1056:
without having to spell it out for them. If not, a personal note rather than a templatized "warning" has the positive results of the templated warning, without the downsides to the template itself. Again, with notifications; we found on the Sarah Palin page, at least, that the log of notifications was extremely helpful in preventing what editors perceived as "badgering" behavior; the log section includes a caution not to notify anyone more than once. Without the log, there is the possible issue of repeat notices, meant to be informative, but taken as harassment by the editor receiving them. Admittedly, that would not be an issue if no notices were given, and only warnings; but in the case of certain specific sanctions, like the 1RR on
Abortion articles, some good editors have run afoul of the sanction simply because they didn't know about it. A friendly "heads-up" kind of notice prevents this from occurring. While I feel that given our differing points of view on this indicates that for now, at least, this is probably best left to the discretion of editors and admins on any specific given article/topic under sanctions, as a general rule I find that when informative notices become more widespread and are phrased so as not to be accusatory, the general atmosphere surrounding such notices becomes less tense; editors are more likely to take the notices in stride, seeing that they are being offered as information rather than as rebukes, which tends to provoke a fight or flight type response in some editors. Of course more egregious violations may require a warning, but it is easy enough to add a comment to the notification to address specifics about the editor in question's infractions. One puppy's opinion.
947:
being sanctioned have an opportunity to either respond to the administrator's concerns and/or change their behavior; it also reduces the number of substantive claims of unfairness and procedural claims of lack of notice, either sincere or feigned. The warnings requirement should be interpreted in a common-sense manner consistent with these goals. Thus, if a party to an arbitration case seriously misbehaves in the relevant topic area one week after the case closes, he or she might reasonably be understood to already be on notice, especially if he or she was criticized in the decision. On the other hand, if it is two years after the case closed and the former party has had no problems in the interim, a warning would be in order. Obviously, there will be intermediate cases. On balance, if there is fair doubt about whether to give the warning, the more prudent course will usually be to give it: either the warning will solve the problem (in which case sanctions aren't needed), or it won't (in which case a sanction can then be imposed without further worry).
796:
wouldn't mind something strongly and clearly worded so editors know they have been warned and have done something that merits a ban. Four year old warnings on something vaguely related, warnings by involved editors, and in one instance an editor was told the arbitration was warning enough are all unclear pointers. If an editor is trespassing on forbidden ground, a clear warning on their talk page would probably clear things/ behaviour up quickly in the case of editors unaware they have been seen to trespass. I'd go so far as to want a template with a warning on it posted on a user page, but realize this could feel threatening and over bearing. I think I've brought this up before but thought I'd mention it again. I don't think what we have now is clear, and my own feeling is that the warning aspect has been abused and can be abused. A thought. (
1079:
party needs to be advised that they may be in dangerous territory by someone who has no stakes in the discussion. Right now that so-called , non collaborative party can end up at AE and be sanctioned with out any idea they had been in a jeopardized position. That's not right. Most good editors are not trying to implicate other editors or trap them (I hope) nor do they want to end up at an AE. I can't see that having clear warnings and requiring them can hurt anything , and might lead to less AEs and better discussion page environments. We might also have a list of admins who are willing to hand out warnings with the stipulation that they only issue warnings on pages were they are not involved. If
Knowledge is not punitive we should be doing everything possible to support the continued editing of all editors.(
1039:). I've always found the second approach a lot more useful. Because in these areas there are typically quite a few editors who honestly aren't aware to what extent their own conduct can be perceived as problematic (the borderline between "taking a robust stance in fighting disruption from nationalist fringe-pushers" and "being a disruptive battleground editor oneself" is sometimes difficult to pin down!), so a "notification" of the first kind may be of little help and may not really fit the purpose of these rules. I would much prefer if "warnings" in the sense of these rules were always understood to be only those of the second type, but, if admins wish to continue using "notifications" also of the first type, I'd suggest those be preferably
873:
warned about the possibility of sanctions before an administrator can take action? And if so, do such warnings need to be logged to the case page, considering that the editor's name is already on that page? Another question has to do with who can issue a formal warning (can any editor do it, or does it have to be an uninvolved admin?). We also have issues come up related to the logging of warnings: With some arbitration cases, warnings are logged. With other cases, there is no place to log warnings (but probably should be). Personally, I think that: Warnings are not required for situations where an editor was already a participant in a case, but a log should be kept on the case page for all editors who were
534:
instead of an extended site wide block. This will (for example) enable us to encourage basically good editors who are a little too close to a subject to continue to edit and learn the ropes here, while protecting controversial articles from being hostage to edit wars and battleground behavior. Thank you for taking the time to write and make this motion, Coren. I don't know of any cases which you didn't list which might benefit from this; it looks to me like you've found them all.
