ways that he will continue to defy his topic ban. He made a statement as an announcement on his talk page that

4317: 4198: 3911: 3652: 3536:

Three months actually feels light to me, I'd prefer six. But throwing in another motion will delay us further, the sooner this is passed the better.

2395:

Sir Fozzie's action is an obviously valid interpretation of the arbcomm remedy. I thus fully endorse the first five paragraphs of Tznkai's comment.

1867: 588: 4400: 4362: 4349: 4168: 4130: 3953: 3740:

Just after coming back today ScienceApologist went to his talk page and started to alter Abd's posts by changing the whole content of the posts: 1)

3574: 3506: 4471: 4084: 3546: 3137: 620: 416: 408: 301: 283: 4372: 4289: 4117: 3881: 3735: 3631: 3604: 3422: 2212: 1995: 4238: 4014: 3994: 3933: 3704: 3465: 3203: 4140: 4061: 3519: 3441: 3408: 2599: 2090: 2025: 4454: 4302: 4221: 4070: 3977: 3687: 3676: 3531: 3229: 2975: 1626: 1405:

is protected only from page moves and not from content. No question of violation of protected page policy therefore arises. And per Wizardman.

862: 3825: 3772: 3357: 2342: 2310: 3392: 3018: 562: 3929:

No. I see no reason to expend so much effort to accommodate an editor that is not intent on being collaborative, as amply demonstrated. —

3863: 3377: 3243: 2041:

The topic ban placed on ScienceApologist has proven highly problematic. It has lead to intense wikilawyering and campaigning for blocks on

4276: 3280:

is particularly egregious given that ignoring the behavioral community rules is what caused the sanction to be applied in the first place).

2200: 346: 306: 216: 3841: 3454: 3313: 2185: 412: 90:(Null edit: Per suggestion, please consider the last edit summary to mean "rv erroneous arithmetic to version agreed by clerks") 55:(Null edit: Per suggestion, please consider the last edit summary to mean "rv erroneous arithmetic to version agreed by clerks") 3288: 582: 427: 405: 2329: 3323:

should make clear. i.e. The restriction should apply to any fringe science topic in any article. I will repeat here what I said there:

2411:

interpretation makes the boundary clearer so is a good step toward implementing Chillum's suggestion. The next step is enforcing it.

2381: 2372:

disagree with him. Enough double standards and apologetics. Please take a firm stand on how handle this loose cannon of an editor. --

2291: 831: 798: 779: 767: 663: 615: 553: 472: 400: 2528:

I've noticed that he very rarely adds references. If he wants to combat pseudoscience, using references is the way to go. A review of

3095: 2547: 2320:

Some of us (including some arbs, cf. below) evidently want to expand the discussion to the root of the problem. No offense intended.

1560: 578: 3260:

mean that every article that discuss fringe science incidentally or passingly are under the ban, but the sections or passages which

2574: 2075: 2007: 1332: 3003: 689: 558: 278: 2653:

also believe that I am in good standing with WP:IAR. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring.

2449:

and called me a POV pusher and "terrible editor", but the only diff he was able to provide was of me noting through a source that

2260: 2675: 568: 548: 431: 2415: 4246: 1896: 1849: 1483: 1202: 1150: 1085: 794: 573: 486: 467: 3182:

Right, thanks for bringing it to our attention SirFozzie, clarification will be forthcoming. I was concerned this may happen.

3079:

How would an AE admin know of these clarifications? They would need to know if they're expected to enforce the ruling, surely.

2165: 536: 2919: 2902: 2889: 2753: 2731:

the ban complicate Arbitration enforcement, requiring discussion of edit content, plus SA has stated defiant intent claiming

2536:

for deletion. On the other hand, I add probably an average of 1-2 peer-reviewed journal references, often reviews, per edit.

1281: 607: 498: 176: 2910:

improve the project, even if blocked, if that's his goal. I won't detail how unless someone asks. Too many words already. --

2532:

also shows that he has been editing fringe health science topics exclusively yesterday and today, although he also proposed

2848:

violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Knowledge by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with

1118: 531: 3208: 3197: 3748:, ScienceApologist started to remove the posts and that is legitimate. However, he just replaced them with "'Comment by, 1650: 886: 786: 457: 386: 3177: 2509: 2671: 2663: 1603: 4421:

Recuse per comments above, but I certainly join in thanking SirFozzie for his record of contributions to the project.

3753: 3745: 3741: 2835: 2824: 2812: 2795: 2793:, which, I believe, they have. What I believe this will comes down to is punishing people for correcting misspellings. 2784: 2777: 2717: 2635: 2457: 2357: 2298: 2398:

Instead of the sixth paragraph, I note that the sort of boundary pushing and rules lawyering evidenced in the recent

1711: 947: 2526:

I can't recall ever seeing him add a reference, and I haven't been able to find any in a search of his contributions

2332:

SA is remarkably parsimonious in his offering of sources, instead preferring to edit war over contentious language).

3067:

2) "for the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means 'entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic'"

339: 2471: 2468: 2429: 2434: 2203:

that was gaining traction (maybe) but the arbitration closed before all arbitrators had a chance to consider it.

1939: 1890: 1618: 1196: 1144: 854: 758: 523: 363: 313: 156: 3024:

SA was going out his way to exploit the wording to maximum effect. It's despiriting to see arbitrators actually

2433:

Other post-ArbCom edits include removing a reference that sodium lauryl sulfate is associated with canker sores

2130:

this would also mean that edits that in themselves concern fringe science, are not restricted. Thus, an edit to

4489: 4345: 4113: 3859: 3627: 3193: 3102: 3089: 3037: 2698: 2508:'s pet therapies, high-dose vitamin E for heart disease, was debunked by two RCTs, one in 1950 and one in 1974 2328:

My experiences have been similar to I.I.'s, including being the target of one of SA's frivolous WP:AE actions.

1515: 1310:" all-discipline honor society, and by wording the third and fourth sentences in the lead as "claims" to evade 509: 271: 266: 211: 104: 3877:

Excessively complex; given our workload, we shouldn't be inserting ourselves into approving day-to-day edits.

1103: 2543: 2490: 2482: 1951: 1640: 876: 444: 226: 3565:

As a direct consequence of the reaction to the topic ban. Would be prepared to review in one month's time.

1969: 1957: 1259: 762: 754: 682: 494: 392: 171: 84: 43: 3128:

and the exercise of power, but from wise or at least well-considered decisions. This one does not work. --

761:

considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the

1945: 1920: 1631: 1226: 1174: 867: 504: 422: 332: 191: 4435:

Abstain, but I certainly join in thanking SirFozzie for his fine record of contributions to the project.

