900:"RFAR/Durova" talk pages - indicative summaries are often OK. The main objections are expectation of privacy, and copyright. While public posting from private communications without permission is forbidden by consensus, the question whether a user can allude to off wiki matters in overview to reduce the "mystery level" of the case ("X emailed me on 3 occasions in each case denying Y". "Z asked for an unblock on IRC") would be allowed. In copyright terms it's fine; in privacy terms it may be or may not be. A large number of disputes at least allude to off-wiki communications, so the question "how much may be stated" is important. Needs discussing.
324:
first offense) against parties violating the injunction. An injunction is considered to have passed when four or more
Arbitrators have voted in favour of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support. A grace period of twenty-four hours is usually observed between the fourth affirmative vote and the enactment of the injunction; however, Arbitrators may, in exceptional circumstances, vote to implement an injunction immediately if four or more Arbitrators express a desire to do so in their votes, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have already voted to support the injunction.
409:
that is quoted in the cited text, and any recipients who are being publicly named. They should be submitted privately to the
Committee or any active Arbitrator instead, with full email headers included. Where such permission is not forthcoming, a user wishing to cite from private correspondence on the Arbitration related pages may only do so if they obtain an arbitrator's opinion what is acceptable to post, and any redaction or summarizing needed, and the post is in accordance with that opinion.
756:"A content issue is one where the committee is being primarily asked to decide as editors, between facts and viewpoints within a mainspace article, or to choose which are 'good' or 'bad' templates, categories, layouts, etc, as opposed to addressing the principles and disputes surrounding these choices, and analysis of the compliance or otherwise of editors' activities with established communal policies and norms."
440:. Arbitrators are expected to assess their neutrality for each case and to take note of the concerns of others. An Arbitrator who may be perceived to have significant past interactions should either recuse, or else should disclose any prior issues (privately or on-wiki as appropriate), and explain the basis of their belief they are able to assess the case neutrally, if necessary.
620:
were at any stage, other than Jimbo's as project leader. The most accurate description of policy change is probably that it would be some kind of tripartite decision between Jimbo, the community, and the then-committee. Probably in realistic terms it would end up like the Arbcom elections, ie communally discussed and Jimbo final say.
419:
efforts to complete voting on the proposed decision within 7 days after the draft decision has been posted to the proposed decision page. However, these time guidelines are advisory, and no remedy will follow if the arbitrators are unable to meet them due to the press of other business or the complexity of a particular case.
779:
in such a circumstance is exactly that, to say "this is how to avoid dispute"... If a better response exists then the community might develop it, and the development of a better longer term answer should be supported by the committee; the interim solution should be aimed at helping make that possible.
778:
It isn't ideal, but bluntly, if people are having a wheel war or unable to agree some major issue (BLP etc) then it may be best to say "this is the best we can do for now" until better comes along. Part of Arbcom's remit is "divisive issues between admins" which that would be, and the committee's job
408:
Personal writings (including emails, other website posts, chat logs, and other writings or quoted material, which are not intended by their respective author(s) to be readable by anyone at will), should not be posted on-wiki except with explicit permission of the communicants, authors of any material
95:
The
Arbitration Committee members are appointed by Jimbo Wales in his role as project leader, following advisory elections whose format is decided by the community. At times interim appointments may be made or terms extended by Jimbo Wales due to early departures or long term inactivity, without such
939:
Proposed wording is a problem because it's too easy as worded to wikilawyer recusal. "A history of disagreements"? Alternate wording suggested that actually explains the principle of what recusal is about. ("Prompt and considered response to the issues" is a wording designed to prevent wikilawyering
698:
Two issues here. (a) Blocked or topic-banned users are not prohibited from editing, they are permitted to edit their talk pages or more, (b) Do we want anyone with a 24 hr 3RR block or whatever, to appeal it to Arbcom, or should there be a minimum period (eg, Arbcom only reviewing indefinite blocks,
619:
Rationale: the community only proposes matters that relate to the
