2918:, 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.
2643:. 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.
2456:. 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.
3368:
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.
2986:
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". --
3468:@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.
2961:
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).
171:
2271:
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.
392:
2651:
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.
2383:, 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.
2163:
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.
3511:. 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.
3740:
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. --
3764:, 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)
2537:
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
2764:, 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. --
2102:
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
1481:. 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
3987:(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.)
3048:. 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.
2739:. 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.
2365:
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).
3906:
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
3854:
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
3445:
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,
3346:
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
3163:
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
2536:
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
2391:
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
2286:
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
2101:
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
3850:
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
3828:
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,
3739:
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
3036:
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
2985:
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
2960:
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
2952:
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
2735:
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
2689:
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
2422:
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
1313:
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
3832:
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
3367:
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
3304:
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. —
2650:
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
2635:
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
2584:
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,
2364:
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
2351:
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"
3417:
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
3147:
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
2750:
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
2270:
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
2162:
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
3451:
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
2968:
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
2759:
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.
2672:
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
2166:
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
2149:
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
2175:
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
2124:
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
3608:
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
2170:
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
3338:
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
3290:
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
3303:
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
2712:
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
2430:
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
2888:
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
2646:
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
2531:
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
2451:. 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.
3295:
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
3051:... 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.
2265:
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
2128:
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."
2066:
2964:
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.
2973:
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.
2925:
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
3037:
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
3824:
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.
2893:
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.
1885:
2956:
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.
2360:
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.
1792:
1334:
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
1028:
3090:
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
3350:
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
3776:
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. --
2068:
2074:
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
3418:
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.
3452:
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. --
2287:
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)
1798:
1034:
3441:, 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
3045:
1632:
2681:
2144:
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
1822:
1058:
1840:
1816:
1076:
1052:
2704:
2482:
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
2820:
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
2191:
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
3340:
3028:
3609:
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.--
2176:
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.--
1613:
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
3135:
2440:
3234:
2157:
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
2977:
2375:"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."
2070:
2211:
2898:(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.)
2466:
2599:
2291:
2476:
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:
3000:
1853:
1089:
1374:
2576:
2053:
2006:
2742:
2427:
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.
2257:
2407:
1290:. 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
3347:
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)
2690:
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.
2116:
3851:
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.
2087:
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
2506:
3240:
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.
2132:
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
1829:
1805:
1065:
1041:
2154:
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.
1995:
2196:
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:
2699:
3182:
613:
148:
3547:; 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". —
2944:
2727:
3402:
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.
2860:
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
2072:
3272:
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
3067:
2879:
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.
1768:
1434:
1004:
810:
650:
482:
3855:
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.
1413:
269:
132:
120:
2627:
2299:
1573:
1752:
1397:
988:
2240:
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.
1556:
1539:
795:
415:
136:
116:
2842:
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.
1516:
1494:
1465:
1318:; and 2) Improper editing by Lhakthong. Lhakthong continues to edit contentious lead by making the non-neutral, POV, misleading and unqualified "claims" that
128:
3480:
2722:
2249:
1695:
931:
644:
3936:
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. —
3062:
2874:
2678:
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
2549:
4380:
4148:
3907:
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.
3143:
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
3127:
1343:
on the part of anyone because information is available and factual concerning equally very selective honor societies which were reference in Talk Page.
3944:
3603:
3076:
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."
2571:
4430:
4330:
4098:
3580:
3173:
3916:
3096:
3) "Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email."
3041:
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.
2755:). 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,
2654:
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:
3931:
3672:
3556:
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.
2415:
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.
1887:
608:
4400:
4362:
4349:
4168:
4130:
3973:
3760:
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)
3594:
3526:
4471:
4084:
3566:
3157:
640:
436:
428:
321:
303:
4372:
4289:
4117:
3901:
3755:
3651:
3624:
3442:
2232:
2015:
4238:
4014:
3953:
3724:
3485:
3223:
4140:
4061:
3539:
3461:
3428:
2619:
2110:
2045:
4454:
4302:
4221:
4070:
3997:
3707:
3696:
3551:
3249:
2995:
1646:
1425:
is protected only from page moves and not from content. No question of violation of protected page policy therefore arises. And per Wizardman.
882:
3845:
3792:
3377:
2362:
2330:
3412:
3038:
582:
3949:
No. I see no reason to expend so much effort to accommodate an editor that is not intent on being collaborative, as amply demonstrated. —
3883:
3397:
3263:
2061:
The topic ban placed on ScienceApologist has proven highly problematic. It has lead to intense wikilawyering and campaigning for blocks on
4276:
3300:
is particularly egregious given that ignoring the behavioral community rules is what caused the sanction to be applied in the first place).
2220:
366:
326:
236:
3861:
3474:
3333:
2205:
432:
3308:
602:
447:
425:
2349:
3343:
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:
2431:
interpretation makes the boundary clearer so is a good step toward implementing Chillum's suggestion. The next step is enforcing it.
2401:
2392:
disagree with him. Enough double standards and apologetics. Please take a firm stand on how handle this loose cannon of an editor. --
2311:
851:
818:
799:
787:
683:
635:
573:
492:
420:
2548:
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
3115:
2567:
2340:
Some of us (including some arbs, cf. below) evidently want to expand the discussion to the root of the problem. No offense intended.
1580:
598:
3280:
mean that every article that discuss fringe science incidentally or passingly are under the ban, but the sections or passages which
2594:
2095:
2027:
1352:
3023:
709:
578:
298:
2673:
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.
2469:
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
2280:
2695:
588:
568:
451:
2435:
4246:
1916:
1869:
1503:
1222:
1170:
1105:
814:
593:
506:
487:
3202:
Right, thanks for bringing it to our attention SirFozzie, clarification will be forthcoming. I was concerned this may happen.
3099:
How would an AE admin know of these clarifications? They would need to know if they're expected to enforce the ruling, surely.
2185:
556:
2939:
2922:
2909:
2773:
2751:
the ban complicate Arbitration enforcement, requiring discussion of edit content, plus SA has stated defiant intent claiming
2556:
for deletion. On the other hand, I add probably an average of 1-2 peer-reviewed journal references, often reviews, per edit.
1301:
627:
518:
196:
2930:
improve the project, even if blocked, if that's his goal. I won't detail how unless someone asks. Too many words already. --
2552:
also shows that he has been editing fringe health science topics exclusively yesterday and today, although he also proposed
2868:
violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Knowledge by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with
1138:
551:
3228:
3217:
3768:, ScienceApologist started to remove the posts and that is legitimate. However, he just replaced them with "'Comment by,
1670:
906:
806:
477:
406:
3197:
2529:
2691:
2683:
1623:
4421:
Recuse per comments above, but I certainly join in thanking SirFozzie for his record of contributions to the project.