2521:

do not have major issues because they use references and present both sides. They are highly effective.

2494: 4252:

Note: There are 12 active arbitrators (plus 3 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 7.

4028:

Note: There are 12 active arbitrators (plus 3 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 7.

3471:

Note: There are 11 active arbitrators (plus 4 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 6.

2895: 2441:

In other news, ScienceApologist has now decided to up his campaign of false allegations and bad faith:

2225: 2208: 1963: 1908: 1214: 1162: 765:. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see 543: 2497:-- which largely entailed showing that toxic effects to DNA and organs seem to occur, if at all, at a 3097: 3084: 3032: 3010: 2988:

Yes, let's ban someone for improving the project. This ban will show how well ArbCom is functioning.

2870: 2694: 2686: 2595: 2485:

which put most of them into "disproven" or "scientifically implausible", based mainly on references,

2524:

Since ScienceApologist feels so comfortable calling me a "terrible editor", I can honestly say that

1874:

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

1337: 3133: 2537: 2504:

Most recently I've faced opposition from ScienceApologist for using references to show that one of

2438:

Actually, the above is all false. Looks like he was just removing it from the lead. My apologies.

2422: 1636: 1482:. As Sam has pointed out, the page is only protect against edits by very new users who are not yet 1098: 872: 73: 32: 4326: 4094: 3795: 3556: 3488: 2505: 1914: 1410: 1220: 1168: 675: 244: 2817:

SA knows that if minor corrections can be made, as if there were no ban, the toe is in the door.

3437: 2971: 261: 4089:

This is to codify an understanding which has previously always been acknowledged in practice.

2627:

Committee, but that was little more then a "I'm sure this will be kicked up to you" notice".)

4426: 4194: 3973: 3783: 3648: 3476: 3225: 3149: 2221: 2204: 2193: 1902: 1208: 1156: 745: 382: 206: 17: 4358: 4126: 3892: 3570: 3353: 2591: 2581: 1549: 1319:

to show that claims made by Lhakthong are false and baseless. There is no need to do any

136: 733: 8: 4377: 4145: 3878: 3580: 3129: 3117: 2570: 2021: 2003: 1933: 1884: 1599: 1328: 1247: 1242: 1190: 1138: 1114: 726: 256: 221: 196: 59: 2359:

I'm sure he genuinely believes this; the problem is that (a) he has some qualities of a

1583: 1576: 1487: 1127: 712: 4467: 4395: 4339: 4322: 4234: 4163: 4107: 4090: 4009: 3990: 3948: 3853: 3767: 3730: 3700: 3621: 3599: 3552: 3372: 3239: 3187: 2997: 2841: 2772: 2450: 2377: 2306: 2287: 2256: 1568: 1532: 1509: 1406: 1316: 1267: 1252: 719: 704: 201: 2120:

relation to fringe science, no matter how minute the relationship. This would include

4269: 4041: 3917: 3787: 3499: 3480: 3433: 3417:

The decisions of the Committee will often need to be interpreted by admins acting at

2967: 2959: 2620: 2464: 2453:, which includes liability as well as property insurance, is problematically defined. 2360: 1386: 778:, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to 27: 2478: 4447: 4422: 4285: 4214: 4190: 4057: 3969: 3791: 3669: 3644: 3515: 3484: 3306: 3221: 3173: 3145: 2404: 2181: 2161: 2056: 1470: 1438: 1364: 80: 39: 3901:

Per Kirill, we gave him a chance with the topic ban, so we should he get another?

2565:

it's a breach of process to go about it this way and that needs to be made clear.

4354: 4122: 3888: 3566: 3349: 2845: 2495:

clarified exactly what the National Research Council found on fluoride's toxicity

2152: 2131: 2060: 1545: 3264:

are covered. The ban isn't meant to include or exclude specific articles but a

4308: 4257: 4075: 3902: 3537: 3399: 3383: 2852:. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring. 2810:

If the community doesn't want to enforce a topic ban, is it really a topic ban?

2741: 2609: 2566: 2558: 2518: 2087: 2072: 2035: 2017: 1999: 1988: 1928: 1879: 1462: 1368: 1324: 1185: 1133: 1110: 140: 1342: 647: 4483: 4463: 4386: 4335: 4230: 4154: 4103: 4000: 3986: 3939: 3849: 3848:

in the interests of article building and neogtiating some form of consensus.

3758: 3721: 3696: 3617: 3590: 3363: 3277: 3235: 3183: 2915: 2885: 2849: 2830: 2790: 2749: 2732: 2645: 2641: 2373: 2302: 2283: 2273: 2252: 2239: 1528: 1505: 1458: 1402: 1299: 1295: 1290: 1271: 2619:

ScienceApologist knew exactly what he was doing in his edits on the article

2493:

which found no support that it's a physical condition in the lead, and I've

651: 3418: 2926: 2709: 2412: 2399: 2389: 2068: 2064: 2042: 1998:. Is this valid? How could an outside user looking in know this was valid? 1595: 1454: 1423: 4438: 4368: 4281: 4205: 4136: 4053: 3837: 3821: 3683: 3660: 3511: 3450: 3297: 3169: 2989: 2982: 2177: 2157: 2151:

matter, and the administrators need a great deal of support, and as this

2098: 1598:. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the 1492: 1466: 1429: 64: 4299: 4067: 3930: 3528: 3285: 3026:

debating the meaning of their own decision before they actually made it

4261:

efforts in helping in the difficult area of arbitration enforcement.

3551:

I regret that ScienceApologist's actions make this action necessary.

3344: 3336: 2590:. And as a side question, how many fairies fit on the head of a pin? 371: 1773:

Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

1009:

Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

845:

Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

3749: 2911: 2881: 2745: 2724: 649: 2016:

Thank you for your haste in dealing with this. It is appreciated.

3786:

is restricted from freely editing Knowledge for three months for

3340: 3332: 3059:

This would take it out of the community's hand. Is this intended?

2789:

Bans are legitimate only inasmuch as the community has abandoned

2501:

higher dose than one will get in any dose from fluoridated water.

2533: 652: 1846: 1745: 1705: 1693: 1647: 1082: 981: 941: 929: 883: 653: 3579:

Unfortunately necessary, given the failure of the topic ban.

