1305:
there evidence will be posted, which will hopefully explain a good deal of why the committee acted as it did. In reply to HJ Mitchell's question aimed primarily at Risker, my answer would be that I (and most of the other arbs) voted on the motion to temp desyop before the email correspondence, but the emails created a sense of urgency. Regarding
Jehochman's characterisation of what happened, I don't entirely agree. I think Micks's characterisation of "This desysop was the culmination of months, or even years, of feuding, involving a number of 'high status' Wikipedian's, and even other admins. Community processes completely failed to address it, and in the final act, the best ANI could come up with was an interaction ban" is a lot closer. Regarding Rod's analogy to a totalitarian state, and suggesting this isn't the sort of thing that happens in civilised countries, my response is that extending your analogy, you could be perceived as a government official, and there are concerns about how you have acted, and in this context, we have suspended you pending a full inquiry. Contrary to what you say, this is the exactly sort of thing that happens in civilised countries.
1570:
other considerations. But the one thing that was clear to me was that there are aspects of this matter that should not be discussed on-wiki, much less made the subject of an arbitration case. Days later, despite the good-faith concerns about fair process that have been expressed by several editors I respect highly, the fact remains that the things that were unsuited for public discussion last week are no more suited for public discussion this week. I acknowledge that
Rodhullandemu is not seeking to avoid such a discussion, quite the contrary, and it is not my intention to patronize him. However, under all the circumstances, the appropriate way forward is for the committee to advise Rodhullandemu that he may seek reconsideration of the desysopping by contacting us in a few weeks, after the stresses of the moment have passed. I fear that opening this case instead, especially at this time, is likely to lead to an unseemly and unhealthy public spectacle.
1690:: In response to various comments, I am implacably opposed to the release by the committee of private emails. My overriding concern is that once we publish an email we open the floodgates to requests for more and more information to be released and this will remove from all our correspondents any expectation of confidentiality. This expectation of confidentiality is, I firmly believe, essential to retain the trust of our many correspondents, particularly when - as often happens - we are corresponding with people who are vulnerable or under stress or hurting. For these reasons, because of the precedent that would be created by release, after many years of not doing so, I believe the bright line must be "no".
1511:
arbitration. I could speculate about what other issues there may be, and whether those issues are suitable for arbitration at this stage, but it's not my place to speculate - if someone feels that there are matters requiring arbitration intervention that cannot be resolved by earlier steps in dispute resolution, that should be explicitly presented, rather than vaguely hinted at. I am not repudiating the background that Roger prepared, but I anticipate it will be expounded during the case and presented as findings of fact so that my (and other arbitrators') individual thoughts on the evidence and its relevance to the holding of administrative privileges will be made clear. –
1548:- not voting to accept or decline quite yet. It is entirely correct that all of the evidence that was considered for the Level II desysop is available onwiki to those who look hard enough, although not all concerning edits/actions have been pointed out publicly at this point. However, I am concerned that moving forward with a full case has the potential to be very harmful to Rodhullandemu. Despite the fact that I do not think he should be an administrator at this time, that does not lessen his value as a person, or as a Knowledge (XXG) editor and member of the community. I'm concerned that proceeding in this manner will create a "point of no return".
1390:@LHvU: One argument against suspending the case is that Rodhullandemu has leveled several accusations that have heretofore gone essentially unrebutted by ArbCom. Realize that he's retired on the eve (literally, and he knows it, because Elen told him she would be offline until Sunday) of our posting the full accounting of the evidence that prompted the initial desysop motion. Is everyone who protested against the process willing to retract their accusations against ArbCom? Almost certainly not, I daresay. So, we're left with the choice to be vilified without actually responding, or to be seen to be kicking a retired editor.
752:@LHvU It is my understanding that blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. Could you please clarify how blocking RH&E satisfies the preventative formula of this question? To my understanding a "Retired" template is a voluntary "notice" by an editor that they may not be responding as much. Adding the template does not require them to hand over their editing privileges. Please elucidate for me as to why you believe these things as it appears from my prospective to be a case of Administrative Tool Abuse for you to apply the block for the justifying reason given.
738:@To the many respondents and to the people spoiling for a fight: As it appears that the original aggrieved party has elected to withdraw from this process (by instigating their retirement) I see no reason to continue this case. However I do highly recommend a civil RfC to clarify ArbCom's ability to bring cases on it's own behalf (i.e. Without a formal petition as posted on the Requests for Arbitration board) due to this procedure being invoked in this case.
1430:@Xover: Since my last reply to LHvU (above), the committee is in the process of formally rejecting the release of email, either the entire conversation or the ArbCom-authored part of it. Opposition is unanimous among the majority of arbs who've participated in the poll so far. While this was a 'tactical' motion discussing the specific options available to us in this case, I expect it will be formalized in whatever process improvement dialogue happens next.