3773:
3765:
3761:
2855:
2844:
2832:
2815:
2813:, which, I believe, they have. What I believe this will comes down to is punishing people for correcting misspellings.
2804:
2797:
2737:
2655:
2477:
2377:
2318:
2418:
Instead of the sixth paragraph, I note that the sort of boundary pushing and rules lawyering evidenced in the recent
1731:
967:
2546:
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
2352:
SA is remarkably parsimonious in his offering of sources, instead preferring to edit war over contentious language).
3087:
2) "for the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means 'entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic'"
359:
2491:
2488:
2449:
2454:
2223:
that was gaining traction (maybe) but the arbitration closed before all arbitrators had a chance to consider it.
1959:
1910:
1638:
1216:
1164:
874:
778:
543:
383:
333:
176:
3044:
SA was going out his way to exploit the wording to maximum effect. It's despiriting to see arbitrators actually
2453:
Other post-ArbCom edits include removing a reference that sodium lauryl sulfate is associated with canker sores
2150:
this would also mean that edits that in themselves concern fringe science, are not restricted. Thus, an edit to
4489:
4345:
4113:
3879:
3647:
3213:
3122:
3109:
3057:
2718:
2528:'s pet therapies, high-dose vitamin E for heart disease, was debunked by two RCTs, one in 1950 and one in 1974
2348:
My experiences have been similar to I.I.'s, including being the target of one of SA's frivolous WP:AE actions.
1535:
1330:" all-discipline honor society, and by wording the third and fourth sentences in the lead as "claims" to evade
529:
291:
286:
231:
124:
94:
43:
3897:
Excessively complex; given our workload, we shouldn't be inserting ourselves into approving day-to-day edits.
1123:
2563:
2510:
2502:
1971:
1660:
896:
464:
246:
3585:
As a direct consequence of the reaction to the topic ban. Would be prepared to review in one month's time.
1989:
1977:
1279:
782:
774:
702:
514:
412:
191:
3148:
and the exercise of power, but from wise or at least well-considered decisions. This one does not work. --
781:
considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the
1965:
1940:
1651:
1246:
1194:
887:
524:
442:
352:
211:
4435:
Abstain, but I certainly join in thanking SirFozzie for his fine record of contributions to the project.
2541:
do not have major issues because they use references and present both sides. They are highly effective.
2514:
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.
3491:
Note: There are 11 active arbitrators (plus 4 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 6.
2915:
2461:
In other news, ScienceApologist has now decided to up his campaign of false allegations and bad faith:
2245:
2228:
1983:
1928:
1234:
1182:
785:. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see
563:
83:
32:
2517:-- which largely entailed showing that toxic effects to DNA and organs seem to occur, if at all, at a
3117:
3104:
3052:
3030:
3008:
Yes, let's ban someone for improving the project. This ban will show how well ArbCom is functioning.
2890:
2714:
2706:
2615:
2505:
which put most of them into "disproven" or "scientifically implausible", based mainly on references,
2544:
Since ScienceApologist feels so comfortable calling me a "terrible editor", I can honestly say that
1894:
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
1357:
3153:
2557:
2524:
Most recently I've faced opposition from ScienceApologist for using references to show that one of
2458:
Actually, the above is all false. Looks like he was just removing it from the lead. My apologies.
2442:
1656:
1502:. As Sam has pointed out, the page is only protect against edits by very new users who are not yet
1118:
892:
103:
58:
4326:
4094:
3815:
3576:
3508:
2525:
1934:
1430:
1240:
1188:
695:
264:
2837:
SA knows that if minor corrections can be made, as if there were no ban, the toe is in the door.
3457:
2991:
281:
4089:
This is to codify an understanding which has previously always been acknowledged in practice.
2647:
Committee, but that was little more then a "I'm sure this will be kicked up to you" notice".)
4426:
4194:
3993:
3803:
3668:
3496:
3245:
3169:
2241:
2224:
2213:
1922:
1228:
1176:
765:
402:
226:
17:
4358:
4126:
3912:
3590:
3373:
2611:
2601:
1569:
1339:
to show that claims made by Lhakthong are false and baseless. There is no need to do any
156:
753:
8:
4377:
4145:
3898:
3600:
3149:
3137:
2590:
2041:
2023:
1953:
1904:
1619:
1348:
1267:
1262:
1210:
1158:
1134:
746:
276:
241:
216:
69:
2379:
I'm sure he genuinely believes this; the problem is that (a) he has some qualities of a
1603:
1596:
1507:
1147:
732:
4467:
4395:
4339:
4322:
4234:
4163:
4107:
4090:
4010:
3968:
3873:
3787:
3750:
3720:
3641:
3619:
3572:
3392:
3259:
3207:
3017:
2861:
2792:
2470:
2397:
2326:
2307:
2276:
1588:
1552:
1529:
1426:
1336:
1287:
1272:
739:
724:
221:
90:
39:
2140:
relation to fringe science, no matter how minute the relationship. This would include
4269:
4041:
3937:
3807:
3519:
3500:
3453:
3437:
The decisions of the Committee will often need to be interpreted by admins acting at
2987:
2979:
2640:
2484:
2473:, which includes liability as well as property insurance, is problematically defined.
2380:
1406:
798:, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to
27:
2498:
4447:
4422:
4285:
4214:
4190:
4057:
3989:
3811:
3689:
3664:
3535:
3504:
3326:
3241:
3193:
3165:
2424:
2201:
2181:
2076:
1490:
1458:
1384:
3921:
Per Kirill, we gave him a chance with the topic ban, so we should he get another?
2585:
it's a breach of process to go about it this way and that needs to be made clear.
4354:
4122:
3908:
3586:
3369:
2865:
2515:
clarified exactly what the National Research Council found on fluoride's toxicity
2172:
2151:
2080:
1565:
3284:
are covered. The ban isn't meant to include or exclude specific articles but a
4308:
4257:
4075:
3922:
3557:
3419:
3403:
2872:. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring.
2830:
If the community doesn't want to enforce a topic ban, is it really a topic ban?
2761:
2629:
2586:
2578:
2538:
2107:
2092:
2055:
2037:
2019:
2008:
1948:
1899:
1482:
1388:
1344:
1205:
1153:
1130:
160:
104:→Request for clarification : Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
59:→Request for clarification : Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
1362:
667:
4483:
4463:
4386:
4335:
4230:
4154:
4103:
4006:
3959:
3869:
3868:
in the interests of article building and neogtiating some form of consensus.
