930:
mentality and I used a source inappropriately (I cherry-picked language from it to discredit the Wiki editor who authored the journal article). I was appropriately sanctioned for all of this with a topic ban. All of the preceding was appropriate on the part of ArbCom. I did those things and I deserved to be topic banned. My actions were not appropriate and the type of thing that I was doing was damaging to the project. I was blocked in
October 2010 for making a legal threat. I had been outed by a previously banned editor, defamed by a number of off-wiki individuals, and suffered consequences at work resulting in my termination. As a consequence, I filed a defamation lawsuit which included an active editor and was appropriately blocked for the duration of the case. Some time after the case ended, I appealed to ArbCom to lift the block,
972:
I'm very sensitive to some of the information and discussions being kept private. Anyway, I'm not sure that a simple majority vote should be sufficient to release information, and I would be concerned over the redaction procedures for sensitive private information. It doesn't take much for some to put two and two together and then out someone, or to use that type of information against them or to harm them. Some have brought up the
Sandifer motion. This is an example of exactly what kind of actions cannot be tolerated, and I'm speaking of what Philip did, not ArbCom. If the material in email isn't redacted properly, it can harm real people. I did note that Risker had posted what appeared to be a step in the right direction.
736:
Finally, the idea of sanctioning someone for moving information from a metadata infobox to a regular infobox is, in my mind, ludicrous even with the other factors involved. The problem with the issue is that if the information is put in a hidden box to start with, only those that move it will suffer the brunt of the sanctions, which is neither fair nor equitable. Especially when you consider that the anti-infobox side has been complicit in pushing the issue.
890:"tagteam" as an issue) has been seen by some as a problem on Knowledge (XXG) (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
643:- I was blocked in October 2010 for making a legal threat. I had been outed by a previously banned editor, defamed by a number of off-wiki individuals, and suffered consequences at work resulting in my termination. As a consequence, I filed a defamation lawsuit which included an active editor and was appropriately blocked for the duration of the case. Some time after the case ended, I appealed to ArbCom to lift the block,
1003:
It's just not. We are not here to push a POV or an agenda, we are here to publish an encyclopedia. OK, in order. I assume from your comments in the evidence section that you view Cantor as the fringe POV pusher, and
Jokestress as not. Having looked at the evidence and the workshop pages, I don't see that Cantor is fringe. Further, this was explained to you at that location. I concur with the decision in the
1121:
for offenses which should be receiving medical treatment. Second, the United States has a "puritan", no forgiveness mindset, which encourages the criminalization of insignificant or minor misdeeds. Until both of these issues are addressed (and the second inhibits the first being addressed), that incarceration rate will not change.
1120:
This has nothing to do with ArbCom and is not really an appropriate question. I will address it however, with the proviso that I was a police officer for over 20-years. The incarceration rate is primarily due to two issues. First, the 40-year failed war on drugs which has resulted in incarceration
1081:
wnumerous ArbCom (also, admin and community) decisions result in full site bans (of varying length) for editors who have nonetheless promised they will behave better. In essence, those editors are saying "let me help" and we are saying "this project doesn't want your help". How would you justify such
971:
I'm of mixed views on this. First, the committee needs to be accountable to the community, especially the normal editor. Transparency is one of the best ways to accomplish this. However, having been part of the dump of emails on to whatever anti-Knowledge (XXG) site it was (sorry, can't remember),
894:
Yes, factionalism is a problem. Yes, ArbCom should consider the effect of factionalism. There are a number of ways to deal with factionalism, ranging from harsh to mild. An ArbCom response may be to provide for a warning against participating in a faction, followed by a measured, increasing system
1011:
case. The initial move of the article to "Chelsea
Manning" was premature, to the point that Knowledge (XXG) was making news. We should not be making the news, our articles should be reflecting what reliable sources say. The move was too soon. It was properly moved when the sources indicated that
735:
Yes, it is a good idea to find out, if we are talking about a real case. First, I haven't been able to find an RfC for
Infoboxes (I'm not saying it's not there, I just cannot find it). Second, the community needs to develop some form of standard. It is not productive to keep rehashing the issue.