945:@Jehochman re "without being given a chance to respond in the open": As will become apparent when the email exchanges are made public, not only was I not given a chance to respond either in the open OR in private, when I requested diffs of the case against me, they were not provided, so no such chance ever arose. It will also become apparent that the ArbCom have cited one set of reasons in private for my desysopping, and another set in public.
154:
2108:
editor may ask the
Committee for periodic reviews of this decision by email. Furthermore, upon presentation to him of real-world evidence that professional/medical help has been sought and followed for six months, and upon the recommendation of those professionals, Jimbo Wales will recommend to the committee that Rodhullandemu be allowed back provisionally."--
1528:@LessHeard vanU, as regards retirement: As Rodhullandemu has formally invited an inquest into the removal of administrative privileges on 2 March, I think it would be presumptuous to terminate this proceeding simply because he announced his intention to withdraw from the project. Has he indicated that he does not wish the case to be heard? –
773:
to review its own decisions, is fraught with conflict of interest issues. Meanwhile, with the best of intentions, I still require ArbCom to justify itself to the community that elected it, but if they are that confident in their own powers, they will take over this request, and defend themselves to the ultimate benefit of the commmunity.
2104:
sensitivity and tact. We have here an admin of long standing, who has contributed in many valuable ways to the project, but whose conduct has also at times strayed far beyond what is allowed. I thank
Rodhullandemu for his many contributions, and urge him to seek professional/medical help to return to happiness, strength and health.
1954:
I see no compelling reason to do this for mere process' sake. The only effect is semantic, and the net effect is that he is still desysop'ed for the duration of the case. Should there be a reversal of the outcome, it would be appropriate to restore the bit then. We are not a court, where a permanent
1304:
Several editors have asked perfectly good questions which merit a reply, but the structure of this page makes it awkward to do so. Apologies if you haven't received a response, and if you copy the post onto my talk page, I'll do my best to reply. My guess is the case will be opened shortly, and from
1143:
I note that
Rodhullandemu has retired after his appeal to Jimbo was refused (with Jimbo telling him that the removal of the administrative bit was warranted). I may suggest that we do post the evidence for a period of time anyway, to assuage fears of the community to the process and evidence we used
772:
Whereas a neutral position is welcome, I specifically required the ArbCom to defend their indefensible position. My authority was to ArbCom to justify its actions, not for another editor to take up my position, however well-intentioned. Of course, asking a tribunal, however constituted or appointed,
1490:
Note also, only the "Motion" portion of the announcement was directly voted on by the (you wrote nine, but I count) thirteen arbitrators; the "Background" was written separately and is one arbitrator's distilling of the evidence presented while discussing the motion, and not necessarily endorsed in
1270:
Response to Ten of all Trades - no, there was no third party who requested us to look into this. At the point where SandyGeorgia was contemplating filing a RfAR, I advised that the
Committee was already looking at this matter. I note your opinions of the process, but with respect to admin behaviour
2107:
I am upholding for now both the revocation of administrator privileges and the indefinite block. I am also making a minor modification to the appeal conditions. ArbCom has stated "The editor may ask the
Committee for periodic reviews of this decision by email." I am modifying this to read: "The
1613:
Also agree. Brad's comment explains, far more eloquently than anything I could say, why the committee acted in the way it did. While I understand why editors such as HJ Mitchell think we should be trouted, we were trying to act compassionately. I accept that we should have anticipated to a greater
1569:
that I discussed with him at the time). Had I been online last Friday night, I would probably have been torn between supporting the motion to desysop, because
Rodhullandemu had clearly lost his sense of perspective, and urging some lesser or interim measure in light of his lengthy service and some
838:
Get this clear: my desysop was at least contentious. Those who voted for it have failed conspicuously to justify it. I am not going to accept a verdict that might have been acceptable in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, or today's North Korea, but not here, and now, and today, in the developed world.
721:
Rodhullandemu, you're digging yourself a pit. Please don't make it any larger. You obviously represent the "Give back the
Janitor's Keys" side, someone who is familiar with the other side of the discussion should represent that. I know you're very caustic in your discourse, but please demonstrate
1070:
lies. The point is, however, that the precipitating incident (which I expect you'd wish a wider case to examine) is only part of the reason for our motion — and not an especially important part at that. It may well bear being examined as an arbitration matter, but given that it only peripherally
1408:
release private correspondence without the active consent of the person with whom we were in communication. Whatever the value might be in restoring ArbCom's "image" by releasing the emails in their entirety, the damage to our ability to assure future correspondents that emails will be held in
1510:
review of this situation concerned administrative privileges. Proceedings conducted in private are exceptional and as such it was strictly limited in scope to the removal of permissions. While there may be other issues that could benefit from outside intervention, none have been presented for
822:@Other arbitrators: if you voted to desysop me without giving me adequate response to allegations against me, you should recuse. To do otherwise would be fundamentally dishonest, since you've already appeared to have made up your minds. Examine your souls, please, and do the honourable thing.