3778:
3741:
3716:
3637:
3610:
3383:
3297:
3255:
3203:
2935:
2905:
2869:
2850:
2810:
2769:
2752:
2665:
2661:
2393:
2322:
2303:
2293:
2272:
2259:
1548:
1525:
1478:
1422:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1291:
2639:
ScienceApologist knew exactly what he was doing in his edits on the article
2513:
which found no support that it's a physical condition in the lead, and I've
671:
3438:
2946:
2729:
2432:
2419:
2409:
2088:
2084:
2062:
2018:. Is this valid? How could an outside user looking in know this was valid?
1615:
1474:
1443:
4438:
4368:
4281:
4205:
4136:
4053:
3857:
3841:
3703:
3680:
3531:
3470:
3317:
3189:
3009:
3002:
2197:
2177:
2171:
matter, and the administrators need a great deal of support, and as this
2118:
1618:. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the
1512:
1486:
1449:
74:
4299:
4067:
3950:
3548:
3305:
3046:
debating the meaning of their own decision before they actually made it
4261:
efforts in helping in the difficult area of arbitration enforcement.
3571:
I regret that ScienceApologist's actions make this action necessary.
3364:
3356:
2610:. And as a side question, how many fairies fit on the head of a pin?
391:
1793:
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)
1029:
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)
865:
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
3769:
2931:
2901:
2765:
2744:
669:
2036:
Thank you for your haste in dealing with this. It is appreciated.
3806:
is restricted from freely editing Knowledge for three months for
3360:
3352:
3079:
This would take it out of the community's hand. Is this intended?
2809:
Bans are legitimate only inasmuch as the community has abandoned
2521:
higher dose than one will get in any dose from fluoridated water.
2553:
672:
1866:
1765:
1725:
1713:
1667:
1102:
1001:
961:
949:
903:
673:
3599:
Unfortunately necessary, given the failure of the topic ban.
837:
2736:
as possible and expresses strong defiance against the ArbCom
2219:
One solution may be to simply lift the topic ban. There was
794:
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or
4023:
Motion to clarify the interpretative role of administrators
2969:
fair to him, it is less that we have strong feelings about
2423:
the encyclopedia would be better off if those caught up in
2125:
would argue correct modification to an Arbitration remedy.
1331:
844:
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
3276:
is off-limits for edition by ScienceApologist. This does
2760:
Here, disruption is being created, with the assistance of
1841:
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
1817:
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)
1077:
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
1053:
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)
72:
to this revision, which may differ significantly from the
2490:
and recently summarized what the past studies have found
3829:
at any time, with a notification to his user talk page.
2953:
enforce it by blocking an editor for innocuous edits.
1633:
Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests
1622:. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to
2091:. You've made the situation worse rather than better.
1340:
1255:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
838:
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
3958:
See my rationale at the 'Comments' section above. --
1383:, this is a content dispute, which we don't rule on.
1375:
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/0)
825:
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
3833:made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.
852:
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
3268:First, the clarification proper: the topic ban is
1369:This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
1888:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
4481:
3772:, cold fusion promoter removed." He then did it
2448:The edit which brought this "clarification" is
155:WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for
3499:is banned from Knowledge for three months for
3010:
3039:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
2387:Compassion vs. enabling and double-standards
2356:ArbCom and WP:AE admins not on the same page
830:
703:
360:
3818:. He is not permitted to make any edit to
3018:
2369:ScienceApologist still adheres to his M.O.
1510:, and should be able to edit the page now.
1306:Dispute was raised by above filing party:
2344:Concurrence with User:ImperfectlyInformed
2167:now) as the interpretation they will use.
710:
696:
367:
353:
4387:
4155:
3960:
3779:
3742:
3611:
3384:
2467:recently called for a community ban of me
1876:No arbitrator motions are currently open.
1721:Currently, no arbitration cases are open.
1112:No arbitrator motions are currently open.
957:Currently, no arbitration cases are open.
3382:Enough said by Coren and Carcharoth. --
2636:in every way, shape and form possible.
1485:reference source for this information.
1442:. Content issue and not much attempt at
777:for conduct disputes on Knowledge. The
53:
3288:, wherever in articles it may be found.
1564:, per above. No further advice to add.
82:Revision as of 11:09, 12 March 2009 by
81:
14:
4482:
3164:happy (see also his statement above).
2825:with SA's consent, to test the limits.
4388:
4156:
3961:
3780:
3743:
3612:
3385:
3341:section on the proposed decision page
3188:Recuse, will be making a statement.--
50:
31:
2501:, I supported the categorization of
2497:reference to shed some light on the
1769:Clarification and Amendment requests
1005:Clarification and Amendment requests
483:Clarification and Amendment requests
23:
3486:Motion to sanction ScienceApologist
1696:Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke
932:Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke
145:
114:
2923:contemptuously rejected suggestion
2802:I think it's time for a test case.
2499:origin of the laetrile controversy
2321:from ScienceApologist himself. --
2079:? Can SA work on an article like
1624:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration
146:
4501:
4294:Arbitration enforcement is often
2914:I am seeing it asserted here, on
2509:putting the systematic review of
2336:Comment re Dreamguy's admonition
1582:Clarifications and other requests
1506:. Angtitimo, you have cross the
1278:Confirmation that other steps in
68:. The present address (URL) is a
3068:Queries about sanction proposals
2675:(From AE, diff coming shortly).
2014:SirFozzie "clarified" this case
390:
169:
3235:Arbitrator views and discussion
831:Request a new arbitration case
108:that was meant to be a comment
63:that was meant to be a comment
13:
1:
2692:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
2684:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
2511:multiple chemical sensitivity
2503:alternative cancer treatments
2221:another proposal called "3.2"
2194:inevitable and likely planned
1628:Place new requests at the top
3636:pending alternate proposal.
3113:) 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
1886:Request for clarification :
1473:- content dispute. Consider
858:
811:/Clarification and Amendment
614:Conflict of interest reports
7:
4189:Recuse per comments above.
4033:request for clarification.
3985:Recuse per comments above.
3663:Recuse per comments above.