Committee and the Arbitration process. For example, in the Arbcom elections, the community votes and Jimbo decides who to appoint based upon that vote. For those who view everything as a communal decision, Arbcom related matters never
418:
The arbitrators will use their best efforts to have a proposed decision drafted by an arbitrator, either on the workshop page or on the proposed decision page, within 7 days after the 7-day evidence period is closed (i.e., within 14 days after the case is opened). The arbitrators will use their best
305:
Where the facts of a situation are substantially undisputed and the committee believes that it can issue a fair, well-informed, and useful remedy without opening a full-fledged case, it may act by open motion which will be proposed and voted upon on the requests for arbitration page. Adopting such a
223:
Whether to accept or decline a request for arbitration is a matter of the arbitrators' discretion, which will be exercised in the best interests of the project and its contributors. Arbitration represents a forum for the binding resolution of disputes that cannot be or have not been resolved through
144:
Where necessary, to deal in a summary fashion with urgent and emergency situations, such as those involving blatant abuse of administrator or other privileges, threatening or malicious conduct presenting a danger to the project or its contributors, and other situations that require immediate action
323:
At any time between the opening of a case and its closure, the arbitrators may enact "temporary injunctions" to remain in effect until the case closes. Such injunctions take the form of remedies outlined below and are enforceable by blocks of appropriate length (usually no more than 24 hours for a
301:
The committee will not reach a final decision on whether to accept or decline a case until there has been a reasonable opportunity for affected editors to comment. Once there are sufficient votes to accept, a waiting period of 24 hours will be observed before the case is formally opened, unless a
190:
For any given case, an arbitrator is either active or inactive; the number of active arbitrators will determine the required quorum for voting purposes. An inactive arbitrator is deemed to be active on a case if they state they are active or by voting on any open matter in the case (including its
393:
Evidence and statements should generally be presented on-wiki, as a matter of fairness to the parties and to allow for review and comment by other editors. However, where appropriate as a result of privacy or other considerations, editors may also forward evidence or statements via e-mail to the
290:
Administrator or steward actions by Jimbo Wales taken in his special capacity (e.g., summary bannings or desysoppings) may be appealed to the committee. These cases are subject to acceptance under the same criteria as applied to other cases, and the committee may sustain, modify, or overturn the
171:
Good communication and high standards are expected of arbitrators. More so than administrators, they are expected to enact high standards even under reasonable pressure. Arbitrators will explain their Wiki conduct and matters relevant to their trusted roles, to their colleagues, if their actions
494:
In deciding cases, the arbitrators will rely upon factors including established
Knowledge (XXG) customs and common practices, policies and guidelines, the reasonable expectations of the parties and the community, governing real-world norms including Wikimedia Foundation mandates, how comparable
164:
Arbitrators are users endorsed and trusted by the community to undertake some of the most sensitive and wide ranging issues within the community. The trust of the community, the integrity and good faith of arbitrators, and the high standards expected, are to be respected in private wiki-related
526:
When the proposed decision is in final form, an arbitrator will move to close the case. Four net votes in favor of closing the case are required. A grace period of a minimum of twenty-four hours shall be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case and the going into effect of those
490:
If the arbitrators determine at any time that issuing a formal decision in a case would serve no useful purpose (such as because of a change of circumstances, e.g. the voluntary resignation of an administrator whose conduct is the subject of a case) or that they are unable to reach a majority
389:
Except in unusual circumstances, a period of 7 days from the case opening will be allowed for the parties and other interested editors to present evidence and workshop proposals before the case proceeds to a proposed decision and arbitrator voting. Editors may continue presenting evidence and
262:
The committee is most likely to hear a case despite the absence of prior dispute resolution where the case involves an unusually divisive dispute among administrators (e.g., "wheel warring" situations), where there has already been extensive discussion with wide community participation (e.g.,
196:
A member of the committee who has been unreliably active or has been inactive for an extended period, may be asked by the