2103:
filed a formal appeal of the ArbCom ruling. I set aside time Monday and
Tuesday to review the evidence. I have reviewed both the evidence filed on wiki, and internal email discussions. I find that ArbCom has acted responsibly and honorably at all times, reviewing the entire context with
1413:
in approaching Rodhullandemu privately in the first place. Indeed, it would be far less sensitive to release the on-wiki evidence, which is a detailed chronology of issues, with links and diffs, going back to 2008. Any Wikipedian with enough time can re-do ArbCom's work on that one.
497:
Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at
1255:
Response to Nuclear Warfare - if you prefer, I will post all the emails that the committee sent to Rod as part of the evidence. Rod (or yourself) can post all his replies. I can confirm that there were no emails from third parties connected with this decision.
1240:
Although the procedures do not envisage any Arbitrator being required to recuse during a hearing to examine the removal of permissions following a desysop, I shall be presenting the evidence gathered directly by Arbcom, and would prefer to stick to that role.
1376:@Jehochman, that is in inaccurate characterization of what transpired, though not an unreasonable guess. Speculation in the case request page is unhelpful, as the issues will be elaborated in as much public detail as appropriate during the case proper.
839:
There are certain basics of justice, however you define that, that exist, and it it is up to us to accept them. If otherwise, we have absolutely no honour of justification to claim to be better than jungle justice. That's really what this is all about.
1029:
That said, I will not let the case drag on or turn into a mudslinging festival. Only evidence regarding Rod's suitability as an administrator will be examined, and absolutely no tolerance will be extended to personal attacks or bringing up old feuds.
1290:. I admit that I didn't envisage this much drama over what is essentially a motion to prevent Rod from using the buttons during the case. Anyway, I don't seriously believe that voting in favour of this motion necessitates that I have to recuse.
1066:@Ten, redux: I don't think setting a narrows scope hinders that. Certainly any related matter that has a demonstrable bearing on the desysop can be presented; and none of us would ignore something relevant just because of where the
79:
514:
74:
1986:
As far as I can tell, this doesn't actually make any meaningful difference beyond reclassifying the temporary desyop as a temporary injunction. While I don't object, I'm not entirely convinced this is necessary.
713:
says we're not supposed to do process for process's sake, however I do suspect that this line of inquiry won't die down until the full case (as suggested by ArbCom and invited by Rhodhullandemu) is done with.
68:
57:
529:
375:
1450:
894:@GWHerbert re mails:I have already released them unedited to an uninvolved third party, and Jimmy Wales. For the avoidance of doubt, I have nothing to hide, and I retain the originals as sent to me.
683:
2013:
510:
503:
412:
244:
63:
52:
1671:
1667:
1506:@TenOfAllTrades, I've struck the word "expect" and replacing it with "anticipate". The reason I anticipate the case to be limited in scope is because the only issue that was explored during the
806:@John Vanderberg & Shell Kinney: You were also part of the original flawed decision, and should therefore also recuse. To do otherwise would not be acceptable to the community at large.
177:
1181:
Carcharoth's comment deserves a read. Myself, I don't think it's desirable (or even possible) to limit the case to RH&E. I do hope RH&E considers NYB's proposed process, however.
46:
1674:
Level II procedures were used because prima facie there were grounds to do so, which I outlined in the background section. A case has now been requested to examine the facts more fully.
1614:
extent the community reaction, and should have communicated more clearly the desyop was a temporary provision pending a full case, however I honestly believe our intentions were good.
406:
1931:
Following discussion, and comments, including Sandstein's, I now realise this is appropriate. The original desyop was temporary, and should be replaced with this interim injunction.
877:
Sorry, but if someone sticks a knife into me, I'm going to remove it. That is nothing to do with who the person sticking the knife in to begin with is. It's pure self-preservation.
1488:; anyone is free the suggest an expansion of scope, but at that point I would need to reconsider the expanded scope of the case in line with usual procedures for case acceptance.
1663:
370:
1129:
I see no reason for the 13 of us who voted to remove the administrative tools on a temporary basis to recuse from the case to determine the resolution on a permanent basis.
402:
198:
190:
1346:. This process contemplates allowing a formal decision after the desysop. PhilKnight aptly describes it as a motion to prevent use of the tools until the case is resolved.
1057:@Ten: Accepting this case on the narrow ground of examining whether Rod should keep the bit or not does not preclude a wider case being opened if a case is made for it. —
718:
For the record, I am 100% open to letting someone else (Possibly Elen of the Roads) represent the de-sysop position because I do not feel that strongly about the issue.