1477:or even a content-oriented
805:This page transcludes from
443: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)
4015:07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3998:04:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3974:06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
3954:12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3945:10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3932:10:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3917:09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3902:07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3884:04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3862:12:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3846:03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3793:06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
3756:08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3725:07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3708:03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3697:20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
3673:19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
3652:03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3625:06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
3604:07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3595:03:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3581:18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
3567:17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
3552:17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
3540:17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
3527:17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
3475:04:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3462:14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
3429:02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
3229:00:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3174:17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3158:16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3128:04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3063:23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
3024:10:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
2996:09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
2940:13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
2916:User talk:ScienceApologist
2250:02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
2206:14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
2046:14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
1586:
1574:09:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1557:04:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1540:03:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1517:02:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1495:01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1466:00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1435:00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
1414:23:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
1398:23:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
1353:22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
1139:22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
722:
488:Arbitrator motion requests
149:Template:Active editnotice
101:
56:
3413:03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
3398:23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3378:14:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3334:01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
3309:23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
3264:21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
3250:15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
3218:19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
3198:15:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
3031:User:Deacon of Pndapetzim
2910:04:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
2864:. I do not believe it is
2774:17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2723:21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2707:User:William M. Connolley
2700:20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2620:19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2595:18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2572:18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2436:17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2402:23:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
2331:17:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2312:17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2281:17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2233:16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2186:16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2111:21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2096:15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
2083:? If SA finds unsourced
2028:14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
1786:
1783:
1780:
1777:
1745:
1742:
1688:
1685:
1682:
1679:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1013:
981:
978:
924:
921:
918:
915:
1581:
322:Administrator assistance
4298:thankless of a job. —
3439:arbitration enforcement
2668:rulings made about him.
2526:orthomolecular medicine
1616:Arbitration enforcement
1475:a third opinion request
1387:might be a better bet.
796:discretionary sanctions
3349:
2921:To nail this down, SA
1728:Recently closed cases
1405:, per my colleague. —
1358:Statement by Lhakthong
1302:Statement by Angtitimo
964:Recently closed cases
299:Resolution noticeboard
4490:Knowledge arbitration
3344:
1639:Arbitration Committee
1524:. per all preceding.
875:Arbitration Committee
800:/Requests/Enforcement
779:Arbitration Committee
684:Track related changes
544:Arbitration Committee
384:Knowledge Arbitration
232:Discuss on talk pages
227:Be open to compromise
18:Knowledge:Arbitration
4462:, as noted above. --
4229:, as noted above. --
4005:, as noted above. --
3715:, as noted above. --
3118:Deacon of Pndapetzim
3105:Deacon of Pndapetzim
3053:Deacon of Pndapetzim
2715:William M. Connolley
1753:Historical elections
1314:to market/advertise
989:Historical elections
788:guide to arbitration
493:Enforcement requests
421:Guide to arbitration
157:Knowledge:RfA Review
51:11:09, 12 March 2009
3138:User:Stephan Schulz
2853:all arbcom rulings.
2443:ImperfectlyInformed
2173:request for comment