Committee to remain inactive on formal cases until the matter is resolved or, in exceptional cases, may be removed without prejudice from the Committee by decision of the
688:
Conflicts with "scope", and may need amending to match it. As well, there will regularly be disputes (of an unpredictable nature) which need solution, and which the community cannot resolve, or does not resolve well. May be better to simply start with the classic definition of "last
482:
Each substantive statement or topic of principles, facts, or remedies shall be placed in a separate paragraph for purposes of voting. Where multiple statements or remedies have been combined in a single paragraph, they will be separated for voting at the request of any
515:
The arbitrators may discuss and deliberate on cases on their private mailing list, particularly where warranted by privacy or similar factors, but the substantive basis for the final decision should be apparent from the decision itself or from arbitrators' comments on
340:
will create the standard "evidence", "workshop", and "proposed decision" pages. In the course of doing so, the committee or a clerk will designate the case with an appropriate casename. The name of the case is for purposes of speedy identification only,
207:
An ex-arbitrator who resigns voluntarily may reclaim his or her seat at any time, until the date their appointment would have ended had they not resigned. Jimbo Wales may veto re-instatement, or remove an
Arbitrator from the Committee, upon reasonable
499:
In exceptional cases of communal division or exceptional risk of harm to the project, the
Committee may determine a interim means to achieve the aims of communal policies or to curtail dispute in the area, until the community has developed a better
486:
A majority vote of the active, non-recused arbitrators is required for the adoption of any portion of a decision. An arbitrator who abstains on a particular proposals is not counted in determining the required majority for purposes of that proposal
796:
Better wording. Also noting that "any admin" can at times be a perennial source of Wiki problems; the equally troublesome wording "any arbitrator may..." is best avoided too; known recipe for problems. Also remove redundant wording and add
478:
The format of decisions shall generally follow the established format of principles (general statements of policy), findings of fact (findings specific to the case), remedies (binding rulings regarding what is to be done), and enforcement
911:
Time limits are good, but concerned about pledging limits that may rapidly prove unmet. How will the
Committee ensure it achieves these? How will it cope with the predictable "blocks" -- eg people are absent? Busy? Don't vote? Need more
462:
Cases are decided by the full
Arbitration Committee rather than by panels or subcommittees. All active arbitrators (i.e., those not on leave or away from Knowledge (XXG)) are entitled to participate in each case, unless an arbitrator is
348:
Evidence, statements, and workshop proposals may be added to the case pages by the parties, interested others, and the Arbitrators themselves. Generally, the best evidence consists of, and should be supported by, Knowledge (XXG) edits
423:
If any stage of a case extends (or seems likely to extend) beyond the usual time allocated, then any Arbitrator should advise the community, and post an update giving details of progress and explanation no less than once every seven
558:
The Arbitration Policy and Committee are delegated by Jimbo Wales in his role as project leader of English Knowledge (XXG). Changes to the policy should only be made with the approval of Jimbo Wales or of the Committee
537:
When a case is closed, any immediately applicable remedies shall go into effect. Thereafter, allegations that an editor has violated an Arbitration Committee ruling may be raised (with notice to the affected editor) on
184:
Arbitrators may participate in either off-wiki or on-wiki committee tasks or both. Arbitrators who are (or are likely to be) inactive will advise the Committee and will be noted as inactive on-wiki when that is the
401:, or urgency. Editors whose conduct is under review in connection with such a case will be advised and given the opportunity to submit evidence before any action is taken, except in true emergency situations.
852:
The seemingly minor word "during" is the one that needs tightening. Does this mean "while mediation is in progress", or "statements made in the course of the 'requests for mediation' process"? I think the
784:
Also changed "policies and guidelines" to "norms and practices" (more to the point) since norms are what govern much of Knowledge (XXG) and inform its policies, and policies and guidelines are implied in
647:
As Arbitration Policy, this needs to explain how the Committee are selected. The current answer is "Jimbo appoints following advisory elections. The elections are managed and their format decided by the
191:
acceptance). An active arbitrator may become inactive on a case by striking out their voting on any open matters and stating they are inactive. An inactive arbitrator may comment without becoming active.