638:
it was one of the reasons that I have changed my style somewhat. I'm still not touchy-feely and can be blunt at times, but I also try a lot harder to use RfC and other tools to find consensus. The block was appropriate too, although I'm not sure how much detail I can go into on that issue. When I
572:
In the aftermath of the "Phil
Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion, several Arbs laid out their reasoning in extensive detail and debated people that disagreed with their decision. While it is not uncommon for individual Arbs to explain their reasoning in greater detail, it is uncommon for so many
563:
I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this matter, because I do not have the information that ArbCom had, nor was I part of the process. However, having said that, I have no sympathy for Phil. Whether the other editor had "outed" himself or not, posting information with the apparent desire
398:
OMG - not as rapidly as I thought in the past (before my block). It varies. I'm less inclined to cut slack for wheel-warring or for pushing a POV (on either side of an issue) than I am for an apparent good faith mistake. Admins are human (well, maybe :D) and are to be expected to make a mistake. We
1039:
First off, thank you for volunteering. The issues previously with your account have been discussed above, but I wanted to approach it from a different angle. Many arbitrators have been outed against their will and/or harassed because of their position. Do you feel like your previous issues in this
1002:
First, all readers are important to
Knowledge (XXG), whether they be LGBT or straight, mainstream or fringe, lay or expert. Knowledge (XXG) should first focus on its mission. You're not going to like the answer, but it is not Knowledge (XXG)'s role to lead the way for the transgender community.
873:
Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings
1090:
First, thanks for the link, but I think that it focuses on the wrong issue. Blocks and site bans should never be issued as punishment, but only as a preventative measure to protect the project. Blocking editors who promise to behave is problematic. If it is the first time or problem, there are
824:
Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and
531:
When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active ArbCom case related to that issue, can ArbCom
136:
I thought that the committee handled the
ScientistApologist unblock request extremely well, by declining it and letting the community decide. I opposed the unblock, but it was better that the community make that decision (and thus far, I am pleasantly surprised at how well it has gone). I don't
93:
Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might
1072:
When the problem is primarily tied to one area (such as
Climate Change in my case), a topic ban is more appropriate. When I came back from my NLT block, I was still topic banned from Climate Change but was able to contribute quality material to the SCOTUS and Law areas. A full ban or block is
628:
Could you tell us some more about your history? You mention being sanctioned and blocked in 2010, but you don't explain the grounds, whether you think they were legitimate etc. Since you're running for the most trusted position on
Knowledge (XXG), I would ask you to let us know more about this.
936:
Being outed has made me very sensitive to privacy concerns. Additionally, I learned that the battleground mentality and the resulting actions were not consistent with the goals of the project, nor were they conducive to good editing. My best work has been since my return, primarily because I
784:
An arbitrator stated during a case "I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors
301:
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. There is a large correlation between the answers to the questions and what the final result is in the guide, but I also consider other factors as well. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your
929:
In 2010, I was blocked for a BLP violation for creating an ill-advised article about admin abuse (since deleted, thankfully) and identified an active editor. This led me into the Climate Change fiasco where I was in fact disruptive. During the ArbCom case, I was found to have a battleground
573:
of them to do so, to do in the midst of a hostile debate. Do you believe that the ArbCom members' explaining of their position was constructive, or did it only add fuel to an already large fire? Do you believe that ArbCom members should be explaining their reasoning in great detail regularly?
1044:
Hi SirFozzie. I don't see how it could be a problem should it happen again. I'm no longer in the same career field, and I don't see how it can affect me now. It's also pretty clear who I am. In any event, the previous case was unique, in that a group of off-wiki individuals were the main
838:
Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Knowledge (XXG), is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former
98:
It is impossible to say. The whole purpose of ArbCom is to provide a way for the project to function. The first key is rehabilitation - can the individual be kept as a good editor? What action best supports that? In my case, it was about a 2-year forced hiatus from Knowledge (XXG). Some
1145:
I respect editors privacy with regards to their name. I however think that people entrusted with significant power, such as Arbitrators, should disclose to the community at least their age, education and nationality. In my opinion such a disclosure would balance the requirements for privacy
1146:(safeguarding Arbitrators from real life harassment), while giving the community a better understanding of background and maturity of those entrusted with such a significant power. Would you be therefore willing to disclose your age, education and nationality? If not, please elaborate why.