1071:
overlaps with the examination of Rod's administrator status, trying to shoehorn both into a single case would be the the detriment of a proper examination of either. —
703:. After reading through the discussion of the Arbitration Committee's decision to de-sysop Rodhullandemu (and it's firey debate) I was ashamed. After Rhodhullandemu's
2016:. However, while the case was pending, Rodhullandemu was blocked for reasons unrelated to the issues raised in the case itself. Since then, the Arbitration Committee
1457:
discussions constitute a portion of an arbitrator's official service, and regular duties of an arbitrator do not constitute grounds for recusal on related matters. I
344:
2017:
688:
364:
209:
187:
1462:
1343:
1086:
397:
335:
254:
182:
1969:
Jclemens has this exactly right. This is a motion for the sake of... well, I can't quite figure out what purpose it's supposed to serve. It has no effect. —
1409:
confidence unless they actively consent to their release is certain. Besides, it's not the gentlemanly thing to do, which, as we've said all along, was the
1726:
1714:
1657:
1641:
1579:
1557:
1475:
1337:
1299:
1250:
1232:
1176:
1124:
1107:
1095:
1034:
340:
627:
350:
330:
213:
1649:: Per Level II procedures. It is crucial however that the case remains focused on on-wiki conduct and doesn't stray invasively into private matters.
1565:
as a public case at this time. Well before the desysopping, I was concerned about some aspects of Rodhullandemu's behavior (including the incident at
1342:
I don't believe there was an "original private case," or at least there should not have been one without any process. It was a level II desysop. See
355:
268:
249:
471:
709:
I am opening this pro-forma case to air the evidence (as claimed by the ArbCom) and to let Rhodhullandemu respond to said evidence. I am aware the
389:
280:
2131:
790:@Coren: You've already expressed an opinion as to further discussion on this issue, and therefore, to be fair to all parties, you should recuse.
313:
502:), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the
239:
168:
25:
525:
499:
1144:
in this case (which is what most people were complaining about, not the action taken), and then courtesy deleted if RHE is indeed retired.
575:
1775:
is rescinded and replaced with a temporary injunction suspending Rodhullandemu's administrative privileges for the duration of the case.
1039:
Rodhullandemu: No. There is no reasonable justification for me, or any other arbitrator that voted on the previous motion, to recuse. —
621:
699:
As a uninvolved member of the Knowledge (XXG) community, I have observed the contentious editing and accusations that have occured on
1773:("Rodhullandemu's administrator status is revoked. He may apply for adminship at a future date by the usual means to the community.")
305:
145:
291:
234:
21:
513:. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at
226:
2020:
to block Rodhullandemu indefinitely. Accordingly, Rodhullandemu's administrator privileges are revoked and the case is closed.
675:
276:
174:
1823:
1662:@TenOfAllTrades. There has in fact been attempted dispute resolution in abundance, at which significant concerns were aired.
1228:
1749:
Although Risker is currently on the inactive list, she has voted on this motion, so she counts in calculating the majority.
286:
204:
569:
1167:; I believe the arbitrators who voted for this desysop committed the committee to a public case, if RH&E wanted one.
464:
1276:
1261:
1246:
645:
1955:
injunction vs. a temporary restraining order is a meaningful differentiation, and shouldn't strive to emulate one.
325:
633:
106:
429:
2117:
2089:
1996:
1973:
1964:
1940:
1926:
1918:
1908:
1895:
1886:
1878:
1865:
1855:
1841:
1837:
1827:
1808:
1794:
1758:
1698:
1682:
1623:
1608:
1593:
1589:
1538:
1521:
1501:
1439:
1423:
1399:
1385:
1369:
1355:
1351:
1314:
1280:
1265:
1207:
1203:
1190:
1186:
1172:
1153:
1138:
1075:
1061:
1052:
1043:
999:
977:
956:
938:
905:
888:
871:
850:
833:
817:
801:
784:
761:
747:
731:
547:
164:
17:
1404:@LHvU 2: While a formal vote on the matter has not been taken, there is a strong consensus that ArbCom will
994:
972:
951:
933:
915:
900:
883:
866:
845:
828:
812:
796:
779:
615:
457:
962:@Malleus: ArbCom isn't interested in content disputes. I invited you to take it to the Talk page, or other
909:@HJ Mitchell: Are you crazy? Admins who combat vandalism as a career do not make friends. Reality, please!
1453:- Rodhullandemu is entitled to request an examination of the removal of permissions. As regards recusals:
1272:
1257:
1242:
2113:
1804:
1754:
1744:
For this motion, there are 16 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 9 votes are a majority
1575:
593:
131:
509:
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at
2044:
1992:
1936:
1861:
1619:
1310:
1295:
1271:
it does not require that a case be filed, or a request for action made, before the committee can act.