81:(ArbCom). The Arbitration Policy was originally created and adopted in 2004, and has been updated in 2008 by consensus of the community as endorsed by Jimbo Wales and the Arbitration Committee itself.
37:
Arbitration policy and arbitration requests governs some of the projects most sensitive areas. They are not lightly amended, and should be carefully thought about. Possible edits for discussion are in
397:
The committee may determine by majority vote that an entire case should be considered off-wiki, but this will be done only in extraordinary circumstances where warranted by considerations of privacy,
148:
To appoint certain functionaries of the English Knowledge (XXG), including holders of the CheckUser and Oversight privileges, which may be granted to arbitrators and/or to other experienced editors.
775:
Reconciling policies is a significant area of RFAR (what happens when WHEEL and BLP conflict, or BLP and NPOV?), and it is better in such cases to have a temporary consensus than an admin war.
597:
Doing the role may require identification to WMF, since a user who is not identified may not access the arbcom mailing lists, and will be barred from a disproportionate number of discussions.
309:
Where the committee declines a case, the individual arbitrators may express their views on other means available for resolving the dispute, to which the parties should give due consideration.
699:
or blocks of a month or more, where communal appeal has failed)? Note that "abusive block" appeals are covered below. I have dealt with this by simply observing that we don't have to say
266:
The committee will consider, but is not bound by, the views of the parties to a request for arbitration and comments by other interested users in deciding whether or not to accept a case.
381:
for some behaviors, but the Arbitration Committee will usually consider the presentation of such evidence grossly improper unless the Mediation Committee has been consulted and affirmed
856:
Is this literal? Without any exception no matter what? Death threats, outings, admission of serious real-world harassment, whatever? Quick check requested if this is genuinely literal.
752:
Isn't specific on "content issue". We get people regularly trying to argue what is and isn't one. Well worth killing that recurrent issue. Add a footnote to the policy, to clarify:
630:
626:
263:
contested "community ban" situations), or where there is other specific reason to believe that engaging the earlier steps of the dispute resolution process would not be productive.
46:
445:
Any user may ask an Arbitrator to explain a non-recusal, and a prompt and considered response to the issues is expected. Concerns beyond this should be raised with the Committee.
527:
remedies passed in the case, unless four or more Arbitrators vote to close the case immediately, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have voted to close the case.
294:
The committee will accept a case for review provided that at least four arbitrators vote to accept the case, and more arbitrators vote to accept than to reject the case. (
224:
other means. In general, the committee will require that editors show that they have exhausted other means of dispute resolution, such as talkpage discussion to attain
32:
17:
271:
The user may be allowed a limited unblock for the purpose of editing the relevant arbitration pages only, by decision of the committee (via on-wiki vote if requested).
743:
Another omitted area... documenting the norms here, and proposing reasonable norms where no clear norm exists (eg voting and inactivity, or inactivity and removal).
239:
The arbitration process primarily addresses disputes involving user conduct, rather than content disputes concerning the contents of articles or similar issues.
235:
While the Committee reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute at its discretion, the following are general guidelines for the case acceptance process:
152:
The Committee has no jurisdiction over official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation, nor over any Wikimedia project(s) other than the English Knowledge (XXG).
269:
In cases seeking review of a lengthy block or community ban, the blocked or banned user may forward his or her request for review to the committee by e-mail.
591:
The Committee reserves the right to experiment with new forms of page structure for RFAR cases, consistent with the present aims, concepts and approaches.
940:
by an arbitrator, whereby a response might be given that does not actually speak to the issue nor explain their basis for believing they can be neutral.)
495:
situations have been addressed by the committee and the community in the past, and the best interests of the project, the parties, and the community.
291:
action of Jimbo Wales. The rule that Arbitration Committee decisions may be appealed to Jimbo Wales for his review does not apply in these cases.
475:
Proposed decisions shall be posted and voted on on-wiki unless otherwise determined by a majority of the committee based on extraordinary cause.