436:
I don't have real crosswiki experience, so I'm not familiar with CU/OS anywhere else. The only experience here is where I've seen it used. I had an SPI run on me early on, and CU cleared me. How it did so, I don't have a clue. My experience is similar with OS. I've seen the results of
744:
Let's assume that in a real case you would go and look if the edit was controversial or could be perceived as controversial, and perhaps talk to your colleague? - Let's now imagine that in a different case as many arbs vote for a ban as against it, it's your turn to ban or not. Would you?
722:
I don't see that diff, standing alone, as grounds for sanctions. If you are talking about something beyond that, such as the Infoboxes then the answer is more complicated. Had the editor been under any previous sanctions? Was there disagreement on the talkpage. Due to the nature of the
111:
There are issues with several users where I would immediately recuse, not because I would be unfair, but because the appearance of fairness is essential to the ArbCom process. Those individuals are tied to what led to my sanctions, so it is better that I recuse if any of those came to
232:
Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
171:
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
829:
No, ignoring evidence can never result in a proper decision. My personal opinion is that if a committee member is unwilling to look at evidence and workshop pages, they should recuse. If they don't want to do it in all cases, they should resign. I will commit to weighing the
469:
Sort of a supreme court for Knowledge (XXG). ArbCom doesn't make policy, but it says what policy is, and means. In a perfect world, it would be an honorary body, with no real duties, but until we get there, we need people who will have the best interests of the community at
598:
The above question (Q6) was asked to every candidate last year, with several of the ultimately elected candidates pledging to make ArbCom procedures more public, or at least expressing support for such an idea. There has been, as far as I can tell, no progress on the issue.
482:(which would affect enwiki ArbCom as well as all CU/OS/steward positions on all WMF sites)? Do you anticipate being able to meet the identification requirement (keeping in mind that the proposal is still in the feedback stage, and may be revised pending current feedback)?
407:
What is the relationship of the English Knowledge (XXG) (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites, "Wikimedia" IRC, and so-called "badsites" or sites dedicated to the criticism of Knowledge (XXG)? Specifically, what do you define as the "remit" of ArbCom in these areas?
924:
You've been blocked for BLP violations and making legal threats, and sanctioned for disruptive behaviour, including edit warring and inappropriate use of sources. In what way do these experiences inform and affect the way that you will perform your duties on ArbCom?
797:
Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?
633:
I don't have a problem with discussing any of it, with one proviso. The sanction was a topic ban from all Climate Change articles, broadly construed, from the Climate Change case. It was appropriate, given the battleground mentality which I exhibited at the time
34:
Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.
1082:
decisions (blocking editors who promised to behave), against an argument that by blocking someone who has promised to behave better we are denying ourselves his or her help in building an encyclopedia? What is the message we are trying to send? (You may find
276:
Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.
1091:
other measures which should be tried first. These include warnings, 3/1/0RR restrictions, use of talkpage requirement, mentors, article bans, topic bans, etc. Only when it is necessary to protect the entire project should a site ban or block be issued.
607:- If you are not a current ArbCom member: If you made a commitment above (in Q6) to bring increased transparency to ArbCom, only to reach the body and find that the rest of the committee is unwilling to move forward on the issue, what would you do?
360:
a) WikiProjects run the gamut from great to not so great. b) There should be no ownership of articles by any editor or group, including those of a wikiproject. c) The same thing as in other content disputes. It should be worked out and a consensus
937:
learned from the experience. It also changed my view of the role of blocks and bans. Before my block, I viewed them as punishment, a form of retribution. After my return, I see the preventive nature of the blocking policy, and agree with it.
697:
Information was transferred from a metadata infobox at the bottom of the page to a person infobox at the top of the page. The photo was not done correctly on this edit, but was corrected on the next edit. That's all I see, unless I'm missing
585:
Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
25:
706:
I like the way you really looked and described factually. No. 2 (of 3): imagine you are an arb on a case, and your arb colleague presents the above diff as support for his reasoning to vote for banning the editor, - what do you do?