968:@Coren: I agree with your comments in principle, however in practice, if the 'warning' editor is 'involved' or if sanctions are general rather than specific what you have is a potential playing field for gaming the system. I'd suggest clarifying what is meant by warning, or get rid of it altogether, but whatever is decided, both those warned and taken to AE, and those filing an AE should be very clear about meaning, and that doesn't seem to be the case now. (
403:
985:
to find out if they've ever been officially notified). The log should be posted by an uninvolved admin, and record the names of those editors who were not parties to a case, along with a diff of the warning. Additional warnings to the same editor do not need to be logged to the case page, though
Newyorkbrad is correct that if some time has passed, a new warning may be appropriate before issuing a sanction. --
1627:
My personal cynicism, backed up by my watching of this page during this ArbCom term, leads me to believe that certain Arbs are quite cognizant of how little attention motions get and use that to try to push through things that would never fly in a forum with more eyes on it. However, that aside, this
767:
Not quite. A contentious topic comes up for an Arbcom decision, and as part of that, discretionary sanctions are applied, which has always meant that any uninvolved administrator may enact the penalty described in the sanction, on an editor who has previously been warned that the topic is subject to
685:
case, there was a need to address some other issues as well that did not fit into the usual "discretionary sanctions" finding, which was part of the reason for the much more specific one at that time. Many of those issues have now been resolved in other ways. Personally speaking, I've spent some time
506:
This motion "updates" older discretionary sanction remedies (and a few that were the same in intent but were not yet named as such) to refer to the new standardized discretionary sanctions. This will simplify enforcement by using a single, well defined procedure, and the simplicity will also make it
1078:
I'll say again that in some arbitrations, general wording like, editors have to be collaborative, leaves a door wide open for interpretation, and is general enough to include multiple behaviours. I might think certain behaviors are not collaborative but someone else may not. The non collaborative
1055:
I've had exactly the opposite experience. With notifications, considerably less time is spent arguing about whether the notice was a "stick" or not; the "this is not meant..." verbiage allows editors to continue without feeling the need to become defensive - and they generally improve their behavior
690:
and came away with the impression that this may assist enforcing administrators, particularly in the face of some of the extensive wiki-lawyering that occurs there. That impression is borne out by the posts above, so from that perspective I think this is a net positive. As to
Timotheus Canens' point
498:
Over the years, the committee has set in place a number of sanctions applying stricter behavioral requirements and a reduced threshold for enforcing those requirements in topic areas where there has been persistent disruption. Those sanctions have had similar but sometimes subtly divergent wording,
1673:
Thanks. I didn't mean for this thread to take on a life of its own. It just occurred to me that if I were a non-arbitrator editor and signed on and saw that a notice had just been posted that there was a pending motion on which people could comment, and I came right over to this page, it would be a
984:
We still have the outstanding question of whether or not warnings need to be logged. It is my opinion that having a log of official warnings is helpful, especially when there are multiple admins dealing with problems in a topic area (so we don't have to go trawling through a user's talkpage history
1018:
That makes sense. It is also worth remembering that some cases, like ARBMAC, originally had no official warning logs at all, and admins just added such a section later on their own initiative, as a matter of convenience. One other thing to keep in mind is that there have historically been two very
946:
I've probably been most responsible among the arbitrators for insisting that discretionary sanctions include a requirement that contributors who are editing problematically first be warned before sanctions are imposed. This requirement serves the purpose of ensuring that editors who are close to
897:
One of the advantages of using this remedy by reference (i.e., by pointing at the page describing it rather than repeating its text) is that if we make tweaks to clarify questions like those you just raised, the tweaks would then be uniformly applicable without having to revisit cases like we do
