Knowledge talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop/Archive 1

3320:

Connolley's comments that I've ignored, I'd be happy to do so. If anyone else thinks it would be useful, tell me on my talk page and I might answer there in a very bland way. I find that I'm tense about some of the evidence because it brings up bad memories (I don't know how I'd get through this if I had to go through the crap that Lar and some others have gone through). When it comes to William M. Connolley, I find it almost impossible to avoid pulling out the loose threads in his comments and unravel them in a teasing way, partly because it provides me with some comic relief. At first, this seemed useful in pointing out to William M. Connolley that he might want to apply his statements about others to himself, or to deflect his rudeness in a funny way. But after a while, I can't really justify it, and if I respond, I can't really avoid teasing him, which I'm realizing is probably not productive and possibly harmful, so I think this is the best way to avoid temptation. All good fun has to come to an end sometime. I'm not even asking that William M. Connolley stop his comments, but I am asking that arbs make note of them and consider what this says about his attitude. I will say this about his comment above: If William M. Connolley is concerned about evading evidence limits, such as, say, the 00:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC) deadline, he doesn't have far to look.

1110:"vested" contributors appears, well then POV sets in and it's a pain in ass to deal with vested interests within a non-profit model. Especially when there are very little paid staff to handle the high maintenance service that vested folks require. Folks interested in "vesting" members with special rights, would be better off fund-raising or paying memberships fee's to cover their cost for fairly qualifying them as "vested" and enforcing their special rights. Frankly, it nearly impossible to have a non-vested group (Arbs and Admins) appointing rights to "vest" special users, without going to the Board of Directors. This is the wrong forum, plan on the long haul and take it to the Board if you want special status. 2458:

environment in climate change articles" followed by "Editor Y is topic/site banned for his or her conduct". The question of what to do with admins who have been contributing to the poor editing atmosphere is more difficult. Risker noted (in the opening comments to the case) that traditionally admins are desysopped if their judgment is found wanting, as topic banning them leaves them a lame duck unable to convincingly act in other areas (as people will question their judgment). I'm not convinced that this is the best approach, as we want admins to get involved in this area without fear of being sucked in and desysopped if they crack under the strain.

2328:

addressed. I've basically avoided most of the scientific global warming articles, but I feel they should sound less like activist literature and explain clearly the key mechanisms of the theory that are currently marginalized and obfuscated - namely, that the catastrophic models are based entirely on theoretical "positive feedback" effects. Personally, I think the track records of past models should be explained somewhere (perhaps they are?), but I doubt there would be consensus for such information and it probably shouldn't be in the main global warming article (perhaps in an article about climate models though).

2220:

others in the 'Questions to the parties' section, so I'm posting a notice here so that: (a) this is not totally unexpected; (b) so people can note here whether they will be around this week (there is a holiday weekend coming up in the US); and (c) so that people can discuss how such questions should be handled (this section of cases is rarely used, but I would like to use it in this case). If I ask anyone a direct question (as opposed to a general question directed at anyone who wants to answer) I'll drop a note on their talk page, though it will still be a day or two until I get to that stage.

464:

resolution in the decision. That would be based on factors such as whether they are the types of matters on which we can opine intelligently, whether they are the types of matters that the community is willing for the Arbitration Committee to resolve, whether they can be answered in a way that will provide useful guidance for future editing, and whether enough evidence has been presented for us to address each of them. The wording of the questions should not become a primary focus of anyone's work on the case, and critiques by editors of one another's questions are unlikely to be helpful.

255:

investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should be abrogated?" How do you think I would ask that question (IE, write for the enemy) I'll give you a hint: "Is the massive disruption caused by Scibaby appropriately dealt with through the plodding RFCU process, and it's archaic "not for fishing," requirements, or are more serious and direct measures required to deal with the persistant disruption?" Same question, except it assumes the opposite starting point. Find a way to write an answerable question, please, as opposed to a polemic.

2312:

sources properly, to work on the articles. In addition, there is a need to identify the admins that will firmly and fairly help enforce a productive editing environment (and firmly remove from this area admins that are not helping that process). The only problem being whether any editors or admins will be left standing at the end of such a review. This gives rise to my first general question, which is do any of those participating in this case intend to change their approach based on the discussions that have taken place so far, and if so in what way, and if not why not?