1091:
101:
1328:
motion--that is, whether Rodhullandemu is suited for the administrator tools at this point in time.
2048:
2028:
1892:
1874:
1833:
1638:
1585:
1347:
1199:
1182:
1168:
1149:
1134:
1120:
857:
581:
90:
2100:
2009:
1960:
1923:
1817:
1723:
1435:
1419:
1395:
1381:
1365:
1333:
1222:
989:
967:
946:
928:
910:
895:
878:
861:
840:
823:
807:
791:
774:
610:
120:
95:
2082:
2068:
2064:
1901:
1883:
1691:
1675:
1650:
1104:
757:
743:
727:
563:
540:
710:
2109:
2052:
2032:
1913:
1851:
1800:
1771:
case be opened, the 26 February 2011 motion posted to the Arbitration Committee noticeboard
1750:
1709:
1571:
1553:
431:
126:
700:
2056:
2040:
1988:
1932:
1891:
Fair enough, although the difference between the two formulations is probably too subtle.
1615:
1306:
1291:
988:", and I, for one, am not prepared to legitimise these tawdry proceedings by my presence.
963:
434:
2072:
1870:
1792:
1606:
1536:
1519:
1499:
1473:
1145:
1130:
1116:
524:
as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at
985:
722:
some of the same good sense that allowed you to be given the keys in the first place.
2125:
2036:
2024:
1956:
1813:
1431:
1415:
1391:
1377:
1361:
1329:
1218:
115:
684:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#User:Rodhullandemu
2008:
This arbitration case was opened to review the administrator conduct and status of
753:
739:
723:
558:
536:
433:
153:
2060:
1847:
1549:
1970:
1072:
1058:
1049:
1040:
1031:
986:
power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot through the ages
2076:
1785:
1599:
1529:
1512:
1492:
1466:
1465:, the initial discussion of which I participated in an official capacity. –
1089:
to "examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances."
1048:
HJ Mitchell: Let's not debate merits of the desysop on the request page. —
923:
Look at the diffs: I left him alone until he started falsfiying sources on
1637:
as per the stated requirement in the Level II desysopping procedures.
1087:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Return of permissions
1584:
I support NYB's approach if RH&E does. Don't open this too fast.
1344:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Level II procedures
1198:
It's better for everyone that I not remain involved with this case.
984:
What we have here, in the ArbCom, is the clearest possible case of "
1799:
If the case is accepted and opened, this is an appropriate action.
530:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
526:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification
1566:
924:
435:
521:
1010:
705:
666:
651:
639:
599:
587:
445:
360:
318:
194:
1011:
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (13/1/1/1)
660:
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
1461:
anticipate the case will be limited in scope to the
1023:an adversarial proceeding and that nobody presents
1491:its entirety by those who voted on the motion. –
520:Once the case is closed, editors may add to the
2012:. Substantial relevant evidence was presented
2099:On April 8, in an email entitled "Up to you"
465:
8:
1324:within the limits of the original private
472:
458:
141:
1027:position — only evidence and commentary.
860:seem to be unbiased? I do not think so.
528:, and report violations of remedies at
144:
1019:; with a reminder that arbitration is
522:#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
1360:You're entirely correct; so amended.
856:@Hasteur: You're prepared to let the
7:
245:Clarification and Amendment requests
966:, but you didn't. Not my problem.
32:
2132:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration cases
1115:With the caveats of Coren above.
674:Confirmation that other steps in
2081:For the Arbitration Committee,
152:
689:Notice from ArbCom of de-sysop
1:
1480:@TenOfAllTrades, when I say
493:on 04:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
488:on 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
376:Conflict of interest reports
1846:Concur with my colleagues.
1449:, per John and my comments
927:. I was prepared to do so.
205:Search archived proceedings
146:Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration
18:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration
2148:
2118:11:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
1484:, the intended meaning is
768:Statement by Rodhullandemu
250:Arbitrator motion requests
2090:04:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
1997:13:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1974:12:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1965:05:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1941:21:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1927:20:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
1919:16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1915:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1909:13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1896:12:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1887:04:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1879:03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1866:03:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1856:03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1842:03:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1828:03:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1809:03:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1795:02:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1759:13:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1727:20:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
1715:16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1711:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1699:11:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1683:13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1658:13:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1642:12:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1624:13:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1609:03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1594:03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1580:03:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1558:02:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1539:22:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1522:15:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1502:13:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1476:02:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1440:15:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1424:01:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1400:01:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1386:15:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
1370:02:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1356:02:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1338:02:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1315:17:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1300:01:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1281:14:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1266:13:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1251:01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1233:01:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1208:22:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1191:03:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
1177:01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1154:01:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1139:01:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1125:01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1108:01:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1096:01:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1076:02:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
1062:12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1053:01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1044:01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1035:01:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1000:02:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
978:00:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
957:21:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
941:01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
939:01:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
906:01:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
889:01:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
872:01:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
851:01:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
834:01:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
818:01:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
802:01:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
785:01:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
762:15:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
748:15:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
732:01:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
548:00:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1900:No problems with this,
500:Requests for arbitration
1463:Removal of permissions
2095:Appeal to Jimbo Wales
1006:Preliminary decisions
491:Case Closed By Motion
446:Track related changes
306:Arbitration Committee
1733:Temporary injunction
1217:per John and Coren.