872:
Overall I support the motion, though I would agree with some of the comments above that the concept of what constitutes a formal warning is still a bit ambiguous. For example, if an editor was a party to the arbitration case where the sanctions were authorized, do they still need to be formally
533:
I for one welcome this motion for standardized discretionary sanctions. This will make AE more consistent and in line with existing practice; current remedies on some of the older cases tie the Admins hands so that they are unable to enact less sweeping measures, such as a time limited topic ban
1572:
Although this motion is passing with impressive unanimity and promptness, let's hold it open for a couple of days before the Clerk formally closes and enacts it. Notices that the motion is pending have just been posted on various noticeboards and case pages, and while I doubt that any community
877:
parties, along with a diff of the warning. As for who can issue a warning, any editor can issue a reminder about the possibility of discretionary sanctions, but only uninvolved admins should be allowed to formally log such warnings (though the question comes up about whether if a non-admin has
795:
As an added comment although this probably isn't the time. What constitutes a warning either for an editor not sanctioned but working in a contentious area that has been dealt with in an arbitration and also perhaps for editors sanctioned, is pretty loose and also confusing for many editors. I
913:
to follow a clean procedure (warn by admin, log for easy reference), I don't see it as an absolute requirement of a warning. If the editor was told that an arbitration decision and discretionary sanctions applied to their editing, and given a pointer to both, then they would have a hard time
841:
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and
904:
of warning than is needed (or useful): the point of the warning is to avoid anyone (especially new editors) from being sanctioned without having had a chance to learn about and abide by the current restrictions; if they are demonstrably aware of them, protests about the procedure are hollow
564:
there is a remedy in place. I agree that reexamining how pertinent some of those remedies may still be is a worthwhile exercise, but I think that's best left to some other time to keep the omnibus motion simpler in substance as "just a freshening up" of older sanctions to modern standards.
1587:
Considering that Coren has solicited comments from administrators familiar with AE prior to posting this motion, and it is currently passing with all but 3 active ArbCom members from posting (I didn't think we could get 13-0 on just about anything), I have to respectfully disagree Brad.
545:
I agree with KC that this is a good change. Some of those remedies (Homeopathy, Free
Republic, Ayn Rand) does not seem to be used in practice, though, judging from the logs. Maybe they should just be lifted? This seems to be pretty complete. Thanks a lot, Coren.
1074:
I like what Killer C is saying very much in part because she assumes the most positive of editors rather than the worst. Most editors I think (and hope) want to do a good job and do not want to run afoul of arbitration so a friendly notice seems appropriate.
1573:
comments we receive will talk us out of the thrust of this motion, someone might well have comments that we would want to consider in connection with the wording or implementation. (Comments endorsing the motion as presented would, of course, also be welcome.)
1000:
There is no question that logging the warning on the case page is a good thing from a management point of view, as it makes it much easier to keep track of who was warned when more than one administrator is involved. What I worry about is that if we make it a
453:
303:
878:
issued a warning, can an admin then issue a sanction, or must a warning be admin-issued to be valid?). Lastly, I don't think that a full warning template is always necessary, but any warning should definitely include clear language, a link to
1674:
little disconcerting if the entire discussion had already closed in less than a day. That's not to say that the committee acting, as I said, with impressive speed to address an issue is anything other than a good thing and a good precedent.
1628:
motion neither falls under the 'boneheaded' nor the 'controversial' categories, so unless a party in one of these cases comes in and complains, I doubt this will see any substantive community action no matter how long it sits here waiting.
1663:
I have nothing against keeping this open longer. I would be very much surprised if even the parties to the cases would be concerned about it, but this is just a freshening up for simplicity's sake so there is no sense of urgency either.