1479:request for comment
1268:User talk:Angtitimo
1263:User talk:Lhakthong
121:← Previous revision
3072:@ John Vandenberg
2891:(see edit summary)
2862:civil disobedience
2793:civil disobedience
2547:
2487:for heart disease
2471:casualty insurance
2457:
2033:Comment to ArbCom
1870:Arbitrator motions
1703:16 September 2024
1337:Talk:Phi Kappa Phi
1288:Talk:Phi Kappa Phi
1280:dispute resolution
1273:Talk:Phi Kappa Phi
1106:Arbitrator motions
939:16 September 2024
859:Arbitrator motions
783:arbitration policy
775:dispute resolution
515:Contentious topics
413:Arbitration policy
237:Failure to discuss
192:Dispute resolution
4399:
4167:
3988:
3972:
3791:
3754:
3623:
3396:
3314:Well said Coren.
3125:
3112:
3060:
3022:
2980:User:Badger Drink
2899:
2885:
2884:
2641:Atropa belladonna
2550:his contributions
2545:
2485:chelation therapy
2452:
2300:What Chillum said
2136:article that has
1863:
1862:
1859:8 September 2024
1849:
1762:
1761:
1710:
1709:
1282:have been tried.
1099:
1098:
1095:8 September 2024
1085:
998:
997:
946:
945:
866:
845:
720:
719:
687:
655:
525:General sanctions
473:All open requests
403:About arbitration
377:
376:
212:Assume good faith
4497:
4453:
4450:
4397:
4394:
4391:
4390:
4371:
4315:
4274:
4220:
4217:
4165:
4162:
4159:
4158:
4139:
4082:
4046:
3986:
3970:
3967:
3964:
3963:
3942:
3929:
3860:
3844:
3804:ScienceApologist
3789:
3786:
3783:
3782:
3752:
3749:
3746:
3745:
3706:
3701:For the moment.
3695:
3692:
3621:
3618:
3615:
3614:
3564:
3524:
3497:ScienceApologist
3473:
3446:I agree with it.
3426:
3410:
3394:
3391:
3388:
3387:
3332:
3329:
3226:
3121:
3108:
3056:
3020:
3016:
3014:
2897:
2779:
2778:
2560:
2493:, I used an old
2242:ScienceApologist
2225:ScienceApologist
2214:ScienceApologist
2077:Atropa belladona
1999:
1944:
1917:deleted contribs
1848:
1845:
1775:
1774:
1740:
1739:
1735:
1677:
1676:
1606:
1599:
1583:
1515:
1464:
1461:
1411:
1395:
1250:
1223:deleted contribs
1198:
1171:deleted contribs
1148:Involved parties
1119:Current requests
1084:
1081:
1011:
1010:
976:
975:
971:
913:
912:
864:
843:
756:
749:
742:
735:
712:
705:
698:
686:
681:
674:
653:
609:Clerk procedures
601:
559:
530:Editor sanctions
507:Active sanctions
465:Open proceedings
435:
394:
380:
379:
369:
362:
355:
342:
330:
314:Conduct disputes
306:
294:
287:Request comments
272:
257:Content disputes
249:
188:
187:
183:
181:
173:
172:
133:Newer revision →
111:
109:
107:
98:
77:
75:current revision
67:
66:
64:
62:
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:
3969:
3938:
3923:
3858:John Vandenberg
3856:
3842:John Vandenberg
3840:
3788:
3751:
3704:John Vandenberg
3702:
3690:
3678:
3620:
3558:
3520:
3488:
3483:
3471:John Vandenberg
3469:
3420:
3404:
3393:
3339:comment at the
3327:
3315:
3237:
3224:
3185:
3141:
3070:
3034:
3006:
2983:
2950:
2886:
2823:SA's supporter,
2791:I'm practicing
2784:
2748:
2733:
2710:
2687:
2633:
2612:ChildofMidnight
2605:
2602:ChildofMidnight
2582:
2558:
2446:
2413:
2297:
2263:
2217:
2152:Chinese culture
2122:
2081:Gamma-ray burst
2059:
2012:
1951:
1902:
1891:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1873:
1872:
1865:
1864:
1846:
1835:17 August 2024
1772:
1771:
1764:
1763:
1737:
1736:
1729:
1724:
1723:
1718:
1717:
1712:
1711:
1674:
1673:
1666:
1652:purge this page
1642:
1610:
1609:
1602:
1595:
1591:
1585:
1513:John Vandenberg
1511:
1504:"autoconfirmed"
1459:
1447:
1407:
1389:
1377:
1365:
1360:
1304:
1208:
1156:
1150:
1126:
1121:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1109:
1108:
1101:
1100:
1082:
1071:17 August 2024
1008:
1007:
1000:
999:
973:
972:
965:
960:
959:
954:
953:
948:
947:
910:
909:
902:
888:purge this page
878:
871:
760:
759:
752:
745:
738:
731:
727:
721:
716:
682:
676:
675:
670:
660:
659:
658:
647:
630:
620:
619:
618:
605:
597:
585:
560:
555:
546:
536:
535:
534:
509:
499:
498:
497:
467:
457:
454:
439:
431:
409:
373:
337:
325:
302:
290:
268:
245:
186:
185:
179:
177:
174:
170:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
125:Latest revision
113:
112:
102:
99:
88:
86:
73:
57:
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:
4000:
3979:
3978:
3977:
3976:
3956:
3947:
3934:
3919:
3904:
3891:
3890:
3889:
3888:
3886:
3866:
3865:
3864:
3852:
3800:
3799:
3798:
3797:
3796:
3795:
3732:
3730:
3729:
3728:
3727:
3710:
3699:
3675:
3657:
3656:
3655:
3654:
3630:
3629:
3628:
3627:
3606:
3597:
3583:
3569:
3554:
3542:
3529:
3487:
3484:
3482:
3479:
3478:
3477:
3465:
3464:
3448:
3447:
3434:
3433:
3432:
3431:
3400:
3380:
3336:
3312:
3266:
3252:
3236:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3220:
3200:
3184:
3181:
3179:
3177:
3176:
3150:Stephan Schulz
3140:
3134:
3132:
3101:
3100:
3097:
3093:
3092:
3088:
3081:
3080:
3077:
3069:
3066:
3033:
3027:
3005:
2999:
2982:
2976:
2949:
2943:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2839:
2838:
2827:
2826:
2786:
2785:
2782:
2777:
2747:
2741:
2732:
2726:
2709:
2703:
2686:
2680:
2632:
2626:
2624:
2604:
2598:
2581:
2575:
2539:User:Eubulides
2534:
2533:
2522:
2480:
2474:
2445:
2439:
2412:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2385:
2384:
2373:In his words:
2367:
2366:
2354:
2353:
2342:
2341:
2334:
2333:
2296:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2262:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2216:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2121:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2058:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2011:
2005:
2003:
2001:
2000:
1946:
1890:
1884:
1882:
1874:
1868:
1867:
1861:
1860:
1857:
1850:
1843:
1837:
1836:
1833:
1826:
1819:
1813:
1812:
1809:
1802:
1795:
1789:
1788:
1785:
1782:
1779:
1773:
1767:
1766:
1760:
1759:
1756:
1748:
1747:
1744:
1738:
1727:
1726:
1719:
1715:
1714:
1708:
1707:
1704:
1701:
1699:
1691:
1690:
1687:
1684:
1681:
1675:
1669:
1668:
1665:
1664:
1654:
1649:
1647:recent changes
1643:
1637:
1636:
1608:
1607:
1600:
1592:
1587:
1584:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1559:
1542:
1519:
1497:
1468:
1437:
1416:
1400:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1364:
1361:
1359:
1356:
1328:most selective
1303:
1300:
1298:
1296:
1295:
1276:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1259:
1258:
1256:
1252:
1251:
1203:
1149:
1146:
1144:
1125:
1122:
1120:
1117:
1110:
1104:
1103:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1086:
1079:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1062:
1055:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1038:
1031:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1015:
1009:
1003:
1002:
996:
995:
992:
984:
983:
980:
974:
963:
962:
955:
951:
950:
944:
943:
940:
937:
935:
927:
926:
923:
920:
917:
911:
905:
904:
901:
900:
890:
885:
883:recent changes
879:
873:
872:
870:
869:
868:
867:
855:
848:
847:
846:
834:
823:
758:
757:
750:
743:
736:
728:
723:
718:
717:
715:
714:
707:
700:
692:
689:
688:
678:
677:
668:
666:
665:
662:
661:
657:
656:
648:
643:
638:
632:
631:
626:
625:
622:
621:
617:
616:
611:
606:
596:
591:
586:
581:
576:
571:
566:
561:
554:
548:
547:
542:
541:
538:
537:
533:
532:
527:
522:
511:
510:
505:
504:
501:
500:
496:
495:
490:
485:
480:
475:
469:
468:
463:
462:
459:
458:
456:
455:
450:
445:
440:
430:
423:
418:
410:
405:
399:
396:
395:
387:
386:
378:
375:
374:
372:
371:
364:
357:
349:
346:
345:
344:
343:
331:
316:
315:
311:
310:
309:
308:
296:
284:
279:
274:
259:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
239:
234:
229:
224:
219:
214:
206:
205:
201:
200:
194:
175:
168:
167:
166:
165:
84:
70: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:
4008:
4004:
4001:
3999:
3995:
3991:
3984:
3983:
3981:
3980:
3975:
3971:
3965:
3957:
3955:
3952:
3948:
3946:
3943:
3941:
3935:
3933:
3930:
3928:
3927:
3920:
3918:
3914:
3910:
3905:
3903:
3900:
3896:
3895:
3893:
3892:
3887:
3885:
3881:
3878:
3875:
3871:
3867:
3863:
3859:
3853:
3849:
3848:
3847:
3843:
3839:
3838:
3836:
3835:
3834:
3830:
3826:
3823:
3822:
3817:
3816:wikilawyering
3813:
3809:
3805:
3794:
3790:
3784:
3775:
3771:
3767:
3763:
3759:
3758:
3757:
3753:
3747:
3738:
3737:
3735:
3734:
3733:
3726:
3722:
3718:
3714:
3711:
3709:
3705:
3700:
3698:
3693:
3687:
3686:
3684:
3676:
3674:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3661:
3659:
3658:
3653:
3649:
3646:
3643:
3639:
3635:
3634:
3632:
3631:
3626:
3622:
3616:
3607:
3605:
3602:
3598:
3596:
3592:
3588:
3584:
3582:
3578:
3574:
3573:Sam Blacketer
3570:
3568:
3565:
3563:
3562:
3555:
3553:
3550:
3546:
3543:
3541:
3537:
3533:
3530:
3528:
3525:
3523:
3517:
3516:
3514:
3513:
3512:
3510:
3509:wikilawyering
3506:
3502:
3498:
3493:
3492:
3476:
3472:
3467:
3466:
3463:
3459:
3455:
3450:
3449:
3444:
3440:
3436:
3435:
3430:
3427:
3425:
3424:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3411:
3409:
3408:
3401:
3399:
3395:
3389:
3381:
3379:
3375:
3371:
3366:
3362:
3358:
3354:
3348:
3342:
3337:
3335:
3330:
3324:
3323:
3321:
3313:
3311:
3310:
3307:
3301:
3299:
3294:
3287:
3283:
3279:
3275:
3271:
3267:
3265:
3261:
3257:
3253:
3251:
3247:
3243:
3239:
3238:
3230:
3227:
3221:
3219:
3215:
3212:
3209:
3205:
3201:
3199:
3195:
3191:
3187:
3186:
3180:
3175:
3171:
3167:
3162:
3161:
3160:
3159:
3155:
3151:
3146:
3139:
3136:Statement by
3133:
3130:
3129:
3124:
3119:
3116:
3114:
3111:
3106:
3098:
3095:
3094:
3089:
3086:
3085:
3084:
3078:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3065:
3064:
3059:
3054:
3049:
3047:
3042:
3040:
3032:
3026:
3025:
3021:
3015:
3013:
3004:
3001:Statement by
2998:
2997:
2993:
2989:
2981:
2978:Statement by
2975:
2972:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2948:
2945:Statement by
2942:
2941:
2937:
2933:
2929:
2924:
2919:
2917:
2912:
2911:
2907:
2903:
2895:
2892:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2873:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2857:
2856:
2854:
2852:
2846:
2845:
2843:
2836:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2831:
2824:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2816:
2814:
2812:
2806:
2805:
2803:
2799:
2798:
2796:
2794:
2788:
2787:
2781:
2780:
2776:
2775:
2771:
2767:
2763:
2758:
2754:
2746:
2743:Statement by
2740:
2738:
2731:
2728:Statement by
2725:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2708:
2705:Statement by
2702:
2701:
2697:
2693:
2685:
2682:Statement by
2679:
2676:
2674:
2669:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2658:
2652:
2648:
2644:
2642:
2637:
2631:
2628:Statement by
2625:
2622:
2621:
2617:
2613:
2609:
2603:
2600:Statement by
2597:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2580:
2577:Statement by
2574:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2555:
2551:
2542:
2540:
2530:
2527:
2523:
2520:
2516:
2512:
2508:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2492:
2489:
2486:
2481:
2478:
2475:
2472:
2468:
2464:
2463:
2462:
2459:
2455:
2450:
2444:
2441:Statement by
2438:
2437:
2434:
2428:
2426:
2421:
2416:
2411:
2408:Statement by
2403:
2399:
2395:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2382:
2378:
2376:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2363:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2350:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2295:
2294:User:Middle 8
2292:Statement by
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2269:
2261:
2258:Statement by
2251:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2215:
2212:Statement by
2207:
2203:
2199:
2195:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2174:
2168:
2164:
2161:
2155:
2153:
2148:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2130:
2126:
2120:
2117:Statement by
2112:
2109:
2105:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2073:
2071:
2069:
2067:
2064:
2057:
2054:Statement by
2047:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2034:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2010:
2007:Statement by
2004:
1997:
1994:
1991:
1988:
1985:
1982:
1979:
1976:
1973:
1970:
1967:
1964:
1961:
1958:
1955:
1950:
1947:
1942:
1939:
1936:
1933:
1930:
1927:
1924:
1921:
1918:
1915:
1912:
1909:
1906:
1901:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1889:
1883:
1877:
1871:
1858:
1855:
1851:
1844:
1842:
1839:
1838:
1834:
1831:
1827:
1825:
1824:
1820:
1818:
1815:
1814:
1811:26 July 2024
1810:
1807:
1803:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1794:
1791:
1790:
1778:Request name
1776:
1770:
1757:
1755:
1754:
1750:
1749:
1741:
1733:
1722:
1705:
1702:
1700:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1692:
1680:Request name
1678:
1672:
1671:Case requests
1663:this template
1662:
1658:
1655:
1653:
1650:
1648:
1645:
1644:
1640:
1635:
1634:
1631:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1605:
1601:
1598:
1594:
1593:
1590:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1560:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1547:, per above.
1546:
1543:
1541:
1537:
1534:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1520:
1518:
1514:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1462:
1456:
1455:
1453:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:Sam Blacketer