695:Statement by Hasteur
255:Enforcement requests
183:Guide to arbitration
112:Drafting arbitrators
858:Witchfinder General
676:dispute resolution
515:/Proposed decision
277:Contentious topics
175:Arbitration policy
1761:
1273:Elen of the Roads
1258:Elen of the Roads
1243:Elen of the Roads
482:
481:
449:
417:
287:General sanctions
235:All open requests
165:About arbitration
140:
139:
135:
124:
110:
99:
83:
75:Proposed decision
72:
61:
50:
2139:
2087:
2004:Closed by motion
1916:
1906:
1864:
1790:
1748:
1712:
1696:
1680:
1655:
1604:
1534:
1517:
1497:
1471:
1094:
997:
992:
975:
970:
954:
949:
936:
931:
918:
913:
903:
898:
886:
881:
869:
864:
848:
843:
831:
826:
815:
810:
799:
794:
782:
777:
708:
669:
655:
628:deleted contribs
603:
576:deleted contribs
553:Involved parties
474:
467:
460:
448:
443:
436:
415:
371:Clerk procedures
363:
321:
292:Editor sanctions
269:Active sanctions
227:Open proceedings
197:
156:
142:
129:
118:
104:
93:
77:
66:
55:
44:
37:
36:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2122:
2121:
2097:
2083:
2045:John Vandenberg
2006:
1914:
1902:
1862:John Vandenberg
1860:
1786:
1740:
1735:
1710:
1692:
1676:
1651:
1600:
1530:
1513:
1493:
1467:
1092:John Vandenberg
1090:
1013:
1008:
995:
990:
973:
968:
952:
947:
934:
929:
916:
911:
901:
896:
884:
879:
867:
862:
846:
841:
829:
824:
813:
808:
797:
792:
780:
775:
770:
704:
697:
678:have been tried
665:
613:
561:
555:
494:
478:
444:
438:
437:
432:
422:
421:
420:
409:
392:
382:
381:
380:
367:
359:
347:
322:
317:
308:
298:
297:
296:
271:
261:
260:
259:
229:
219:
216:
201:
193:
171:
102:Salvio giuliano
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
2145:
2143:
2135:
2134:
2124:
2123:
2096:
2093:
2049:Kirill Lokshin
2029:Cool Hand Luke
2005:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1983:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1967:
1950:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1929:
1921:
1911:
1898:
1889:
1881:
1868:
1858:
1844:
1830:
1811:
1797:
1780:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1739:
1738:Interim motion
1736:
1734:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1717:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1685:
1644:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1560:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1489:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1388:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1268:
1235:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1193:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1110:
1098:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1064:
1055:
1046:
1028:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1002:
981:
980:
943:
942:
908:
892:
891:
854:
853:
836:
820:
804:
769:
766:
765:
764:
750:
736:
735:
734:
696:
693:
692:
691:
686:
680:
679:
671:
670:
662:
661:
657:
656:
608:
554:
551:
489:
484:
480:
479:
477:
476:
469:
462:
454:
451:
450:
440:
439:
430:
428:
427:
424:
423:
419:
418:
410:
405:
400:
394:
393:
388:
387:
384:
383:
379:
378:
373:
368:
358:
353:
348:
343:
338:
333:
328:
323:
316:
310:
309:
304:
303:
300:
299:
295:
294:
289:
284:
273:
272:
267:
266:
263:
262:
258:
257:
252:
247:
242:
237:
231:
230:
225:
224:
221:
220:
218:
217:
212:
207:
202:
192:
185:
180:
172:
167:
161:
158:
157:
149:
148:
138:
137:
42:Main case page
34:
31:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2144:
2133:
2130:
2129:
2127:
2120:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2105:
2102:
2101:Rodhullandemu
2094:
2092:
2091:
2088:
2086:
2079:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2021:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2010:Rodhullandemu
2003:
1999:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1984:
1981:
1980:
1975:
1972:
1968:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1948:
1947:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1928:
1925:
1924:Mailer Diablo
1922:
1920:
1917:
1912:
1910:
1907:
1905:
1899:
1897:
1894:
1890:
1888:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1869:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1843:
1840:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1829:
1825:
1822:
1819:
1815:
1812:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1789:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1774:
1770:
1769:Rodhullandemu
1760:
1756:
1752:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1742:
1741:
1737:
1732:
1728:
1725:
1724:Mailer Diablo
1721:
1718:
1716:
1713:
1707:
1704:
1700:
1697:
1695:
1689:
1686:
1684:
1681:
1679:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1656:
1654:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1603:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1568:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1540:
1537:
1535:
1533:
1527:
1523:
1520:
1518:
1516:
1509:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1500:
1498:
1496:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1474:
1472:
1470:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1412:
1407:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1269:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1005:
1001:
998:
993:
987:
983:
982:
979:
976:
971:
965:
961:
960:
959:
958:
955:
950:
940:
937:
932:
926:
922:
921:
920:
919:
914:
907:
904:
899:
890:
887:
882:
876:
875:
874:
873:
870:
865:
859:
852:
849:
844:
837:
835:
832:
827:
821:
819:
816:
811:
805:
803:
800:
795:
789:
788:
787:
786:
783:
778:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
720:
719:
717:
716:
715:
712:
707:
706:authorization
702:
694:
690:
687:
685:
682:
681:
677:
673:
672:
668:
667:Rodhullandemu
664:
663:
659:
658:
653:
650:
647:
644:
641:
638:
635:
632:
629:
626:
623:
620:
617:
612:
611:Rodhullandemu
609:
607:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
586:
583:
580:
577:
574:
571:
568:
565:
560:
557:
556:
552:
550:
549:
546:
542:
538:
535:
534:Initiated by
531:
527:
523:
518:
516:
512:
507:
505:
501:
495:
492:
487:
475:
470:
468:
463:
461:
456:
455:
453:
452:
447:
442:
441:
426:
425:
414:
411:
408:
404:
401:
399:
396:
395:
391:
386:
385:
377:
374:
372:
369:
366:
362:
357:
354:
352:
349:
346:
342:
339:
337:
334:
332:
329:
327:
324:
320:
315:
312:
311:
307:
302:
301:
293:
290:
288:
285:
282:
278:
275:
274:
270:
265:
264:
256:
253:
251:
248:
246:
243:
241:
240:Case requests
238:
236:
233:
232:
228:
223:
222:
215:
211:
208:
206:
203:
200:
196:
191:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
176:
173:
170:
166:
163:
162:
160:
159:
155:
151:
150:
147:
143:
136:
133:
128:
122:
117:
113:
108:
103:
97:
92:
88:
84:
81:
76:
70:
65:
59:
54:
48:
43:
39:
38:
35:
27:
23:
19:
2106:
2098:
2085:Roger Davies
2084:
2080:
2069:Shell Kinney
2065:Roger Davies
2022:
2007:
1985:
1903:
1836:
1820:
1787:
1772:
1768:
1766:
1743:
1719:
1705:
1693:
1687:
1677:
1652:
1646:
1634:
1601:
1588:
1562:
1545:
1531:
1514:
1507:
1494:
1486:"anticipate"
1485:
1481:
1468:
1458:
1454:
1446:
1410:
1405:
1350:
1325:
1321:
1287:
1237:
1225:
1214:
1202:
1195:
1185:
1171:
1163:
1162:
1112:
1100:
1082:
1067:
1024:
1020:
1016:
944:
893:
855:
771:
698:
648:
642:
636:
630:
624:
618:
606:filing party
605:
596:
590:
584:
578:
572:
566:
544:
533:
519:
508:
496:
490:
485:
483:
111:
86:
85:
41:
40:
33:
2110:Jimbo Wales
2053:Newyorkbrad
2033:David Fuchs
1801:Newyorkbrad
1784:Proposed. –
1767:Should the
1751:Newyorkbrad
1708:per Roger.
1598:Likewise. –
1572:Newyorkbrad
486:Case Opened
210:Ban appeals
188:Noticeboard
127:Newyorkbrad
87:Case clerks
2057:PhilKnight
2041:Iridescent
1989:PhilKnight
1933:PhilKnight
1616:PhilKnight
1307:PhilKnight
1292:PhilKnight
1103:per John.
646:block user
640:filter log
594:block user
588:filter log
416:(pre-2016)
403:Statistics
336:Procedures
2073:SirFozzie
2023:Support:
1871:SirFozzie
1834:Cool Hand
1832:Correct.
1664:July 2010
1586:Cool Hand
1508:in camera
1455:in camera
1348:Cool Hand
1200:Cool Hand
1183:Cool Hand
1169:Cool Hand
1146:SirFozzie
1131:SirFozzie
1117:SirFozzie
652:block log
600:block log
511:/Workshop
506:subpage.