817: 2716:

as possible and expresses strong defiance against the ArbCom

2199:

One solution may be to simply lift the topic ban. There was

774:

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or

4023:

Motion to clarify the interpretative role of administrators

2949:

fair to him, it is less that we have strong feelings about

2403:

the encyclopedia would be better off if those caught up in

2105:

would argue correct modification to an Arbitration remedy.

1311: 824:

This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

3256:

is off-limits for edition by ScienceApologist. This does

2740:

Here, disruption is being created, with the assistance of

1821:

Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

1797:

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)

1057:

Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

1033:

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)

62:

to this revision, which may differ significantly from the

2470:

and recently summarized what the past studies have found

3809:

at any time, with a notification to his user talk page.

2933:

enforce it by blocking an editor for innocuous edits.

1613:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

1602:. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to 2071:. You've made the situation worse rather than better. 1320: 1235:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

818:

Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

3938:

See my rationale at the 'Comments' section above. --

1363:, this is a content dispute, which we don't rule on. 1355:

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/0)

805:

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

3813:made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email. 832:

Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case

3248:First, the clarification proper: the topic ban is 1349:This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks. 1868:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science 4481: 3752:, cold fusion promoter removed." He then did it 2428:The edit which brought this "clarification" is 135:WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for 3479:is banned from Knowledge for three months for 2990: 3019:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy 2367:Compassion vs. enabling and double-standards 2336:ArbCom and WP:AE admins not on the same page 810: 683: 340: 3798:. He is not permitted to make any edit to 2998: 2349:ScienceApologist still adheres to his M.O. 1490:, and should be able to edit the page now. 1286:Dispute was raised by above filing party: 2324:Concurrence with User:ImperfectlyInformed 2147:now) as the interpretation they will use. 690: 676: 347: 333: 4387: 4155: 4001: 3940: 3759: 3722: 3591: 3364: 2447:recently called for a community ban of me 1856:No arbitrator motions are currently open. 1701:Currently, no arbitration cases are open. 1092:No arbitrator motions are currently open. 937:Currently, no arbitration cases are open. 3362:Enough said by Coren and Carcharoth. -- 2616:in every way, shape and form possible. 1465:reference source for this information. 1422:. Content issue and not much attempt at 757:for conduct disputes on Knowledge. The 53: 3268:, wherever in articles it may be found. 1544:, per above. No further advice to add. 72:Revision as of 10:47, 12 March 2009 by 71: 14: 4482: 3144:happy (see also his statement above). 2805:with SA's consent, to test the limits. 4388: 4156: 4002: 3941: 3760: 3723: 3592: 3365: 3321:section on the proposed decision page 3168:Recuse, will be making a statement.-- 50: 31: 2481:, I supported the categorization of 2477:reference to shed some light on the 1749:Clarification and Amendment requests 985:Clarification and Amendment requests 463:Clarification and Amendment requests 23: 3466:Motion to sanction ScienceApologist 1676:Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke 912:Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke 125: 94: 2903:contemptuously rejected suggestion 2782:I think it's time for a test case. 2479:origin of the laetrile controversy 2301:from ScienceApologist himself. -- 2059:? Can SA work on an article like 1604:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration 126: 4501: 4294:Arbitration enforcement is often 2894:I am seeing it asserted here, on 2489:putting the systematic review of 2316:Comment re Dreamguy's admonition 1562:Clarifications and other requests 1486:. Angtitimo, you have cross the 1258:Confirmation that other steps in 58:. The present address (URL) is a 3048:Queries about sanction proposals 2655:(From AE, diff coming shortly). 1994:SirFozzie "clarified" this case 370: 149: 3215:Arbitrator views and discussion 811:Request a new arbitration case 13: 1: 2672:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 2664:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 2491:multiple chemical sensitivity 2483:alternative cancer treatments 2201:another proposal called "3.2" 2174:inevitable and likely planned 1608:Place new requests at the top 3616:pending alternate proposal. 3093:) 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1866:Request for clarification : 1453:- content dispute. Consider 838: 791:/Clarification and Amendment 594:Conflict of interest reports 7: 4189:Recuse per comments above. 4033:request for clarification. 3965:Recuse per comments above. 3643:Recuse per comments above. 1457:or even a content-oriented 785:This page transcludes from 423:Search archived proceedings 30:of this page, as edited by 10: 4506: 4472:07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4455:20:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4431:19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4401:08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4381:07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4373:03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4363:03:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4350:03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4331:18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4318:17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4303:17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4290:17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4277:17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4247:Motion regarding SirFozzie 4239:07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4222:20:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4199:19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4169:08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4149:07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4141:03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4131:03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4118:03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 