1424:
1423:Phi Kappa Phi
1420:
1417:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1404:
1401:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1393:
1386:
1382:
1379:
1378:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:Phi Kappa Phi
1317:
1316:Phi Kappa Phi
1312:
1311:Phi Kappa Phi
1307:
1299:
1293:
1292:Phi Kappa Phi
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1281:
1274:
1271:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1253:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1178:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1129:Initiated by
1124:Phi Kappa Phi
1113:
1107:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1080:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1047:26 July 2024
1046:
1043:
1039:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1030:
1027:
1026:
1014:Request name
1012:
1006:
993:
991:
990:
986:
985:
977:
969:
958:
941:
938:
936:
934:
933:
929:
928:
916:Request name
914:
908:
907:Case requests
899:this template
898:
894:
891:
889:
886:
884:
881:
880:
876:
863:
862:
861:
860:
856:
854:
853:
849:
842:
841:
840:
839:
835:
833:
832:
828:
827:
826:
822:
820:
816:
812:
808:
803:
801:
797:
792:
790:
789:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
755:
751:
748:
744:
741:
737:
734:
730:
729:
726:
713:
708:
706:
701:
699:
694:
693:
691:
690:
685:
680:
679:
664:
663:
652:
649:
646:
642:
639:
637:
634:
633:
629:
624:
623:
615:
612:
610:
607:
604:
600:
595:
592:
590:
587:
584:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
567:
565:
562:
558:
553:
550:
549:
545:
540:
539:
531:
528:
526:
523:
520:
516:
513:
512:
508:
503:
502:
494:
491:
489:
486:
484:
481:
479:
478:Case requests
476:
474:
471:
470:
466:
461:
460:
453:
449:
446:
444:
441:
438:
434:
429:
427:
424:
422:
419:
417:
414:
411:
408:
404:
401:
400:
398:
397:
393:
389:
388:
385:
382:
381:
370:
365:
363:
358:
356:
351:
350:
348:
347:
340:
335:
332:
328:
323:
320:
319:
318:
317:
313:
312:
305:
300:
297:
293:
288:
285:
283:
280:
278:
275:
271:
266:
265:Third opinion
263:
262:
261:
260:
256:
255:
248:
243:
240:
238:
235:
233:
230:
228:
225:
223:
220:
218:
217:Use etiquette
215:
213:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
202:
198:
193:
190:
189:
184:
164:
162:
158:
153:
152:
151:
150:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
105:
96:
92:
87:
80:
79:
76:
71:
60:
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:
4002:
3940:Roger Davies
3939:
3925:
3924:
3876:
3831:
3827:
3820:
3819:
3801:
3731:
3712:
3682:
3681:
3644:
3560:
3559:
3544:
3522:Roger Davies
3521:
3494:
3490:
3489:
3422:
3421:
3406:
3405:
3345:
3319:
3318:
3302:
3292:
3289:
3285:
3281:
3277:
3273:
3269:
3210:
3178:
3144:
3142:
3131:
3103:
3102:
3082:
3071:
3050:
3043:
3035:
3011:
3007:
2988:Badger Drink
2984:
2970:
2967:
2963:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2947:User:Protonk
2927:
2920:
2913:
2896:
2887:
2859:
2858:
2848:
2847:
2841:
2840:
2829:
2828:
2822:
2808:
2807:
2801:
2800:
2790:
2789:
2756:
2749:
2734:
2730:User:MaxPont
2711:
2688:
2677:
2671:
2660:
2656:
2653:
2649:
2645:
2638:
2634:
2623:
2608:Speedy close
2607:
2606:
2583:
2543:
2535:
2518:
2494:
2460:
2447:
2429:
2425:battleground
2417:
2414:
2386:
2374:
2368:
2355:
2343:
2335:
2298:
2267:
2264:
2218:
2193:
2169:
2165:
2159:
2156:
2146:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2103:
2060:
2013:
2002:
1992:
1986:
1980:
1974:
1968:
1962:
1956:
1937:
1931:
1925:
1919:
1913:
1907:
1893:
1892:
1881:
1875:
1821:
1797:
1758:13 Sep 2024
1751:
1720:
1694:
1627:
1612:
1611:
1561:
1544:
1532:
1521:
1499:
1470:
1451:
1450:
1439:
1418:
1409:Roger Davies
1408:
1402:
1391:
1390:
1380:
1368:
1327:
1323:
1308:
1305:
1297:
1277:
1243:
1237:
1231:
1225:
1219:
1213:
1201:filing party
1200:
1191:
1185:
1179:
1173:
1167:
1161:
1143:
1128:
1127:
1111:
1057:
1033:
994:13 Sep 2024
987:
956:
930:
857:
850:
836:
829:
824:
819:/Enforcement
804:
793:
786:
770:
764:request for
763:
761:
472:
338:
282:Noticeboards
154:
147:
28:old revision
25:
24:
4423:Newyorkbrad
4307:Of course.
4191:Newyorkbrad
3990:Newyorkbrad
3665:Newyorkbrad
3254:Recused. --
3242:Newyorkbrad
3183:Clerk notes
3166:Ncmvocalist
3003:User:Verbal
2666:arbitration
2507:I suggested
2160:edit itself
1972:protections
1945:(initiator)
1641:proceedings
1363:Clerk notes
877:proceedings
766:arbitration
448:Ban appeals
426:Noticeboard
334:Arbitration
178:Arbitration
26:This is an
4355:Carcharoth
4123:Carcharoth
3909:Carcharoth
3808:disruption
3736:Comments:
3587:Carcharoth
3501:disruption
3370:Carcharoth
3029:Statement
2849:This user
2657:This user
2381:WP:FANATIC
1984:page moves
1935:block user
1929:filter log
1854:orig. case
1830:orig. case
1806:orig. case
1743:Case name
1732:Past cases
1716:Open cases
1686:Initiated
1566:Carcharoth
1241:block user
1235:filter log
1189:block user
1183:filter log
1090:orig. case
1066:orig. case
1042:orig. case
979:Case name
968:Past cases
952:Open cases
922:Initiated
654:(pre-2016)
641:Statistics
574:Procedures
4418:Abstain:
4312:Wizardman
4265:Support:
4258:SirFozzie
4186:Abstain:
4079:Wizardman
4037:Support:
3982:Abstain:
3926:Wizardman
3837:Support:
3660:Abstain:
3561:Wizardman
3515:Support:
3423:Wizardman
3407:Wizardman
3365:astronomy
3357:chemistry
3270:primarily
3222:Recuse -
3091:fringing.
2889:innocent,
2762:Hipocrite
2630:SirFozzie
2587:Gatoclass
2579:Gatoclass
2108:Jehochman
2106:broadly.
2093:Jehochman
2056:Jehochman
2038:Hipocrite
2020:Hipocrite
2009:Hipocrite
1978:deletions
1949:SirFozzie
1941:block log
1900:Hipocrite
1620:Talk page
1589:Shortcuts
1508:threshold
1392:Wizardman
1385:WP:MEDCAB
1345:Angtitimo
1247:block log
1206:Lhakthong
1195:block log
1154:Angtitimo
1131:Angtitimo
754:WP:ARBREQ
725:Shortcuts
579:Elections
277:Mediation
242:Help desk
182:Committee
4484:Category
4464:Vassyana
4409:Oppose:
4389:FayssalF
4346:contribs
4336:Casliber
4231:Vassyana
4177:Oppose:
4157:FayssalF
4114:contribs
4104:Casliber
4007:Vassyana
3962:FayssalF
3894:Oppose:
3880:contribs
3870:Casliber
3781:FayssalF
3744:FayssalF
3717:Vassyana
3648:contribs
3638:Casliber
3633:Oppose:
3613:FayssalF
3386:FayssalF
3256:Vassyana
3225:Tiptoety
3214:contribs
3204:Casliber
3145:punitive
2866:WP:POINT
2783:Evidence
2745:User:Abd
2532:article.
2394:Middle 8
2323:Middle 8
2319:this gem
2304:Middle 8
2273:DreamGuy
2260:DreamGuy
2142:any edit
1960:contribs
1911:contribs
1781:Motions
1683:Motions
1549:Vassyana
1536:contribs
1526:Casliber
1322:is the "
1294:article.