309:
333:
351:
327:
768:
discretionary sanctions. The exact wordings of the discretionary sanctions have changed over time - originally the only sanction was a block, but they now allow for AE topic bans, which the older wording did not include.
599:
Also, it might be a good idea to make clear the status of existing warnings made under the old DS provisions. Especially in cases where there is no substantive change, there's no reason to require yet another warning.
691:
above, I agree with Coren that it is probably better to take care of this aspect of the old cases before worrying about lifting the remedies entirely right now. There remains the potential to do that in the future.
1313:
1300:
574:
Fine with me. Extra remedies won't hurt things, after all. As long as this is not taken to express the committee's view either way on the continued need for those remedies, there will be no objection from me.
1382:
Support. This brings a lot of clarity into an area that lacked that previously. (Technically I'm recused on
Troubles, but that's less than 10% of this motion, so I don't feel necessary to fully recuse).
1201:
where "The topic" is specified in the list of amended remedies below. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected.
1285:
1206:
1214:
1241:
364:
1232:
661:
been used in recent cases makes it no surprise that this review would get good support: the original objections at the time were borne of procedural worries rather than because the cases
132:
120:
1019:
different approaches to "warnings": neutral "notifications" worded merely to inform an editor of the existence of the sanction rule, without accusing him of actual misconduct (e.g.
657:
Well yes, I did a sounding of general support on the mailing list before doing the review. Although, when you think about it, the fact that a standardized discretionary sanction
340:
316:
136:
116:
128:
833:
I read that to mean that the warning isn't just about the existence of DS, but about the specific misconduct which could lead to the application of DS. OTOH, the main text at
1062:
751:
For the lay person: This sounds as if any uninvolved admin with out an AE may apply a sanction on an editor they deem to be in violation. Am I understanding this correctly.(
1406:
1291:
848:
That does not include the language about "identify misconduct" and implies that a general warning about DS is sufficient. Perhaps that discrepancy could be addressed.
279:
805:
777:
609:
1272:
731:
I agree with Coren's idea to 'freshen up' the sanction provisions of the older cases. Anything that makes these provisions uniform will make them easier to enforce.
1050:
1654:
1259:
1223:
263:
1250:
1186:
1170:
834:
500:
861:
1611:
1153:
1131:
925:
820:
1326:
786:
Thanks, that makes sense, I think. On editors sanctioned in an arbitration any single uninvolved admin may block(has always been able to), and now topic ban?
206:
1488:
956:
827:
Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways;
995:
892:
618:
584:
569:
1597:
1536:
722:
700:
1444:
675:
1526:
488:
1692:
1683:
1668:
1514:
1436:
941:
1377:
1624:
motions. Unless someone proposes something exceptionally boneheaded or controversial, even the ArbCom watchers at WR don't pay attention to motions.
1392:
1501:
1425:
1457:
1339:
1013:
918:
1029:), and actual warnings saying that "you've been doing something wrong and there's a concrete danger you'll be sanctioned if you continue" (e.g.
560:
It's always difficult to discern whether the editors in a topic area behave well so that there is no longer need for a remedy or if they behave
1474:
555:
157:
1088:
977:
760:
540:
516:
652:
1402:
1005:, it opens the door to wikilawyering around what is, ultimately, a clerical technicality and a convenience. My opinion is that warnings
740:
671:
That said, this is a draft and the real motion (even if it's this one verbatim) will be put to a vote by the whole committee anyways. —
1163:
1582:
635:
in particular) have objected to standard discretionary sanctions in the past. Have you all talked about it on your mailing list since?
1117:
1364:
1094:
900:
Incidentally, I agree with most of the interpretations you made above except that I think you're placing more importance on the
1398:
461:
460:
You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or
124:
493:
434:
This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at
511:
1602:
I think most of the community is unaware of this. I don't disagree with anything myself, just thought I'd mention that. -
96:
47:
1047:
435:
181:
1321:
or other articles concerning
Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly interpreted)
242:
705:
Excellent. I don't spend as much time at AE as the other two who have commented, but I definitely agree with them.