4099:18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4085:17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4071:17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4062:17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4049:17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 4015:08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3995:07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3978:04:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3954:06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 3934:12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3925:10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3912:10:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3897:09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3882:07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3864:04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3842:12:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3826:03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3773:06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 3736:08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3705:07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3688:03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3677:20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3653:19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3632:03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3605:06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 3584:07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3575:03:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3561:18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3547:17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3532:17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3520:17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3507:17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3455:04:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3442:14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3409:02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3209:00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3154:17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3138:16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3108:04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 3043:23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 3004:10:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2976:09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 2920:13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2896:User talk:ScienceApologist 2230:02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 2186:14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 2026:14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1566: 1554:09:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 1537:04:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 1520:03:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 1497:02:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 1475:01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 1446:00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 1415:00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 1394:23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1378:23:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1333:22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 1119:22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 702: 468:Arbitrator motion requests 129:Template:Active editnotice 3393:03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC) 3378:23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3358:14:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3314:01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 3289:23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 3244:21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 3230:15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 3198:19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 3178:15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 3011:User:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2890:04:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) 2844:. I do not believe it is 2754:17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 2703:21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2687:User:William M. Connolley 2680:20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2600:19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2575:18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2552:18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2416:17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2382:23:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 2311:17:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2292:17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2261:17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2213:16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2166:16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2091:21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2076:15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 2063:? If SA finds unsourced 2008:14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 1766: 1763: 1760: 1757: 1725: 1722: 1668: 1665: 1662: 1659: 1002: 999: 996: 993: 961: 958: 904: 901: 898: 895: 3999:See my comment at 1. -- 1561: 302:Administrator assistance 4298:thankless of a job. — 3419:arbitration enforcement 2648:rulings made about him. 2506:orthomolecular medicine 1596:Arbitration enforcement 1455:a third opinion request 1367:might be a better bet. 776:discretionary sanctions 3329: 2901:To nail this down, SA 1708:Recently closed cases 1385:, per my colleague. — 1338:Statement by Lhakthong 1282:Statement by Angtitimo 944:Recently closed cases 279:Resolution noticeboard 4490:Knowledge arbitration 3324: 1619:Arbitration Committee 1504:. per all preceding. 855:Arbitration Committee 780:/Requests/Enforcement 759:Arbitration Committee 664:Track related changes 524:Arbitration Committee 364:Knowledge Arbitration 212:Discuss on talk pages 207:Be open to compromise 18:Knowledge:Arbitration 4462:, as noted above. -- 4229:, as noted above. -- 3985:, as noted above. -- 3695:, as noted above. -- 3098:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3085:Deacon of Pndapetzim 3033:Deacon of Pndapetzim 2695:William M. Connolley 1733:Historical elections 1294:to market/advertise 969:Historical elections 768:guide to arbitration 473:Enforcement requests 401:Guide to arbitration 137:Knowledge:RfA Review 51:10:47, 12 March 2009 3118:User:Stephan Schulz 2833:all arbcom rulings. 