1240:. I was most interested in the general matter: my sense is that people have expressed frustration that civility is being prized over the development and maintenance of high-quality content - that is, people are more readily sanctioned for "incivility" than for consistently degrading article content. That's not quite the same as claiming an exemption from civility; it's more like asking that we re-evaluate how "creation of a serious, respectable reference work" and "in an atmosphere of mutual respect and camaraderie" should interact to achieve the project's goals. 2656:

step on the clerks toes, a good starting point would be not to step on their toes to basically revert an administrative act already made. A good starting point would have been to have read the various discussions so as to know that this had already been done - unless that was the specific intention, to overrule the clerk. I hope Carcharoth has a more good faith explanation than this. Another way to avoid toe stepping would be to discuss reverting the clerks actions with them, rather than reverting their actions and then telling anyone who will listen that

721:

some do. I've sometimes made mind-numbing edits to " in poetry" articles, and even I don't know why I get some satisfaction out of it. Well, actually, I do: I feel that I'm doing something that will help someone, and I like the final result. I guess that's the reason so many of us occupy ourselves with drudgery here. I'll tell you one thing -- it's a helluva lot more satisfying than bickering, and you can listen to the radio or television while you do it. Although that probably doesn't apply as much to GSCC ... --

1322:

for non-profit status, assuming it met all the other requirements, as a site owner who chose to address them from a political or religious or popular-cultural or any other point of view, or indeed one that chose to do its best to approach them from a neutral point of view. How best to apply our NPOV norms in the context of this particular subject-matter is an issue that may be addressed in the context of this case, although we would have no authority (nor inclination) to overrule policy by abrogating NPOV itself.

1342:

they like to be immune from PA removal? Would they like to control drafting final RFC findings? Would they like to veto an admin block? Would they like to overrule an arbcom finding? Would they like their vested POV to become Knowledge's definition of NPOV? Would they like to increase Knowledge's costs to everone for their new vested services? If Knowledge charges membership fees, does this affect the non-profit status? How would an abusive "expert" be diciplined?

648:

these points to be major issues then I am very likely to have an opinion of my own on them (and would wish the conclusions of others to be that of mine). My preferences for a certain result, however, are not the point - my point is that the issues I have voiced I would prefer to have addressed within this case. I would hope that this is the case for all those who have tried to frame questions that address concerns that they feel should be examined within this case.

47: 2394:

efforts in this matter, I have enjoyed the challenges, and think I helped improve the situation that was prevailing. Obviously, for various reasons the probation did not succeed in the manner it was hoped. I think I have served my time in this area, and will leave the next group of volunteer syops a clean sheet from which to admin whatever this case concludes is the best method of regulating the volunteers choosing to edit these articles.

751:

between ArbCom members and admins would be very useful in helping admins not repeat some mistakes. ArbCom will get complaints about admins, and if the complaints are public, admins are more likely to take them seriously, wondering if ArbCom members will. Private conversations among admins and arbs are going to be very useful in either reassuring admins or adjusting their behavior or strategies. There will still be plenty of mistakes. --

2366:

editors or admins will be left standing" was just rhetorical. The political issues and controversies about climate change are big and heated, with a lot of division in public opinion, so people are going to continue to come to Knowledge and will try their hand at editing the articles, and you will have the same problems down the line. 2/0 has offered some ideas on systemic solutions. They need to be looked at carefully. --

349:." The goal of arbitration is to "break the back" of the dispute at hand. That means answering unanswered questions, clarifying unclear issues, and solving unsolved problems. Pointed or loaded questions don't advance the situation. These questions are not the place to present evidence or argument, and I will remove any that blatantly attempt to do so. ~ 1718:

something in after the deadline you acknowledge the risk of it not being read, but it would be unwise of the Arb's to disallow or remove something based on procedural reasons alone (as in, it was late). So sneak it in after the deadline if you can and people may see it, just don't think you are intitled to cry foul if no one read it.

3377:

evidence in the expectation that we would be selecting the issues to address in advance of the evidence (and our instructions may not have been clear in this regard), the time for editors to post additional evidence or workshop proposals is extended through 1159 on Wednesday, July 7. No further extensions should be expected.

1210:, then we might attach some value to Kagan's expertise and make some extra effort to retain him as an editor, even if he got unpleasant with the tenth or hundredth person to stop by advocating Randy's viewpoint. Of course, we might also ask Kagan to refrain from editing the BLPs of prominent sword-skeleton proponents. 3201:

I wasn't aware of the deadline either, but I don't think the Committee is composed of fools so I haven't bothered to submit any diffs. This is for the same reason that I no longer edit the articles and only comment on them to note egregious errors that I am sure can be resolved without controversy.