85:
36:
1343:, as amended and clarified (Articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets)
162:
149:
1421:
1044:
21:
909:, parties to the decision cannot make credible claims of ignorance; warning them is unnecessary. While it's
171:
1009:
be logged on the case page, but that having failed to do so does not invalidate the warning in any way. —
992:
889:
1484:
773:
1607:
605:
580:
551:
1318:
1084:
973:
801:
756:
1218:
as amended. (Topics related to
Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted)
1147:
1111:
716:
646:
167:
92:
43:
1645:
1480:
769:
1679:
1603:
1578:
1510:
1127:
952:
935:
855:
601:
576:
547:
524:
17:
1532:
1373:
1173:, the committee hereby amends and supersedes the remedies listed below with the following:
1080:
1057:
1033:
969:
797:
752:
736:
535:
8:
1593:
1441:
1388:
1139:
1103:
1023:
708:
638:
479:
71:
425:
1629:
1497:
1415:
632:
471:
418:
410:
1043:
logged, because an entry in the log may be perceived like a kind of "scarlet letter".
1519:
31:
1675:
1574:
1506:
1453:
1432:
1267:
or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of
Gibraltar)
1123:
989:
948:
930:
886:
850:
696:
1360:
Proposed; this is mostly a "maintenance" motion meant to simplify enforcement. —
1369:
1350:
For this motion, there are 16 active non-recused arbitrators, so 9 is a majority.
879:
732:
393:
1479:
One hopes this may make life easier both for editors and admins in these areas.
631:
Hope you don't mind me dropping by. I remember that some of your colleagues (at
76:
1589:
1470:
1384:
446:
1493:
1411:
442:
681:
Hi
NuclearWarfare. I have a feeling you may be referring to me. During the
507:
easier for editors in those topic areas to be aware of the restrictions. —
441:
Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit
1305:
1190:
687:
588:
Nitpick: I'm not sure that the word "supersede" is usually used that way...
1430:
Support. Clarity and complying with general expectations is a good thing.
1449:
1100:
I'll enact the motion later today (UTC) unless any Arb has an objection.
986:
883:
692:
1689:
1665:
1361:
1277:
1010:
915:
672:
615:
566:
508:
1463:
1264:
1193:
action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
1169:
To simplify enforcement of older sanctions that are, substantively,
304:
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)
1331:
926:
Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions
821:
Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions
819:
Regarding warning, there are apparently conflicting requirements.
1210:(All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted)
928:
needs to be altered to bring it closer to the standardized DS.
665:
would not benefit but now that the process exists it's actually
377:
276:
236:
224:
178:
1688:
Oh, were that all our work was this straightforward. :-) —
1189:. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an
352:
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing
328:
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)
74:
to this revision, which may differ significantly from the
1295:(Articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted)
1254:(Topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted)
835:
Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
593:
su·per·sede v. 3. to displace in favor of another :-)
1227:(topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted)
1236:(The Climate change topic, broadly interpreted)
614:Good point, I'll add a provision for this. —
669:to refer to it than craft it anew every case.
464:may summarily remove or refactor any comment.
1464:
914:convincing me that they weren't warned. —
387:No arbitrator motions are currently open.
232:Currently, no arbitration cases are open.
84:Revision as of 14:29, 27 October 2011 by
1620:. The community is generally unaware of
1304:(Articles which relate to the events of
57:
83:
14:
489:Omnibus motion amending past decisions
882:, and a link to the relevant case. --
499:and evolved over time to what is now
54:
35:
397:
280:Clarification and Amendment requests
27:
436:Knowledge:Arbitration/Index/Motions
207:Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke
145:
114:
1314:Transcendental Meditation movement
1245:(Cold fusion and related articles)
905:wikilawyering of the worst sort.