1217:contribs
1165:contribs
1017:Motions
919:Motions
815:/Motions
773:step of
747:WP:ARB/R
222:Be civil
197:Requests
95:contribs
85:FayssalF
44:contribs
34:FayssalF
3677:Abstain
3545:Support
3481:Motions
3361:biology
3353:physics
2851:ignores
2757:without
2662:ignores
2495:Science
2433:GRBerry
2410:GRBerry
2268:suggest
1787:Posted
1746:Closed
1661:discuss
1604:WP:RCAM
1597:WP:RFAC
1562:Decline
1545:Decline
1522:Decline
1500:Decline
1483:neutral
1471:Decline
1440:Decline
1419:Decline
1403:Decline
1381:Decline
1326:" and "
1324:largest
1023:Posted
982:Closed
897:discuss
769:is the
733:WP:RFAR
651:Reports
589:History
569:Members
564:Contact
552:Discuss
416:(CU/OS)
339:Request
327:Request
304:Request
292:Request
270:Request
247:Request
161:WP:RREV
4460:Recuse
4378:Kirill
4282:Risker
4227:Recuse
4146:Kirill
4054:Risker
4003:Recuse
3899:Kirill
3812:gaming
3713:Recuse
3601:Kirill
3532:Risker
3505:gaming
3454:bainer
3298:WP:IAR
3293:around
3190:Tznkai
3083:@ all
3012:Verbal
2870:WP:IAR
2811:WP:IAR
2753:WP:IAR
2554:Elonka
2198:Tznkai
2178:Tznkai
2119:Tznkai
1990:rights
1966:blocks
1823:Motion
1799:Motion
1706:4/0/0
1689:Votes
1487:Risker
1059:Motion
1035:Motion
942:4/0/0
925:Votes
817:, and
740:WP:A/R
594:Clerks
452:Report
4443:levse
4300:Coren
4210:levse
4068:Coren
3951:Coren
3802:1.1)
3774:twice
3685:levse
3549:Coren
3322:levse
3306:Coren
3286:topic
3274:topic
2928:still
2420:WP:AE
2089:WP:AE
2085:WP:OR
2063:WP:AE
1784:Case
1454:levse
1444:WP:DR
1020:Case
807:/Case
628: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
4011:talk
3994:talk
3913:talk
3874:talk
3814:and
3766:Then
3762:Here
3721:talk
3691:Talk
3669:talk
3642:talk
3591:talk
3577:talk
3536:talk
3507:and
3458:talk
3443:here
3374:talk
3328:Talk
3260:talk
3246:talk
3208:talk
3194:talk
3170:talk
3154:talk
3123:Talk
3110:Talk
3058:Talk
3019:chat
2992:talk
2936:talk
2906:talk
2770:talk
2719:talk
2696:talk
2670:and
2664:all
2616:talk
2591:talk
2519:much
2398:talk
2327:talk
2317:And
2308:talk
2302:. --
2277:talk
2246:talk
2229:talk
2202:talk
2182:talk
2104:that
2042:talk
2024:talk
2016:here
1954:talk
1923:logs
1905:talk
1847:none
1657:view
1570:talk
1553:talk
1530:talk
1491:talk
1460:Talk
1431:talk
1349:talk
1332:NPOV
1286:See
1229:logs
1211:talk
1177:logs
1159:talk
1135:talk
1083:none
893:view
771:last
645:Talk
636:Talk
603:Talk
583:Talk
437:Talk
407:Talk
204:Tips
137:diff
131:) |
129:diff
117:diff
91:talk
40:talk
4385:--
4296:too
4256:3)
3821:any
3770:Abd
3495:1)
3278:not
2971:him
2932:Abd
2902:Abd
2766:Abd
2562:| (
2465:He
2138:any
2134:any
1996:RfA
1659:or
1309:1)
895:or
519: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:—
4013:)
3996:)
3966:-
3915:)
3882:)
3810:,
3785:-
3748:-
3723:)
3694:•
3688:•
3679:—
3671:)
3650:)
3617:-
3593:)
3579:)
3538:)
3518:—
3503:,
3460:)
3390:-
3376:)
3363:,
3359:,
3355:,
3331:•
3325:•
3316:—
3282:do
3262:)
3248:)
3216:)
3196:)
3172:)
3156:)
3126:)
3061:)
2994:)
2938:)
2908:)
2900:--
2772:)
2721:)
2698:)
2618:)
2593:)
2570:)
2566:-
2559:II
2400:)
2329:)
2310:)
2279:)
2248:)
2231:)
2204:)
2184:)
2147:is
2044:)
2026:)
1856:)
1832:)
1808:)
1626:.
1572:)
1555:)
1538:)
1493:)
1463:•
1457:•
1448:—
1433:)
1421:.
1351:)
1341:OR
1199:,
1137:)
1092:)
1068:)
1044:)
821:.
813:,
809:,
802:.
791:.
762:A
163:).
123:|
119:)
106::
93:|
61::
42:|
4466:(
4441:R
4425:(
4357:(
4343:·
4338:(
4325:(
4284:(
4233:(
4208:R
4193:(
4125:(
4111:·
4106:(
4093:(
4056:(
4009:(
3992:(
3911:(
3877:·
3872:(
3719:(
3683:R
3667:(
3645:·
3640:(
3589:(
3575:(
3534:(
3456:(
3372:(
3320:R
3258:(
3244:(
3211:·
3206:(
3192:(
3168:(
3152:(
3120:(
3107:(
3055:(
2990:(
2934:(
2904:(
2795:.
2768:(
2717:(
2694:(
2614:(
2589:(
2568:c
2564:t
2479:.
2396:(
2325:(
2306:(
2275:(
2244:(
2227:(
2200:(
2180:(
2065:.
2040:(
2022:(
1998:)
1993:·
1987:·
1981:·
1975:·
1969:·
1963:·
1957:·
1952:(
1943:)
1938:·
1932:·
1926:·
1920:·
1914:·
1908:·
1903:(
1852:(
1828:(
1804:(
1734:)
1730:(
1630:.
1568:(
1551:(
1533:·
1528:(
1489:(
1452:R
1446:.
1429:(
1347:(
1249:)
1244:·
1238:·
1232:·
1226:·
1220:·
1214:·
1209:(
1197:)
1192:·
1186:·
1180:·
1174:·
1168:·
1162:·
1157:(
1133:(
1088:(
1064:(
1040:(
970:)
966:(
711:e
704:t
697:v
599:+
557:+
521:)
517:(
433:+
368:e
361:t
354:v
341:)
336:(
329:)
324:(
307:)
301:(
295:)
289:(
273:)
267:(
250:)
244:(
199:)
195:(
180:
159:(
139:)
135:(
127:(
115:(
110:)
100:(
97:)
89:(
78:.
65:)
55:(
46:)
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.