1020:
deleted them -- I'm not an admin. I don't know what else to say on that case. To answer your last question, the way to repair the reputation is to be above board, say why we are doing something, and move forward by creating an
245:
Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
343:
Can you clarify your question? It looks to me that this took 2-1/2 months. It's a little longer than the case looked like it should have taken, but I don't have a clue what other issues they were working on at the same
263:
I have difficulty with taking action based on secret evidence. Whether the community knows about it or not is a different issue. The first is one of due process and fairness, while the second could create potential
815:
response. Thanks for the quote on this, it's been one of my favorites for years, merely because most people don't have a clue that it comes from a Papal legate during the persecution of a minority sect in southern
21:
150:
It depends. I see ArbCom as the SCOTUS of Knowledge (XXG). It is ArbCom's role not to make policy, but to state what the policy is, and what it means. Cases should be accepted if it will benefit the community.
1099:
to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to...?)
1185:
Please detail your most significant Featured or Good article contributions. GAN, FAC or even Peer Review contributions qualify as evidence of teamwork in bringing an article(s) to a higher level of excellence.
381:
a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
258:
Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?
145:
The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
224:
I don't see a need for checkuser, I will request oversight rights. Oversight would only be used to protect an individuals information from becoming public. Others with the right can handle the other issues.
85:
Well, I was obviously involved in the Climate Change case and was sanctioned. Actually that was one of the best things that happened to me, because it forced me to look at myself and how I dealt with issues.
457:
Ah, yeah. Look at the Climate Change case. Not one of my best efforts. I've also worked out a number of content disputes by discussion, forming consensus, RFC, etc. It's much better the second way.
394:
zOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept a case, or act by motion, related to either a) abuse of the tools, or b) conduct unbecoming of an administrator?
1061:(Note borrowed from Rschen7754): The questions are similar to those I asked in 2012. If you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.
1045:
protagonists who were harassing me at my job, as I noted above. If it were going to have the potential to do the same type of harm, I would not have come back to Knowledge (XXG), nor run for ArbCom.
559:
The "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion has proven to be hugely controversial. What (if anything) did ArbCom do right in this matter. What (if anything) did ArbCom do wrong in this matter.
544:
Please identify a few motions from 2013 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
861:
The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Knowledge (XXG)?
731:
Do you think it would be a good idea to find out? I advise you to look at the history and talk of the article, not at what was presented as evidence, namely that the editor was banned twice.
1104:
A topic ban would be equivalent to a trespass warning for a store in a mall (i.e., don't return or you'll go to jail) and a full ban is equivalent to a trespass warning for the entire mall.
998:
dispute, and ArbCom instructing admins to undelete libel (see Jimbo's talk page), how would you seek to repair Knowledge (XXG)'s reputation amongst LGBT–especially transgender–lay-readers?
17:
519:
What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation?
399:
don't need to crucify them when this happens. On conduct unbecoming, it just depends on the conduct. How bad is it? How did it affect the community and the project? Is it likely to recur?
184:
It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
132:
Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
107:
Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Knowledge (XXG), that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
437:
oversighted comments (i.e., the struck through diff), but that's it. I don't intend to request or use CU, and limit use of OS to outing cases where it is needed immediately.
336:
964:
1150:
Yes. It's somewhat easier for me since I've already been outed. I do not believe that it should be a requirement for other Arbs, it should be voluntary but encouraged.
802:
Yes, there needs to be a factual basis for each individual sanction. Despite the protestations of Amalric, somehow I don't think the community will be impressed with a
1040:
area will be a problem should it happen again? (I'm not trying to be a scaremonger, this is a serious question on how you'd handle it if something like that happened)
432:
What is your opinion as to how the CU/OS tools are currently used, both here on the English Knowledge (XXG), and across Wikimedia (if you have crosswiki experience)?
1169:
911:
765:
716:
691:
506:
723:
wikiprojects involved, could the edit have been anticipated being contentious? It is hard to determine without looking at all of the evidence and comments.
577:
I believe that ArbCom members and admins are responsible to the community, and that except in very rare circumstances, be prepared to explain their actions.
604:- If you are a current ArbCom member: What, if anything, has happened on this issue in the past year? What role, if any, are you personally playing in it?