2423:ImperfectlyInformed 2153:request for comment 1459:request for comment 1248:User talk:Angtitimo 1243:User talk:Lhakthong 101:← Previous revision 3052:@ John Vandenberg 2871:(see edit summary) 2842:civil disobedience 2773:civil disobedience 2527: 2467:for heart disease 2451:casualty insurance 2437: 2013:Comment to ArbCom 1850:Arbitrator motions 1683:16 September 2024 1317:Talk:Phi Kappa Phi 1268:Talk:Phi Kappa Phi 1260:dispute resolution 1253:Talk:Phi Kappa Phi 1086:Arbitrator motions 919:16 September 2024 839:Arbitrator motions 763:arbitration policy 755:dispute resolution 495:Contentious topics 393:Arbitration policy 217:Failure to discuss 172:Dispute resolution 4399: 4167: 4013: 3968: 3952: 3771: 3734: 3603: 3376: 3294:Well said Coren. 3105: 3092: 3040: 3002: 2960:User:Badger Drink 2879: 2865: 2864: 2621:Atropa belladonna 2530:his contributions 2525: 2465:chelation therapy 2432: 2280:What Chillum said 2116:article that has 1843: 1842: 1839:8 September 2024 1829: 1742: 1741: 1690: 1689: 1262:have been tried. 1079: 1078: 1075:8 September 2024 1065: 978: 977: 926: 925: 846: 825: 700: 699: 667: 635: 505:General sanctions 453:All open requests 383:About arbitration 357: 356: 192:Assume good faith 4497: 4453: 4450: 4397: 4394: 4391: 4390: 4371: 4315: 4274: 4220: 4217: 4165: 4162: 4159: 4158: 4139: 4082: 4046: 4011: 4008: 4005: 4004: 3966: 3950: 3947: 3944: 3943: 3922: 3909: 3840: 3824: 3784:ScienceApologist 3769: 3766: 3763: 3762: 3732: 3729: 3726: 3725: 3686: 3681:For the moment. 3675: 3672: 3601: 3598: 3595: 3594: 3544: 3504: 3477:ScienceApologist 3453: 3426:I agree with it. 3406: 3390: 3374: 3371: 3368: 3367: 3312: 3309: 3206: 3101: 3088: 3036: 3000: 2996: 2994: 2877: 2759: 2758: 2540: 2473:, I used an old 2222:ScienceApologist 2205:ScienceApologist 2194:ScienceApologist 2057:Atropa belladona 1979: 1924: 1897:deleted contribs 1828: 1825: 1755: 1754: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1657: 1656: 1586: 1579: 1563: 1495: 1444: 1441: 1391: 1375: 1230: 1203:deleted contribs 1178: 1151:deleted contribs 1128:Involved parties 1099:Current requests 1064: 1061: 991: 990: 956: 955: 951: 893: 892: 844: 823: 736: 729: 722: 715: 692: 685: 678: 666: 661: 654: 633: 589:Clerk procedures 581: 539: 510:Editor sanctions 487:Active sanctions 445:Open proceedings 415: 374: 360: 359: 349: 342: 335: 322: 310: 294:Conduct disputes 286: 274: 267:Request comments 252: 237:Content disputes 229: 168: 167: 163: 161: 153: 152: 113:Newer revision → 91: 88: 67: 65:current revision 57: 56: 52: 48: 47: 4505: 4504: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4480: 4479: 4448: 4436: 4396: 4369:John Vandenberg 4367: 4309: 4270: 4249: 4215: 4203: 4164: 4137:John Vandenberg 4135: 4076: 4042: 4025: 4010: 3949: 3918: 3903: 3838:John Vandenberg 3836: 3822:John Vandenberg 3820: 3768: 3731: 3684:John Vandenberg 3682: 3670: 3658: 3600: 3538: 3500: 3468: 3463: 3451:John Vandenberg 3449: 3400: 3384: 3373: 3319:comment at the 3307: 3295: 3217: 3204: 3165: 3121: 3050: 3014: 2986: 2963: 2930: 2866: 2803:SA's supporter, 2771:I'm practicing 2764: 2728: 2713: 2690: 2667: 2613: 2592:ChildofMidnight 2585: 2582:ChildofMidnight 2562: 2538: 2426: 2393: 2277: 2243: 2197: 2132:Chinese culture 2102: 2061:Gamma-ray burst 2039: 1992: 1931: 1882: 1871: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1853: 1852: 1845: 1844: 1826: 1815:17 August 2024 1752: 1751: 1744: 1743: 1717: 1716: 1709: 1704: 1703: 1698: 1697: 1692: 1691: 1654: 1653: 1646: 1632:purge this page 1622: 1590: 1589: 1582: 1575: 1571: 1565: 1493:John Vandenberg 1491: 1484:"autoconfirmed" 1439: 1427: 1387: 1369: 1357: 1345: 1340: 1284: 1188: 1136: 1130: 1106: 1101: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1089: 1088: 1081: 1080: 1062: 1051:17 August 2024 988: 987: 980: 979: 953: 952: 945: 940: 939: 934: 933: 928: 927: 890: 889: 882: 868:purge this page 858: 851: 740: 739: 732: 725: 718: 711: 707: 701: 696: 662: 656: 655: 650: 640: 639: 638: 627: 610: 600: 599: 598: 585: 577: 565: 540: 535: 526: 516: 515: 514: 489: 479: 478: 477: 447: 437: 434: 419: 411: 389: 353: 317: 305: 282: 270: 248: 225: 166: 165: 159: 157: 154: 150: 124: 123: 122: 121: 120: 105:Latest revision 93: 92: 89: 78: 76: 63: 54: 37: 35: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4503: 4493: 4492: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4457: 4433: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4383: 4375: 4365: 4352: 4333: 4320: 4305: 4292: 4279: 4248: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4224: 4201: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4151: 4143: 4133: 4120: 4101: 4087: 4073: 4064: 4051: 4024: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 3997: 3980: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3936: 3927: 3914: 3899: 3884: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3866: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3832: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3712: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3690: 3679: 3655: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3586: 3577: 3563: 3549: 3534: 3522: 3509: 3467: 3464: 3462: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3445: 3444: 3428: 3427: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3380: 3360: 3316: 3292: 3246: 3232: 3216: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3200: 3180: 3164: 3161: 3159: 3157: 3156: 3130:Stephan Schulz 3120: 3114: 3112: 3081: 3080: 3077: 3073: 3072: 3068: 3061: 3060: 3057: 3049: 3046: 3013: 3007: 2985: 2979: 2962: 2956: 2929: 2923: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2819: 2818: 2807: 2806: 2766: 2765: 2762: 2757: 2727: 2721: 2712: 2706: 2689: 2683: 2666: 2660: 2612: 2606: 2604: 2584: 2578: 2561: 2555: 2519:User:Eubulides 2514: 2513: 2502: 2460: 2454: 2425: 2419: 2392: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2365: 2364: 2353:In his words: 2347: 2346: 2334: 2333: 2322: 2321: 2314: 2313: 2276: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2242: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2196: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2101: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2038: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 1991: 1985: 1983: 1981: 1980: 1926: 1870: 1864: 1862: 1854: 1848: 1847: 1841: 1840: 1837: 1830: 1823: 1817: 1816: 1813: 1806: 1799: 1793: 1792: 1789: 1782: 1775: 1769: 1768: 1765: 1762: 1759: 1753: 1747: 1746: 1740: 1739: 1736: 1728: 1727: 1724: 1718: 1707: 1706: 1699: 1695: 1694: 1688: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1679: 1671: 1670: 1667: 1664: 1661: 1655: 1649: 1648: 1645: 1644: 1634: 