146:
1712:
70:. The present address (URL) is a
1301:September 11 conspiracy theories
455:Make a motion (Arbitrators only)
401:
105:
62:
1431:
936:
931:
856:
851:
1647:
1630:
13:
1:
1471:
1334:or related articles or pages)
1146:
1110:
715:
645:
1693:15:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1684:15:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1669:11:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1655:08:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1612:05:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1598:04:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1583:03:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1537:04:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1527:03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1515:01:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1502:01:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
1489:23:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1475:23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1458:23:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1445:23:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1437:21:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1426:19:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1407:18:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1393:17:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1378:17:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1365:15:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
1154:14:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
1138:
1132:23:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
1118:04:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
1102:
1089:15:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
1063:13:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
1051:14:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
1014:13:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
996:04:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
978:16:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
957:22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
942:02:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
919:00:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
893:22:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
862:20:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
806:17:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
778:16:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
761:16:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
741:14:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
723:01:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
707:
701:23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
686:following the activities at
676:22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
653:20:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
637:
619:14:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
610:14:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
585:14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
570:19:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
556:19:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
541:18:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
512:15:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
449:for potential alternatives.
7:
34:of this page, as edited by
10:
1717:
1286:Martinphi-ScienceApologist
469:
408:
103:
60:
1433:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1319:Transcendental meditation
1207:Palestine-Israel articles
297:
294:
291:
288:
256:
253:
199:
196:
193:
190:
1397:Support. Common sense.
1337:All extant remedies of
1191:arbitration enforcement
1187:discretionary sanctions
1178:Discretionary Sanctions
1171:discretionary sanctions
1308:, broadly interpreted)
239:Recently closed cases
55:14:29, 27 October 2011
1280:and related articles)
525:User talk:Coren/draft
501:a standardized remedy
150:Arbitration Committee
18:Knowledge:Arbitration
1215:Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
264:Historical elections
1122:Please do. Thanks.
121:← Previous revision
517:General discussion
381:Arbitrator motions
214:16 September 2024
1652:
1481:Elen of the Roads
1289:and remedy 12 of
1061:
770:Elen of the Roads
594:
589:
539:
468:
467:
374:
373:
370:8 September 2024
360:
273:
272:
221:
220:
1708:
1651:
1646:
1643:
1604:Peregrine Fisher
1535:
1524:
1472:
1468:
1435:
1185:is placed under
1150:
1142:
1114:
1106:
1060:
1038:
1032:
1028:
1022:
938:
933:
858:
853:
719:
711:
649:
641:
592:
587:
538:
482:
458:
456:
428:
421:
405:
404:
398:
359:
356:
286:
285:
251:
250:
246:
188:
187:
133:Newer revision →
111:
109:
108:
100:
79:
77:current revision
69:
68:
66:
65:
56:
52:
51:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1640:
1635:
1533:John Vandenberg
1531:
1520:
1166:
1164:Proposed motion
1097:
1058:KillerChihuahua
1036:
1030:
1026:
1020:
536:KillerChihuahua
519:
496:
491:
486:
485:
478:
474:
454:
452:
432:
431:
424:
417:
413:
402:
396:
391:
390:
389:
384:
383:
376:
375:
357:
346:17 August 2024
283:
282:
275:
274:
248:
247:
240:
235:
234:
229:
228:
223:
222:
185:
184:
177:
163:purge this page
153:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
125:Latest revision
113:
112:
104:
101:
90:
88:
75:
61:
58:
41:
39:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1714:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1638:
1631:
1625:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1529:
1517:
1504:
1491:
1477:
1460:
1447:
1439:
1428:
1409:
1395:
1380:
1367:
1356:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1335:
1322:
1309:
1296:
1281:
1268:
1255:
1246:
1237:
1233:Climate change
1230:Remedy 1.2 of
1228:
1219:
1211:
1204:Remedy 1.1 of
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1096:
1093:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
846:
845:
844:
831:
830:
829:
812:
811:
810:
809:
790:
789:
788:
787:
781:
780:
749:
748:
744:
743:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
683:Climate Change
679:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
596:
595:
543:
530:
529:
518:
515:
495:
492:
490:
487:
484:
483:
475:
470:
466:
465:
430:
429:
422:
414:
409:
406:
395:
392:
385:
379:
378:
372:
371:
368:
361:
354:
348:
347:
344:
337:
330:
324:
323:
320:
313:
306:
300:
299:
296:
293:
290:
284:
278:
277:
271:
270:
267:
259:
258:
255:
249:
238:
237:
230:
226:
225:
219:
218:
215:
212:
210:
202:
201:
198:
195:
192:
186:
180:
179:
176:
175:
165:
160:
158:recent changes
154:
148:
147:
87:NuclearWarfare
86:
72:permanent link
38:NuclearWarfare
37:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1713:
1694:
1691:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1667:
1662:
1656:
1653:
1650:
1644:
1642:
1634:
1626:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1566:
1565:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1555:
1554:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1544:
1543:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1518:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1505:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1492:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1476:
1473:
1469:
1467:
1461:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1448:
1446:
1443:
1440:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1427:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1413:
1410:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1368:
1366:
1363:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1342:
1341:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1324:Remedy 13 of
1323:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1302:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1292:Pseudoscience
1288:
1287:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1248:Remedy 12 of
1247:
1244:
1243:
1238:
1235:
1234:
1229:
1226:
1225:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1208:
1203:
1202:
1200:
1194:
1192:
1188:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1155:
1152:
1149:
1143:
1141:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1116:
1113:
1107:
1105:
1099:
1098:
1092:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1076:
1064:
1059:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1035:
1025:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
998:
997:
994:
991:
988:
983:
982:
981:
979:
975:
971:
958:
954:
950:
945:
944:
943:
940:
939:
934:
927:
923:
922:
921:
920:
917:
912:
908:
903:
896:
895:
894:
891:
888:
885:
881:
876:
871:
870:
863:
860:
859:
854:
847:
843:
839:
838:
836:
832:
828:
825:
824:
822:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
807:
803:
799:
794:
793:
792:
791:
785:
784:
783:
782:
779:
775:
771:
766:
765:
764:
762:
758:
754:
746:
745:
742:
738:
734:
730:
724:
721:
718:
712:
710:
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
689:
684:
680:
678:
677:
674:
668:
664:
660:
656:
655:
654:
651:
648:
642:
640:
634:
630:
620:
617:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
598:
597:
591:
590:
586:
582:
578:
573:
572:
571:
568:
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
544:
542:
537:
532:
531:
527:
526:
521:
520:
514:
513:
510:
504:
502:
481:
477:
476:
473:
463:
459:
457:
450:
448:
444:
439:
437:
427:
423:
420:
416:
415:
412:
407:
400:
399:
388:
382:
369:
366:
362:
355:
353:
350:
349:
345:
342:
338:
336:
335:
331:
329:
326:
325:
322:26 July 2024
321:
318:
314:
312:
311:
307:
305:
302:
301:
289:Request name
287:
281:
268:
266:
265:
261:
260:
252:
244:
233:
216:
213:
211:
209:
208:
204:
203:
191:Request name
189:
183:
182:Case requests
174:this template
173:
169:
166:
164:
161:
159:
156:
155:
151:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
107:
106:→Clerk notes
98:
94:
89:
82:
81:
78:
73:
64:
63:→Clerk notes
49:
45:
40:
33:
23:
19:
1648:
1636:
1632:
1621:
1617:
1522:Roger Davies
1521:
1465:
1418:
1349:
1348:
1340:The Troubles
1338:
1325:
1312:
1311:Remedy 3 of
1306:September 11
1299:
1298:Remedy 1 of
1290:
1284:
1283:Remedy 4 of
1271:
1270:Remedy 1 of
1258:
1257:Remedy 1 of
1249:
1240:
1239:Remedy 1 of
1231:
1222:
1221:Remedy 1 of
1213:
1205:
1184:
1177:
1176:
1144:
1137:
1108:
1101:
1077:
1073:
1040:
1006:
1002:
967:
929:
910:
906:
901:
899:
874:
849:
840:
826:
750:
713:
706:
682:
670:
666:
662:
658:
643:
636:
561:
523:Copied from
522:
505:
497:
451:
440:
433:
386:
380:
332:
308:
269:13 Sep 2024
262:
231:
205:
32:old revision
29:
28:
1676:Newyorkbrad
1575:Newyorkbrad
1507:Newyorkbrad
1399:The Cavalry
1124:Newyorkbrad
1095:Clerk notes
1034:uw-balkans2
1003:requirement
949:Newyorkbrad
932:Will Beback
852:Will Beback
842:guidelines.