81:
processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
1113:
137:
know that I can think of one that they did not handle well, which is distinguishable from coming to the same conclusion that I would have reached.
369:
Does the English Knowledge (XXG) have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
778:
I also use these questions in my voter guide, and the latter four were actually general questions asked in 2012, which I asked be used again.
120:
Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
785:
inevitably require sanctions." Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
1016:
applies, and the material appears to be appropriately removed. You also have to remember that I can't see the contents of the diffs after
1130:
479:
250:
I don't think so off the top of my head, but I'm not familiar with the process. I don't have a clue until I am working in the area.
1202:
502:
1012:
it should be. Third, I have not seen a diff showing that ArbCom instructed admins to undelete potential liable. In any event,
39:
1137:
I agree with it. Blocks and site bans should not be punitive and we should try everything possible prior to banning someone.
960:
659:
933:
which they did under restrictions. Later, after I had been back to editing for awhile, those restrictions were lifted.
645:
which they did under restrictions. Later, after I had been back to editing for awhile, those restrictions were lifted.
314:
1073:
appropriate when the risk is to the entire project, such as a block for legal threats or disruption across all areas.
329:; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.
65:
What skills and experience, both on Knowledge (XXG) and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
546:
Do not address the "Phil Sandifer desysopped and banned" motion in this question, it will be addressed in Q4 and Q5.
356:? c) What should be done when there is conflict between WikiProject or subject "experts" and the greater community?
326:
322:
318:
310:
306:
1068:
when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)?
352:
What is the purpose of a WikiProject? b) What is the relationship between stewardship of WikiProject articles and
955:
What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the
220:
userrights on request during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
849:
806:
761:
712:
687:
679:
217:
213:
1200:
for creating, a DYK, to GA, and to FA. That's probably the most significant, but my favorite has to be
159:
What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
499:
465:
Nearly 10 years from the beginning of the Arbitration Committee, what is your vision for its future?
386:
a) Usually, not always. b) Of course. Each individual and case must be evaluated on its own merits.
956:
551:
I believe that the Kevin motions (both of them) showed an appropriate use of the motion system.
1192:
1163:
907:
757:
708:
683:
675:
610:- All candidates: Do you have any specific proposals that you can offer to address this issue?
1197:
1013:
373:
I don't know. I haven't really paid all that much attention to discussions on this subject.
353:
197:
946:
496:
453:
disputes in the past?) Why do you think that some content disputes not amicably resolved?
295:
78:
1030:
188:
For the most part, it has been true, and should be. There will always be exceptions.
1159:
981:
903:
772:
639:
get more time later today, I'll email ArbCom for clarification on what I can say.
1196:
was the first that I took to featured article status, and for which I received a
1112:
The United States justice model has the highest incarceration rate in the world (
1176:
1083:
1017:
42:, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.
536:
Simple matters can be handled more efficiently by motion than a full case.
523:
Simple matters can be handled more efficiently by motion than a full case.
564:
to harm another editor over a content dispute is not acceptable. Period.
1133:). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
69:
The ability to talk to all types of people and to arrive at a consensus.
196:
What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the
38:
Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom
865:
Yes, it should be used, and it is of considerable direct importance.
1129:
a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see
335:
What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case
212:
Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the
590:
I don't know, it depends on the nature of the other information.
280:
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
99:(probably most) people don't need that drastic a wake-up call.
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013
204:
Little to none. Admins should be able to handle this task.
934:
931:
670:
646:
644:
237:
I've already been outed, so I don't see it as an issue.
847:
should be used. I think that the Louisiana system of
337:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping
77:
What experience have you had with the Knowledge (XXG)
990:
Between allowing a fringe POV pusher to roam free in
449:
disputes in the past? (If not, have you mediated any
878:
I don't understand what your question is getting at.
532:step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
424:
Releasing information on the identity of an editor.
176:
I don't have a clue until I am working in the area.
163:
I don't have a clue until I am working in the area.
749:I do not see myself supporting a ban in this case.
668:Question 1 of 3: Please describe what happens in
807:"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
305:The questions are similar to those I asked in
94:generally influence your votes on sanctions?
8:
412:I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.