574:
543:
451:
Any arbitrator may recuse from any case at any time prior to voting, or not post a vote on any matter, with or without a reason being given.
132:
539:
471:
Previous Arbitration Committee decisions are considered to be useful and informative, but are not binding on future committee decisions.
112:
569:
135:
are suitable for arbitration and should be accepted and opened as cases, and to carefully review and render decisions in these cases;
105:
78:
244:
The purpose of the arbitration process is not as a vehicle to create new policy. However, the committee's decisions can interpret
96:
elections, but where possible these should be drawn from past arbitrators or candidates who ran successfully in a recent election.
284:
508:
of any provision whose meaning is unclear to other arbitrators, the parties, or other interested editors should be clarified
886:
A case which involves serious "real world" issues such as legal and harassment, may not always be possible to hold on-wiki.
252:, may recognize and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy may be enforced.
897:"By permission" is a clear exception. Otherwise this is the simplest solution - thanks to Jayvdb for the suggestion.
715:
Move this to the top, it affects the Committee's actions and discussions of all kinds, not just RFAR cases. Reworded
358:
102:
This isn't ideal but it's the current norm. Rewrite this if a process for alternate Arbitrators is agreed upon.)
675:
671:
55:
447:
Recusal should not be sought or granted on trivial grounds, nor after the case has entered the voting stage.
874:
378:
229:
225:
302:
majority of all active arbitrators have voted to accept the case or otherwise directed by the committee.
579:
921:
Communication and courtesy. "Any arbitrator" precisely so it doesn't get hung up in discussion, since
534:, except where the case involves review of one of Jimbo Wales's own administrator or steward actions.
390:
proposals after this period, but by that point the arbitrators may have moved on to the voting stage.
869:
Original proposal ignored Mediation policy, and WJBScribe states it is incorrect - the privilege is
844:
594:
Matters flagged for discussion - process for alternate Arbitrators; case acceptance vote criteria.
367:
616:
Arbitration Policy should say how it can be amended, and also say where Jimbo fits in, and why.
436:
Arbitrators are not expected to be free of "history" of interaction with each user and topic,
337:
951:
Former decisions will not be binding, as the Committee is expected to learn from experience.
542:. If necessary, requests for clarification or modification of any decision may be placed on
276:
275:
The committee will automatically accept cases that have been referred to it for decision by
370:
530:
Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to modification by,
70:
332:
The process of considering and deciding cases is subject to the following guidelines:
306:
motion in lieu of opening a case requires a majority vote of all active arbitrators.
145:
or are not suited for on-wiki discussion because of privacy or similar concerns; and
491:
decision, they may decide by majority vote to dismiss the case without a decision.
415:: How much about an off-wiki communication may be stated or alluded to on-wiki?).
531:
354:
350:
129:
To act as last resort (other than Jimbo Wales) for Knowledge (XXG) disputes
404:
The length of statements and evidence may be subject to reasonable limits.
124:
The Arbitration Committee has the following duties and responsibilities:
52:
464:
438:
but their ability to reach a decision neutrally and fairly is paramount
504:
Decisions will be presented in clearly written English. The wording
544:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification
202:
An arbitrator may resign at any time, for any or no stated reason.
375:
may not be used against them in any resulting Arbitration case.
279:
and is likely to accept cases that are referred to it by formal
399:
risks of harassment, legal or other serious "real world" issues
703:
users may appeal in the policy itself, so it's basically moot.
138:
To consider and address appeals from blocked or banned users.
104:
The structure and membership of the Committee is discussed at
875:
Knowledge (XXG):Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation
69:
represents the final step in the English Knowledge (XXG)'s
77:
describes and provides guidelines for the workings of the
172:
cause concern, and (privacy permitting) to the community.
727:
This is a critical missing area in the proposal, for me.
667:
663:
659:
364:
As a matter of policy, editors' behavior and comments
298:: This is a proposed change from the existing policy.)