1629: 1627:recent changes 1623: 1617: 1616: 1588: 1587: 1580: 1572: 1567: 1564: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1539: 1522: 1499: 1477: 1448: 1417: 1396: 1380: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1344: 1341: 1339: 1336: 1308:most selective 1283: 1280: 1278: 1276: 1275: 1256: 1255: 1250: 1245: 1239: 1238: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1183: 1129: 1126: 1124: 1105: 1102: 1100: 1097: 1090: 1084: 1083: 1077: 1076: 1073: 1066: 1059: 1053: 1052: 1049: 1042: 1035: 1029: 1028: 1025: 1018: 1011: 1005: 1004: 1001: 998: 995: 989: 983: 982: 976: 975: 972: 964: 963: 960: 954: 943: 942: 935: 931: 930: 924: 923: 920: 917: 915: 907: 906: 903: 900: 897: 891: 885: 884: 881: 880: 870: 865: 863:recent changes 859: 853: 852: 850: 849: 848: 847: 835: 828: 827: 826: 814: 803: 738: 737: 730: 723: 716: 708: 703: 698: 697: 695: 694: 687: 680: 672: 669: 668: 658: 657: 648: 646: 645: 642: 641: 637: 636: 628: 623: 618: 612: 611: 606: 605: 602: 601: 597: 596: 591: 586: 576: 571: 566: 561: 556: 551: 546: 541: 534: 528: 527: 522: 521: 518: 517: 513: 512: 507: 502: 491: 490: 485: 484: 481: 480: 476: 475: 470: 465: 460: 455: 449: 448: 443: 442: 439: 438: 436: 435: 430: 425: 420: 410: 403: 398: 390: 385: 379: 376: 375: 367: 366: 358: 355: 354: 352: 351: 344: 337: 329: 326: 325: 324: 323: 311: 296: 295: 291: 290: 289: 288: 276: 264: 259: 254: 239: 238: 234: 233: 232: 231: 219: 214: 209: 204: 199: 194: 186: 185: 181: 180: 174: 155: 148: 147: 146: 145: 74: 60:permanent link 33: 22: 21: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4502: 4491: 4488: 4487: 4485: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4458: 4456: 4451: 4445: 4444: 4442: 4434: 4432: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4419: 4417: 4416: 4411: 4410: 4408: 4407: 4402: 4398: 4392: 4384: 4382: 4379: 4376: 4374: 4370: 4366: 4364: 4360: 4356: 4353: 4351: 4347: 4344: 4341: 4337: 4334: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4323:Sam Blacketer 4321: 4319: 4316: 4314: 4313: 4306: 4304: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4280: 4278: 4275: 4273: 4267: 4266: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4259: 4254: 4253: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4225: 4223: 4218: 4212: 4211: 4209: 4202: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4187: 4185: 4184: 4179: 4178: 4176: 4175: 4170: 4166: 4160: 4152: 4150: 4147: 4144: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4121: 4119: 4115: 4112: 4109: 4105: 4102: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4091:Sam Blacketer 4088: 4086: 4083: 4081: 4080: 4074: 4072: 4069: 4065: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4052: 4050: 4047: 4045: 4039: 4038: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4030: 4029: 4016: 4012: 4006: 3998: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3981: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3964: 3963: 3961: 3960: 3955: 3951: 3945: 3937: 3935: 3932: 3928: 3926: 3923: 3921: 3915: 3913: 3910: 3908: 3907: 3900: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3885: 3883: 3880: 3876: 3875: 3873: 3872: 3867: 3865: 3861: 3858: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3833: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3818: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3803: 3802: 3797: 3796:wikilawyering 3793: 3789: 3785: 3774: 3770: 3764: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3733: 3727: 3718: 3717: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3691: 3689: 3685: 3680: 3678: 3673: 3667: 3666: 3664: 3656: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3641: 3639: 3638: 3633: 3629: 3626: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3614: 3612: 3611: 3606: 3602: 3596: 3587: 3585: 3582: 3578: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3553:Sam Blacketer 3550: 3548: 3545: 3543: 3542: 3535: 3533: 3530: 3526: 3523: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3510: 3508: 3505: 3503: 3497: 3496: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3490: 3489:wikilawyering 3486: 3482: 3478: 3473: 3472: 3456: 3452: 3447: 3446: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3430: 3429: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3415: 3410: 3407: 3405: 3404: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3391: 3389: 3388: 3381: 3379: 3375: 3369: 3361: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3328: 3322: 3317: 3315: 3310: 3304: 3303: 3301: 3293: 3291: 3290: 3287: 3281: 3279: 3274: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3210: 3207: 3201: 3199: 3195: 3192: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3166: 3160: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3126: 3119: 3116:Statement by 3113: 3110: 3109: 3104: 3099: 3096: 3094: 3091: 3086: 3078: 3075: 3074: 3069: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3058: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3045: 3044: 3039: 3034: 3029: 3027: 3022: 3020: 3012: 3006: 3005: 3001: 2995: 2993: 2984: 2981:Statement by 2978: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2961: 2958:Statement by 2955: 2952: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2928: 2925:Statement by 2922: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2904: 2899: 2897: 2892: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2875: 2872: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2853: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2837: 2836: 2834: 2832: 2826: 2825: 2823: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2811: 2804: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2794: 2792: 2786: 2785: 2783: 2779: 2778: 2776: 2774: 2768: 2767: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2738: 2734: 2726: 2723:Statement by 2720: 2718: 2711: 2708:Statement by 2705: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2688: 2685:Statement by 2682: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2665: 2662:Statement by 2659: 2656: 2654: 2649: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2638: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2622: 2617: 2611: 2608:Statement by 2605: 2602: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2583: 2580:Statement by 2577: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2560: 2557:Statement by 2554: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2535: 2531: 2522: 2520: 2510: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2469: 2466: 2461: 2458: 2455: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2439: 2435: 2430: 2424: 2421:Statement by 2418: 2417: 2414: 2408: 2406: 2401: 2396: 2391: 2388:Statement by 2383: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2362: 2358: 