504:/Evidence
341:Elections
2126:Category
2037:Jclemens
2025:Casliber
1957:Jclemens
1824:contribs
1814:Casliber
1672:Feb 2011
1668:Nov 2010
1482:"expect"
1432:Jclemens
1416:Jclemens
1392:Jclemens
1378:Jclemens
1362:Jclemens
1330:Jclemens
1229:contribs
1219:Casliber
622:contribs
570:contribs
116:Casliber
91:Tiptoety
64:Workshop
53:Evidence
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
1982:Abstain
1779:Support
1563:Decline
1546:Comment
1196:Recuse.
991:Rodhull
969:Rodhull
948:Rodhull
930:Rodhull
912:Rodhull
897:Rodhull
880:Rodhull
863:Rodhull
842:Rodhull
825:Rodhull
809:Rodhull
793:Rodhull
776:Rodhull
754:Hasteur
740:Hasteur
724:Hasteur
711:WP:BURO
559:Hasteur
537:Hasteur
413:Reports
351:History
331:Members
326:Contact
314:Discuss
178:(CU/OS)
2061:Risker
1949:Oppose
1893:Kirill
1848:Risker
1720:Accept
1706:Accept
1688:Emails
1647:Accept
1639:Kirill
1635:Accept
1550:Risker
1459:expect
1447:Accept
1322:Accept
1288:Accept
1238:Recuse
1215:Accept
1164:Accept
1113:Accept
1101:Accept
1083:Accept
1017:Accept
996:andemu
974:andemu
953:andemu
935:andemu
917:andemu
902:andemu
885:andemu
868:andemu
847:andemu
830:andemu
814:andemu
798:andemu
781:andemu
701:WP:ANI
356:Clerks
214:Report
125:&
100:&
2018:voted
1971:Coren
1904:Roger
1884:Shell
1694:Roger
1678:Roger
1653:Roger
1567:clown
1411:point
1105:Shell
1073:Coren
1068:focus
1059:Coren
1050:Coren
1041:Coren
1032:Coren
964:WP:DR
925:Clown
390:Audit
16:<
2114:talk
2077:Xeno
2014:here
1993:talk
1961:talk
1937:talk
1875:talk
1852:talk
1838:Luke
1818:talk
1805:talk
1788:xeno
1755:talk
1722:. -
1620:talk
1602:xeno
1590:Luke
1576:talk
1554:talk
1532:xeno
1515:xeno
1495:xeno
1469:xeno
1451:here
1436:talk
1420:talk
1396:talk
1382:talk
1366:talk
1352:Luke
1334:talk
1326:case
1311:talk
1296:talk
1277:talk
1262:talk
1247:talk
1223:talk
1204:Luke
1187:Luke
1173:Luke
1150:talk
1135:talk
1121:talk
1085:per
758:talk
744:talk
728:talk
634:logs
616:talk
582:logs
564:talk
541:talk
407:Talk
398:Talk
365:Talk
345:Talk
199:Talk
169:Talk
132:Talk
121:Talk
107:Talk
96:Talk
80:Talk
69:Talk
58:Talk
47:Talk
26:Case
1406:not
1025:any
1021:not
281:Log
2128::
2116:)
2075:,
2071:,
2067:,
2063:,
2059:,
2055:,
2051:,
2047:,
2043:,
2039:,
2035:,
2031:,
2027:,
1995:)
1963:)
1939:)
1877:)
1854:)
1826:)
1807:)
1757:)
1670:,
1666:,
1622:)
1578:)
1556:)
1438:)
1422:)
1398:)
1384:)
1368:)
1336:)
1313:)
1298:)
1279:)
1264:)
1249:)
1241:--
1231:)
1152:)
1137:)
1123:)
1030:—
760:)
746:)
730:)
604:,
545:at
543:)
532:.
517:.
114::
89::
73:—
62:—
51:—
2112:(
1991:(
1959:(
1935:(
1873:(
1850:(
1821:·
1816:(
1803:(
1753:(
1618:(
1574:(
1552:(
1434:(
1418:(
1394:(
1380:(
1364:(
1332:(
1309:(
1294:(
1275:(
1260:(
1245:(
1226:·
1221:(
1148:(
1133:(
1119:(
756:(
742:(
726:(
654:)
649:·
643:·
637:·
631:·
625:·
619:·
614:(
602:)
597:·
591:·
585:·
579:·
573:·
567:·
562:(
539:(
473:e
466:t
459:v
361:+
319:+
283:)
279:(
195:+
134:)
130:(
123:)
119:(
109:)
105:(
98:)
94:(
82:)
78:(
71:)
67:(
60:)
56:(
49:)
45:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.