131:, to determine which requests presented by editors at
111:
Arbitrators must meet the Foundation's criteria for
18:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration policy proposed updating
953:. Omitted from current policy, unclear why. Re-add?
602:
Notes and explanations (for policy update proposal)
586:Open items (still looking at these in the draft)
336:When a request for arbitration is accepted, the
769:
767:
765:
815:Still being discussed. Broadly, should it be
739:
737:
735:
733:
8:
711:
709:
935:
933:
931:
843:Accurate, but sanity check needed for two
25:
723:
721:
660:Arbitration Committee ruling on age limit
575:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration
133:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration
612:
610:
606:
540:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration enforcement
657:Taken from Arbcom election pages, eg,
345:, and has no substantive significance.
570:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee
106:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee
31:This page represents a review of the
7:
834:name often changes at close of case.
643:
641:
625:See also proposed policy talk page,
232:, before proceeding to arbitration.
817:"accept if a majority of <X: -->
521:Case closure and subsequent matters
24:
627:#Issue 2: Jimbo-related policies
822:"accept if more than <Y: -->
672:WT:ACE2007#Ruling on age limit
361:, or other verifiable sources.
35:dated 17:58, 11 October 2008.
1:
385:that they will not oppose it.
56:12:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
823:arbitrators feel concerned"
818:arbitrators feel concerned"
631:#Issue 6: Formal correction
979:
806:Better word than "action"?
580:Meta:Arbitration Committee
377:An exception exists under
214:Arbitration case processes
197:Committee and Jimbo Wales.
178:Inactivity and resignation
165:discussions, as in public.
47:summary on discussion page
676:WT:ACE2008#Identification
343:may change prior to close
85:The Arbitration Committee
113:access to nonpublic data
90:Membership and selection
949:Original policy reads
413:Flagged for discussion
394:Arbitration Committee.
371:requests for mediation
359:official mailing lists
33:first proposed version
873:always absolute. See
467:in a particular case.
79:Arbitration Committee
847:aspects as worded.
366:in the course of an
353:"), log entries for
219:Scope of arbitration
100:Flag for discussion:
296:Flag for discussion
285:Mediation Committee
250:norms and practices
925:may post about it.
154:(Moved from below)
140:(Partial deletion)
75:arbitration policy
73:procedures. This
71:dispute resolution
41:and explained via
355:MediaWiki actions
338:Arbitration Clerk
64:
63:
970:
963:
960:
954:
947:
941:
937:
926:
919:
913:
909:
903:
893:
887:
884:
878:
867:
861:
841:
835:
832:
826:
813:
807:
804:
798:
794:
788:
771:
760:
750:
744:
741:
728:
725:
716:
713:
704:
696:
690:
686:
680:
678:
655:
649:
645:
636:
614:
506:and significance
383:prior to posting
379:Mediation policy
313:(Moved to above)
120:Responsibilities
26:
978:
977:
973:
972:
971:
969:
968:
967:
966:
961:
957:
948:
944:
938:
929:
920:
916:
910:
906:
894:
890:
885:
881:
868:
864:
842:
838:
833:
829:
814:
810:
805:
801:
795:
791:
772:
763:
751:
747:
742:
731:
726:
719:
714:
707:
697:
693:
687:
683:
668:Jimbo statement
658:
656:
652:
646:
639:
615:
608:
604:
588:
566:
555:
523:
459:
432:
357:, posts to the
330:
328:Case management
321:
259:
221:
216:
180:
161:
122:
92:
87:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
976:
974:
965:
964:
955:
942:
927:
914:
904:
902:
901:
898:
888:
879:
862:
860:
859:
858:
857:
854:
836:
827:
808:
799:
789:
787:
786:
782:
781:
780:
761:
759:
758:
745:
729:
717:
705:
691:
681:
670:. Background:
650:
637:
635:
634:
622:
621:
605:
603:
600:
599:
598:
595:
592:
587:
584:
583:
582:
577:
572:
565:
562:
554:
549:
548:
547:
535:
528:
522:
519:
518:
517:
513:
502:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
468:
458:
455:
454:
453:
448:
442:
431:
428:
427:
426:
420:
416:
405:
402:
395:
391:
387:
362:
346:
329:
326:
320:
317:
316:
315:
310:
307:
303:
299:
292:
288:
273:
267:
264:
258:
255:
254:
253:
242:
220:
217:
215:
212:
211:
210:
204:
199:
193:
187:
179:
176:
175:
174:
160:
157:
150:
149:
146:
142:
136:
121:
118:
91:
88:
86:
83:
62:
61:
59:
29:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
975:
962:Clarity edit.