2356: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2343: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2330: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2275: 2274:User:Middle 8 2272:Statement by 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2249: 2241: 2238:Statement by 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2195: 2192:Statement by 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2154: 2148: 2144: 2141: 2135: 2133: 2128: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2110: 2106: 2100: 2097:Statement by 2092: 2089: 2085: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2053: 2051: 2049: 2047: 2044: 2037: 2034:Statement by 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1990: 1987:Statement by 1984: 1977: 1974: 1971: 1968: 1965: 1962: 1959: 1956: 1953: 1950: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1935: 1930: 1927: 1922: 1919: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1907: 1904: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1881: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1869: 1863: 1857: 1851: 1838: 1835: 1831: 1824: 1822: 1819: 1818: 1814: 1811: 1807: 1805: 1804: 1800: 1798: 1795: 1794: 1791:26 July 2024 1790: 1787: 1783: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1774: 1771: 1770: 1758:Request name 1756: 1750: 1737: 1735: 1734: 1730: 1729: 1721: 1713: 1702: 1685: 1682: 1680: 1678: 1677: 1673: 1672: 1660:Request name 1658: 1652: 1651:Case requests 1643:this template 1642: 1638: 1635: 1633: 1630: 1628: 1625: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1611: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1585: 1581: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1570: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1527:, per above. 1526: 1523: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1500: 1498: 1494: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1478: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1449: 1447: 1442: 1436: 1435: 1433: 1425: 1421: 1418: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407:Sam Blacketer 1404: 1403:Phi Kappa Phi 1400: 1397: 1395: 1392: 1390: 1384: 1381: 1379: 1376: 1374: 1373: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1358: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1335: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1300:Phi Kappa Phi 1297: 1296:Phi Kappa Phi 1292: 1291:Phi Kappa Phi 1287: 1279: 1273: 1272:Phi Kappa Phi 1269: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1261: 1254: 1251: 1249: 1246: 1244: 1241: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1233: 1228: 1225: 1222: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1187: 1184: 1182: 1176: 1173: 1170: 1167: 1164: 1161: 1158: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1135: 1132: 1131: 1125: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1109:Initiated by 1104:Phi Kappa Phi 1093: 1087: 1074: 1071: 1067: 1060: 1058: 1055: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1041: 1040: 1036: 1034: 1031: 1030: 1027:26 July 2024 1026: 1023: 1019: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1010: 1007: 1006: 994:Request name 992: 986: 973: 971: 970: 966: 965: 957: 949: 938: 921: 918: 916: 914: 913: 909: 908: 896:Request name 894: 888: 887:Case requests 879:this template 878: 874: 871: 869: 866: 864: 861: 860: 856: 843: 842: 841: 840: 836: 834: 833: 829: 822: 821: 820: 819: 815: 813: 812: 808: 807: 806: 802: 800: 796: 792: 788: 783: 781: 777: 772: 770: 769: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 747: 735: 731: 728: 724: 721: 717: 714: 710: 709: 706: 693: 688: 686: 681: 679: 674: 673: 671: 670: 665: 660: 659: 644: 643: 632: 629: 626: 622: 619: 617: 614: 613: 609: 604: 603: 595: 592: 590: 587: 584: 580: 575: 572: 570: 567: 564: 560: 557: 555: 552: 550: 547: 545: 542: 538: 533: 530: 529: 525: 520: 519: 511: 508: 506: 503: 500: 496: 493: 492: 488: 483: 482: 474: 471: 469: 466: 464: 461: 459: 458:Case requests 456: 454: 451: 450: 446: 441: 440: 433: 429: 426: 424: 421: 418: 414: 409: 407: 404: 402: 399: 397: 394: 391: 388: 384: 381: 380: 378: 377: 373: 369: 368: 365: 362: 361: 350: 345: 343: 338: 336: 331: 330: 328: 327: 320: 315: 312: 308: 303: 300: 299: 298: 297: 293: 292: 285: 280: 277: 273: 268: 265: 263: 260: 258: 255: 251: 246: 245:Third opinion 243: 242: 241: 240: 236: 235: 228: 223: 220: 218: 215: 213: 210: 208: 205: 203: 200: 198: 197:Use etiquette 195: 193: 190: 189: 188: 187: 183: 182: 178: 173: 170: 169: 164: 144: 142: 138: 133: 132: 131: 130: 118: 114: 110: 106: 102: 98: 86: 82: 77: 70: 69: 66: 61: 45: 41: 36: 29: 19: 4459: 4440: 4439: 4342: 4311: 4310: 4295: 4272:Roger Davies 4271: 4255: 4251: 4250: 4226: 4207: 4206: 4153:Per Sam. -- 4110: 4078: 4077: 4044:Roger Davies 4043: 4031: 4027: 4026: 3982: 3920:Roger Davies 3919: 3905: 3904: 3856: 3811: 3807: 3800: 3799: 3781: 3711: 3692: 3662: 3661: 3624: 3540: 3539: 3524: 3502:Roger Davies 3501: 3474: 3470: 3469: 3402: 3401: 3386: 3385: 3325: 3299: 3298: 3282: 3272: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3190: 3158: 3124: 3122: 3111: 3083: 3082: 3062: 3051: 3030: 3023: 3015: 2991: 2987: 2968:Badger Drink 2964: 2950: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927:User:Protonk 2907: 2900: 2893: 2876: 2867: 2839: 2838: 2828: 2827: 2821: 2820: 2809: 2808: 2802: 2788: 2787: 2781: 2780: 2770: 2769: 2736: 2729: 2714: 2710:User:MaxPont 2691: 2668: 2657: 2651: 2640: 2636: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2618: 2614: 2603: 2588:Speedy close 2587: 2586: 2563: 2523: 2515: 2498: 2474: 2440: 2427: 2409: 2405:battleground 2397: 2394: 2366: 2354: 2348: 2335: 2323: 2315: 2278: 2247: 2244: 2198: 2173: 2149: 2145: 2139: 2136: 2126: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2083: 2040: 1993: 1982: 1972: 1966: 1960: 1954: 1948: 1942: 1936: 1917: 1911: 1905: 1899: 1893: 1887: 1873: 1872: 1861: 1855: 1801: 1777: 1738:13 Sep 2024 1731: 1700: 1674: 1607: 1592: 1591: 1541: 1524: 1512: 1501: 1479: 1450: 1431: 1430: 1419: 1398: 1389:Roger Davies 1388: 1382: 1371: 1370: 1360: 1348: 1307: 1303: 1288: 1285: 1277: 1257: 1223: 1217: 1211: 1205: 1199: 1193: 1181:filing party 1180: 1171: 1165: 1159: 1153: 1147: 1141: 1123: 1108: 1107: 1091: 1037: 1013: 974:13 Sep 2024 967: 936: 910: 837: 830: 816: 809: 804: 799:/Enforcement 784: 773: 766: 750: 744:request for 743: 741: 452: 318: 262:Noticeboards 134: 127: 28:old revision 25: 24: 4423:Newyorkbrad 4307:Of course. 