804:
839:cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
45:
1116:). Is something to applaud or criticize?
302:answers would be appreciated regardless.
825:workshop pages in making any decisions?
480:m:Access to nonpublic information policy
1114:List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
1160:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
420:What is your definition of "outing"?
7:
1086:of interest in framing your reply)
994:, the massive embarrassment of the
478:Have you read the WMF proposal at
32:
682:) 09:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)--
1206:, which just attained FA status.
1203:Menominee Tribe v. United States
961:at the bottom of this draft page
40:selection and appointment policy
853:is more appropriate for ArbCom.
812:code: lat promoted to code: la
1:
1170:06:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
912:13:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
895:of punishment for violations.
886:"Factionalism" (specifically
766:11:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
717:15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
692:22:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
662:candidate, for volunteering.
507:02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
198:biographies of living persons
843:I don't know that a strict
1229:
512:Questions by Sven Manguard
654:Questions by Gerda Arendt
124:Not that I can think of.
50:Candidate has withdrawn.
917:Questions from Hawkeye7
850:jurisprudence constante
805:
1056:Question from Piotrus
756:Thank you, passed, --
445:Have you been in any
1190:Hmm, that's tough.
957:arbcom-l e-mail list
272:Individual questions
1007:case. Second, the
965:in this discussion
621:Question from Heim
79:dispute resolution
1215:
1214:
1193:Ex parte Crow Dog
1062:
547:
286:|Q=Your question
58:General questions
1220:
1166:
1060:
813:
810:
673:
545:
289:
284:#{{ACE Question
46:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1207:
1180:
1168:
1164:
1151:
1138:
1122:
1105:
1092:
1074:
1058:
1046:
1034:
1022:
985:
973:
950:
938:
919:
896:
879:
874:and decisions?
866:
854:
831:
817:
811:
790:
776:
771:Questions from
750:
737:
724:
699:
669:
656:
647:
623:
591:
578:
565:
552:
537:
524:
514:
487:
471:
458:
438:
425:
413:
400:
387:
374:
362:
345:
299:
294:Questions from
283:
274:
265:
251:
238:
225:
205:
189:
177:
164:
152:
138:
125:
113:
100:
86:
70:
60:
51:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
1226:
1224:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1189:
1183:
1179:
1175:Question from
1173:
1158:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1143:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1127:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1110:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1097:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1079:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1066:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1037:
1033:
1031:User:SirFozzie
1029:Question from
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1001:
988:
984:
980:Question from
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
970:
959:, as proposed
953:
949:
945:Question from
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
928:
922:
918:
915:
900:
899:
898:
897:
893:
884:
882:
881:
880:
877:
871:
869:
868:
867:
864:
859:
857:
856:
855:
842:
836:
834:
833:
832:
828:
822:
820:
819:
818:
801:
795:
793:
792:
791:
788:
782:
775:
769:
754:
753:
752:
751:
748:
742:
740:
739:
738:
734:
729:
727:
726:
725:
721:
704:
702:
701:
700:
696:
666:
655:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
632:
626:
622:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
613:
612:
611:
608:
605:
596:
594:
593:
592:
589:
583:
581:
580:
579:
576:
570:
568:
567:
566:
562:
557:
555:
554:
553:
550:
542:
540:
539:
538:
535:
529:
527:
526:
525:
522:
517:
513:
510:
493:
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:
476:
474:
473:
472:
468:
463:
461:
460:
459:
456:
443:
441:
440:
439:
435:
430:
428:
427:
426:
423:
418:
416:
415:
414:
411:
405:
403:
402:
401:
397:
392:
390:
389:
388:
385:
379:
377:
376:
375:
372:
367:
365:
364:
363:
359:
350:
348:
347:
346:
342:
333:
298:
292:
291:
287:
285:
273:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
262:
256:
254:
253:
252:
249:
243:
241:
240:
239:
236:
230:
228:
227:
226:
223:
210:
208:
207:
206:
203:
194:
192:
191:
190:
187:
182:
180:
179:
178:
175:
169:
167:
166:
165:
162:
157:
155:
154:
153:
149:
143:
141:
140:
139:
135:
130:
128:
127:
126:
123:
118:
116:
115:
114:
110:
105:
103:
102:
101:
97:
91:
89:
88:
87:
84:
75:
73:
72:
71:
68:
63:
59:
56:
53:
52:
49:
44:
31:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1225:
1205:
1204:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1174:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1161:
1157:Thank you, --
1148:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1135:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1126:
1118:
1117:
1115:
1111:
1109:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1088:
1087:
1085:
1080:
1078:
1070:
1069:
1067:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1055:
1053:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1021:encyclopedia.