633:WP:ARBCC/PD
152:proceedings
30:This is an
1403:Message me
1370:PhilKnight
1278:Homeopathy
1273:Homeopathy
1136:Enacting.
1024:uw-balkans
733:EdJohnston
663:themselves
494:Background
365:orig. case
341:orig. case
317:orig. case
254:Case name
243:Past cases
227:Open cases
197:Initiated
1590:SirFozzie
1385:SirFozzie
1265:Gibraltar
1260:Gibraltar
1224:Macedonia
1183:The topic
1045:Fut.Perf.
907:Obviously
747:Question:
602:T. Canens
577:T. Canens
548:T. Canens
411:Shortcuts
1567:Comments
1494:Jclemens
1422:contribs
1412:Casliber
1332:Ayn Rand
1327:Ayn Rand
1251:Digwuren
924:Perhaps
880:WP:AC/DS
480:WP:A/R/M
472:Shortcut
292:Motions
194:Motions
97:contribs
48:contribs
22:Requests
20: |
1641:anguard
1616:It's a
1556:Abstain
1355:Support
1242:Abd-WMC
902:process
562:because
447:WP:ARCA
426:WP:ARBM
394:Motions
298:Posted
257:Closed
172:discuss
1618:motion
1545:Oppose
1450:Risker
1442:Kirill
1007:should
911:easier
837:says:
823:says:
693:Risker
667:easier
462:clerks
443:WP:ARC
419:WP:ARM
334:Motion
310:Motion
217:4/0/0
200:Votes
1690:Coren
1666:Coren
1362:Coren
1081:olive
1011:Coren
970:olive
916:Coren
798:olive
753:olive
688:WP:AE
673:Coren
616:Coren
567:Coren
509:Coren
295:Case
16:<
1680:talk
1649:Wha?
1637:ven
1622:most
1608:talk
1594:talk
1579:talk
1511:talk
1498:talk
1485:talk
1466:xeno
1454:talk
1416:talk
1389:talk
1374:talk
1148:Talk
1128:talk
1112:Talk
1085:talk
974:talk
953:talk
937:talk
898:now.
857:talk
802:talk
774:talk
757:talk
737:talk
717:Talk
697:talk
647:Talk
606:talk
581:talk
552:talk
358:none
168:view
137:diff
131:) |
129:diff
117:diff
93:talk
44:talk
1041:not
875:not
659:has
445:or
170:or
53:at
1682:)
1664:—
1610:)
1596:)
1581:)
1513:)
1500:)
1487:)
1456:)
1424:)
1405:)
1391:)
1376:)
1140:NW
1130:)
1104:NW
1091:)
1087:)
1037:}}
1031:{{
1027:}}
1021:{{
993:ka
990:on
987:El
980:)
976:)
955:)
890:ka
887:on
884:El
804:)
776:)
763:)
759:)
739:)
709:NW
699:)
639:NW
608:)
583:)
565:—
554:)
503:.
438:.
367:)
343:)
319:)
123:|
119:)
95:|
46:|
1678:(
1639:M
1633:S
1606:(
1592:(
1577:(
1509:(
1496:(
1483:(
1462:–
1452:(
1419:·
1414:(
1401:(
1387:(
1372:(
1330:(
1317:(
1276:(
1263:(
1151:)
1145:(
1126:(
1115:)
1109:(
1083:(
1048:☼
972:(
951:(
808:)
800:(
772:(
755:(
735:(
720:)
714:(
695:(
650:)
644:(
604:(
579:(
550:(
528::
363:(
339:(
315:(
245:)
241:(
139:)
135:(
127:(
115:(
110:)
102:(
99:)
91:(
80:.
67:)
59:(
50:)
42:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.