959:
956:
952:
946:
943:
936:
934:
932:
928:
924:
918:
915:
908:
905:
899:
896:
895:
892:
889:
883:
880:
876:
872:
866:
863:
855:
851:
850:
849:
848:
846:
840:
837:
831:
828:
824:
819:
812:
809:
803:
800:
797:transparency.
793:
790:
783:
777:
776:
774:
773:
770:
768:
766:
762:
757:
754:
753:
749:
746:
740:
738:
736:
734:
730:
724:
722:
718:
712:
710:
706:
702:
695:
692:
685:
682:
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:2008 election
661:
654:
651:
644:
642:
638:
632:
628:
624:
623:
618:
617:
613:
611:
607:
601:
596:
593:
590:
589:
585:
581:
578:
576:
573:
571:
568:
567:
563:
561:
560:
553:
552:Policy change
550:
545:
541:
536:
533:
529:
525:
524:
520:
514:
511:
507:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
474:
472:
469:
466:
461:
460:
456:
452:
449:
446:
443:
441:
439:
434:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
410:
406:
403:
400:
396:
392:
388:
386:
384:
380:
374:
372:
369:
363:
360:
356:
352:
347:
344:
339:
335:
334:
333:
327:
325:
318:
314:
311:
308:
304:
300:
297:
293:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
272:
268:
265:
261:
260:
256:
251:
247:
243:
241:
238:
237:
236:
233:
231:
227:
218:
213:
209:
205:
203:
200:
198:
194:
192:
188:
186:
182:
181:
177:
173:
169:
168:
167:
166:
158:
156:
155:
147:
143:
141:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:
125:
119:
117:
116:
114:
109:
107:
101:
97:
89:
84:
82:
80:
76:
72:
68:
60:
58:
57:
54:
50:
48:
44:
40:
34:
30:
28:
27:
19:
958:
950:
945:
922:
917:
907:
891:
882:
870:
865:
839:
830:
821:
816:
811:
802:
792:
755:
748:
700:
694:
684:
653:
557:
556:
551:
510:upon request
509:
505:
498:
470:
450:
444:
437:
435:
422:
412:
407:
398:
382:
376:
365:
342:
331:
322:
312:
295:
280:
270:
249:
246:or reconcile
245:
240:
234:
222:
206:
201:
195:
189:
183:
170:
163:
162:
153:
151:
139:
128:
123:
110:
103:
99:
94:
93:
74:
66:
65:
51:
42:
38:
36:
845:'lawyerable
648:community."
532:Jimbo Wales
483:arbitrator.
479:provisions.
319:Injunctions
277:Jimbo Wales
67:Arbitration
500:consensus.
629:and also
457:Decisions
248:existing
230:mediation
226:consensus
43:footnotes
689:resort".
564:See also
368:official
257:Requests
853:latter.
820:... or
559:itself.
465:recused
430:Recusal
373:process
283:of the
281:request
159:Conduct
923:anyone
208:cause.
912:time?
785:this.
487:only.
424:days.
351:diffs
185:case.
16:<
674:and
666:and
39:bold
871:not
701:how
516:it.
228:or
53:FT2
49:).
930:^
764:^
732:^
720:^
708:^
662:,
640:^
609:^
349:("
877:.
825:?
679:.
633:.
546:.
512:.
411:(
287:.
115:.
108:.
98:(
45:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.