1019:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1000:
999:
997:
993:
989:
987:
986:
983:
979:
969:
968:
966:
962:
958:
954:
952:
951:
948:
944:
935:
932:
927:
926:
923:
921:
920:
916:
914:
913:
909:
905:
892:
891:
889:
885:
883:
876:
875:
872:
870:
863:
862:
860:
858:
852:
851:
846:
845:stare decisis
841:
840:
837:
835:
827:
826:
823:
821:
814:
809:
808:
800:
799:
796:
794:
787:
786:
783:
781:
780:
779:
774:
770:
768:
767:
763:
759:
747:
746:
743:
741:
733:
732:
730:
728:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
705:
703:
695:
694:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
672:
667:
665:
664:
663:
661:
653:
642:
637:
631:
630:
627:
625:
624:
620:
614:
609:
606:
603:
602:
601:
600:
597:
595:
588:
587:
584:
582:
575:
574:
571:
569:
561:
560:
558:
556:
549:
548:
543:
541:
534:
533:
530:
528:
521:
520:
518:
516:
515:
511:
509:
508:
505:
504:
501:
498:
486:Yes, and yes.
484:
483:
481:
477:
475:
467:
466:
464:
462:
455:
454:
452:
448:
444:
442:
434:
433:
431:
429:
422:
421:
419:
417:
410:
409:
406:
404:
396:
395:
393:
391:
384:
383:
380:
378:
371:
370:
368:
366:
358:
357:
355:
351:
349:
341:
340:
338:
334:
332:
331:
330:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
303:
297:
293:
290:
281:
278:
271:
261:
260:
257:
255:
248:
247:
244:
242:
235:
234:
231:
229:
222:
221:
219:
215:
211:
209:
202:
201:
199:
195:
193:
186:
185:
183:
181:
174:
173:
170:
168:
161:
160:
158:
156:
148:
147:
144:
142:
134:
133:
131:
129:
122:
121:
119:
117:
109:
108:
106:
104:
96:
95:
92:
90:
83:
82:
80:
76:
74:
67:
66:
64:
62:
61:
57:
55:
54:
48:
47:
43:
41:
36:
27:
23:
19:
1201:
1191:
1156:
1059:
1051:
1008:
1004:
995:
991:
901:
887:
848:
844:
803:
777:
758:Gerda Arendt
755:
709:Gerda Arendt
684:Gerda Arendt
676:Gerda Arendt
657:
640:
635:
495:
492:
450:
446:
304:
300:
282:
279:
275:
37:
33:
902:Thank you.
658:Thank you,
494:Thank you.
1198:Four Award
1177:User:MONGO
1165:reply here
947:Tryptofish
698:something.
296:Rschen7754
22:Candidates
830:evidence.
671:this diff
218:oversight
214:checkuser
26:GregJackP
1005:Sexology
992:Sexology
660:precious
361:reached.
200:policy?
24: |
20: |
1009:Manning
996:Manning
982:Sceptre
904:Collect
816:France.
773:Collect
451:content
447:content
264:issues.
151:Period.
112:ArbCom.
1014:WP:BLP
470:heart.
354:WP:OWN
325:, and
288:|A=}}
1018:Jimbo
641:ADDED
344:time.
16:<
1131:here
1084:this
963:and
908:talk
762:talk
713:talk
688:talk
680:talk
674:. --
503:7754
500:chen
327:2012
323:2011
319:2010
315:2009
311:2008
307:2007
216:and
888:not
789:No.
636:and
967:?
910:)
764:)
715:)
707:--
690:)
497:Rs
339:?
321:,
317:,
313:,
309:,
1162:|
906:(
760:(
711:(
686:(
678:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.