4191:Newyorkbrad 3970:Newyorkbrad 3645:Newyorkbrad 3234:Recused. -- 3222:Newyorkbrad 3163:Clerk notes 3146:Ncmvocalist 2983:User:Verbal 2646:arbitration 2487:I suggested 2140:edit itself 1952:protections 1925:(initiator) 1621:proceedings 1343:Clerk notes 857:proceedings 746:arbitration 428:Ban appeals 406:Noticeboard 314:Arbitration 158:Arbitration 26:This is an 4355:Carcharoth 4123:Carcharoth 3889:Carcharoth 3788:disruption 3716:Comments: 3567:Carcharoth 3481:disruption 3350:Carcharoth 3009:Statement 2829:This user 2637:This user 2361:WP:FANATIC 1964:page moves 1915:block user 1909:filter log 1834:orig. case 1810:orig. case 1786:orig. case 1723:Case name 1712:Past cases 1696:Open cases 1666:Initiated 1546:Carcharoth 1221:block user 1215:filter log 1169:block user 1163:filter log 1070:orig. case 1046:orig. case 1022:orig. case 959:Case name 948:Past cases 932:Open cases 902:Initiated 634:(pre-2016) 621:Statistics 554:Procedures 4418:Abstain: 4312:Wizardman 4265:Support: 4258:SirFozzie 4186:Abstain: 4079:Wizardman 4037:Support: 3962:Abstain: 3906:Wizardman 3817:Support: 3640:Abstain: 3541:Wizardman 3495:Support: 3403:Wizardman 3387:Wizardman 3345:astronomy 3337:chemistry 3250:primarily 3202:Recuse - 3071:fringing. 2869:innocent, 2742:Hipocrite 2610:SirFozzie 2567:Gatoclass 2559:Gatoclass 2088:Jehochman 2086:broadly. 2073:Jehochman 2036:Jehochman 2018:Hipocrite 2000:Hipocrite 1989:Hipocrite 1958:deletions 1929:SirFozzie 1921:block log 1880:Hipocrite 1600:Talk page 1569:Shortcuts 1488:threshold 1372:Wizardman 1365:WP:MEDCAB 1325:Angtitimo 1227:block log 1186:Lhakthong 1175:block log 1134:Angtitimo 1111:Angtitimo 734:WP:ARBREQ 705:Shortcuts 559:Elections 257:Mediation 222:Help desk 162:Committee 4484:Category 4464:Vassyana 4409:Oppose: 4389:FayssalF 4346:contribs 4336:Casliber 4231:Vassyana 4177:Oppose: 4157:FayssalF 4114:contribs 4104:Casliber 4003:FayssalF 3987:Vassyana 3942:FayssalF 3874:Oppose: 3860:contribs 3850:Casliber 3761:FayssalF 3724:FayssalF 3697:Vassyana 3628:contribs 3618:Casliber 3613:Oppose: 3593:FayssalF 3366:FayssalF 3236:Vassyana 3205:Tiptoety 3194:contribs 3184:Casliber 3125:punitive 2846:WP:POINT 2763:Evidence 2725:User:Abd 2512:article. 2374:Middle 8 2303:Middle 8 2299:this gem 2284:Middle 8 2253:DreamGuy 2240:DreamGuy 2122:any edit 1940:contribs 1891:contribs 1761:Motions 1663:Motions 1529:Vassyana 1516:contribs 1506:Casliber 1302:is the " 1274:article. 1197:contribs 1145:contribs 997:Motions 899:Motions 795:/Motions 753:step of 727:WP:ARB/R 202:Be civil 177:Requests 85:contribs 44:contribs 3657:Abstain 3525:Support 3461:Motions 3341:biology 3333:physics 2831:ignores 2737:without 2642:ignores 2475:Science 2413:GRBerry 2390:GRBerry 2248:suggest 1767:Posted 1726:Closed 1641:discuss 1584:WP:RCAM 1577:WP:RFAC 1542:Decline 1525:Decline 1502:Decline 1480:Decline 1463:neutral 1451:Decline 1420:Decline 1399:Decline 1383:Decline 1361:Decline 1306:" and " 1304:largest 1003:Posted 962:Closed 877:discuss 749:is the 713:WP:RFAR 631:Reports 569:History 549:Members 544:Contact 532:Discuss 396:(CU/OS) 319:Request 307:Request 284:Request 272:Request 250:Request 227:Request 141:WP:RREV 4460:Recuse 4378:Kirill 4282:Risker 4227:Recuse 4146:Kirill 4054:Risker 3983:Recuse 3879:Kirill 3792:gaming 3693:Recuse 3581:Kirill 3512:Risker 3485:gaming 3434:bainer 3278:WP:IAR 3273:around 3170:Tznkai 3063:@ all 2992:Verbal 2850:WP:IAR 2791:WP:IAR 2733:WP:IAR 2534:Elonka 2178:Tznkai 2158:Tznkai 2099:Tznkai 1970:rights 1946:blocks 1803:Motion 1779:Motion 1686:4/0/0 1669:Votes 1467:Risker 1039:Motion 1015:Motion 922:4/0/0 905:Votes 797:, and 720:WP:A/R 574:Clerks 432:Report 75:Daniel 34:Daniel 4443:levse 4300:Coren 4210:levse 4068:Coren 3931:Coren 3782:1.1) 3754:twice 3665:levse 3529:Coren 3302:levse 3286:Coren 3266:topic 3254:topic 2908:still 2400:WP:AE 2069:WP:AE 2065:WP:OR 2043:WP:AE 1764:Case 1434:levse 1424:WP:DR 1000:Case 787:/Case 608:Audit 16:< 4468:talk 4449:Talk 4427:talk 4359:talk 4340:talk 4327:talk 4286:talk 4235:talk 4216:Talk 4195:talk 4127:talk 4108:talk 4095:talk 4058:talk 3991:talk 3974:talk 3893:talk 3854:talk 3794:and 3746:Then 3742:Here 3701:talk 3671:Talk 3649:talk 3622:talk 3571:talk 3557:talk 3516:talk 3487:and 3438:talk 3423:here 3354:talk 3308:Talk 3240:talk 3226:talk 3188:talk 3174:talk 3150:talk 3134:talk 3103:Talk 3090:Talk 3038:Talk 2999:chat 2972:talk 2916:talk 2886:talk 2750:talk 2699:talk 2676:talk 2650:and 2644:all 2596:talk 2571:talk 2499:much 2378:talk 2307:talk 2297:And 2288:talk 2282:. -- 2257:talk 2226:talk 2209:talk 2182:talk 2162:talk 2084:that 2022:talk 2004:talk 1996:here 1934:talk 1903:logs 1885:talk 1827:none 1637:view 1550:talk 1533:talk 1510:talk 1471:talk 1440:Talk 1411:talk 1329:talk 1312:NPOV 1266:See 1209:logs 1191:talk 1157:logs 1139:talk 1115:talk 1063:none 873:view 751:last 625:Talk 616:Talk 583:Talk 563:Talk 417:Talk 387:Talk 184:Tips 117:diff 111:) | 109:diff 97:diff 81:talk 40:talk 4385:-- 4296:too 4256:3) 3801:any 3750:Abd 3475:1) 3258:not 2951:him 2912:Abd 2882:Abd 2746:Abd 2542:| ( 2445:He 2118:any 2114:any 1976:RfA 1639:or 1289:1) 875:or 499:Log 49:at 4486:: 4470:) 4452:• 4446:• 4437:— 4429:) 4393:- 4361:) 4348:) 4329:) 4288:) 4268:— 4237:) 4219:• 4213:• 4204:— 4197:) 4161:- 4129:) 4116:) 4097:) 4066:— 4060:) 4040:— 4007:- 3993:) 3976:) 3946:- 3895:) 3862:) 3790:, 3765:- 3728:- 3703:) 3674:• 3668:• 3659:— 3651:) 3630:) 3597:- 3573:) 3559:) 3518:) 3498:— 3483:, 3440:) 3370:- 3356:) 3343:, 3339:, 3335:, 3311:• 3305:• 3296:— 3262:do 3242:) 3228:) 3196:) 3176:) 3152:) 3136:) 3106:) 3041:) 2974:) 2918:) 2888:) 2880:-- 2752:) 2701:) 2678:) 2598:) 2573:) 2550:) 2546:- 2539:II 2380:) 2309:) 2290:) 2259:) 2228:) 2211:) 2184:) 2164:) 2127:is 2024:) 2006:) 1836:) 1812:) 1788:) 1606:. 1552:) 1535:) 1518:) 1473:) 1443:• 1437:• 1428:— 1413:) 1401:. 1331:) 1321:OR 1179:, 1117:) 1072:) 1048:) 1024:) 801:. 793:, 789:, 782:. 771:. 742:A 143:). 103:| 99:) 83:| 42:| 4466:( 4441:R 4425:( 4357:( 4343:· 4338:( 4325:( 4284:( 4233:( 4208:R 4193:( 4125:( 4111:· 4106:( 4093:( 4056:( 3989:( 3972:( 3891:( 3857:· 3852:( 3699:( 3663:R 3647:( 3625:· 3620:( 3569:( 3555:( 3514:( 3436:( 3352:( 3300:R 3238:( 3224:( 3191:· 3186:( 3172:( 3148:( 3132:( 3100:( 3087:( 3035:( 2970:( 2914:( 2884:( 2775:. 2748:( 2697:( 2674:( 2594:( 2569:( 2548:c 2544:t 2459:. 2376:( 2305:( 2286:( 2255:( 2224:( 2207:( 2180:( 2160:( 2045:. 2020:( 2002:( 1978:) 1973:· 1967:· 1961:· 1955:· 1949:· 1943:· 1937:· 1932:( 1923:) 1918:· 1912:· 1906:· 1900:· 1894:· 1888:· 1883:( 1832:( 1808:( 1784:( 1714:) 1710:( 1610:. 1548:( 1531:( 1513:· 1508:( 1469:( 1432:R 1426:. 1409:( 1327:( 1229:) 1224:· 1218:· 1212:· 1206:· 1200:· 1194:· 1189:( 1177:) 1172:· 1166:· 1160:· 1154:· 1148:· 1142:· 1137:( 1113:( 1068:( 1044:( 1020:( 950:) 946:( 691:e 684:t 677:v 579:+ 537:+ 501:) 497:( 413:+ 348:e 341:t 334:v 321:) 316:( 309:) 304:( 287:) 281:( 275:) 269:( 253:) 247:( 230:) 224:( 179:) 175:( 160: 139:( 119:) 115:( 107:( 95:( 87:) 79:( 68:. 46:) 38:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Arbitration/Requests - Knowledge

Index