2898:

The fifteen days given for evidence just happened to be extremely busy for me in real life, and I know of at least one other editor who has been on vacation for most of the evidence period. I tried to find time to collect, filter and present the mountain of evidence that is relevant to this case, but

2457:

a finding saying saying "Editor X is messing with the scientific consensus in climate change articles" followed by a remedy saying "Editor X is topic/site banned for his or her conduct" is more likely. Ditto for stuff like "Editor Y is failing to work with others and is contributing to a poor editing

2327:

Okay, I'm not sure how bad this will sound, but my basic plan is to either move on and not edit these articles again if I feel the environment is going to remain the same (e.g. more time spent arguing than content-work) or, if the situation changes, I'll work on some of the problems I feel need to be

2219:

I've just returned from a wikibreak and have been reading through the evidence and workshop proposals for this case (and the other open case). I intend to comment on the evidence talk page, and on the workshop page for this case this week, and I also intend to pose some questions for some parties and

1933:

A sanction that was specifically said not to apply to Arbcom. And don't worry MastCell, I'll include a small section for you in my evidence page - there is a long history of you and a couple other admins defending WMC et all. The fact of the matter is that you people keep on bringing up the "science"

1643:

The questions are intended to frame some topics worthy of discussion. In this instance, at least two of the three issues raised in ScottyBerg's questions are things we are obviously going to consider addressing in the final decision, so it's a bit of a moot point whether the questions are removed for

907:

I could compile a great deal of evidence for this case, depending on which issues ArbCom wishes to focus on. If ArbCom wishes to remove the editors it feels are not contributing to a stable and healthy editing environment, I would compile an assessment of the behavior and editing of the most frequent

750:

Yes, exactly. I think that on most articles, Knowledge does well with a pretty freewheeling way of coming to consensus and working with others. When we get into intractable disputes like this, I'd rather see more authority exerted, as long as it's accountable authority. I expect private conversations

715:

Possible? I think so. I assume that if ArbCom seriously considers the matter it would (a) privately agree to try to set this up; (b) ask around, privately, to see if it can find some admins willing to do this; (c) make it part of the decision if it has already privately come up with either a definite

613:

If we are going to separate "Issues for discussion" from "Evidence", then I'd like to suggest that the clerks enforce some sort of decorum. Otherwise it seems like just another venue for venting. I agree that in the majority of the questions/issues presented, it seems like the presenters already have

483:

Speaking of questions that imply answers... Polargeo's question may be more suitable as evidence. I think the matters it queries are adequately covered in other questions, and the rest perhaps ought to be moved? It may be necessary to counsel him about proper decorum in an arbcom case, as I'd hate to

196:

so dire a threat to mankind that extraordinary measures ought to be taken and some things here changed a bit to deal with the topic area. If so, I'd like that made explicit rather than implicit, though. As to 3, I don't follow your objection, exactly. Could you elaborate? In any case I'm very open to

176:

I found your question "Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence, investigation, and process, including allowing the accused some chance to speak for themselves, should be abrogated?" to be one-sided. A better way of writing that question without assuming the conclusion can be

3411:

Re evidence relating to matters raised in one of the various RfAR's which instigated this case, but not presently addressed, rather than every participant evidencing their comments made there could it be made clear which issues the Arbs have in mind? This would allow those commentators and any other

3197:

Historically, the Arbitration Committee has not objected to relevant evidence. But if a case depends crucially on someone trawling through hundreds of thousands of edits to find something relevant, presumably those who believe the case exists must already have done most of the work by reading those

2992:

Why are you complaining *now*. You were clearly notified of the case rules when the case was opened. Complaining that the rules are being followed isn't good. @AQFK: if you really have to troll back years, then you have a problem. If you really can't find anything juicy prior to, say, the opening of

2344:

I intend to focus strongly on saying things once and not responding when merely told that I'm wrong. My failure is consistently getting into back-and-forths that merely provide ammunition against me. Instead of responding to things I think are people going right over the line, I'm going to refer all

2311:

and work together on articles in an atmosphere of mutual respect. In my view, what is needed here is to identify the editors and admins that depart from the standards needed here, to firmly remove them from the area for a time, and allow those editors who are prepared to work with others, and to use

1886:

If the clerk wanted it collapsed then s(he) is fully capable of doing it. You are well aware of your restriction on deleting, "archiving," collapsing and modifying other people's comments - something you and your friends were so abusive with you actually had to be formally sanctioned for it. And was

1321:

Please be assured that the Arbitration Committee will be able to resolve this case without taking any action that threatens to harm the Wikimedia Foundation. For what it's worth, the owner of a site that addressed all science-related issues from a purely scientific point of view would be as eligible

1109:

It's feasible for Knowledge to define a class of members based on qualifications; however, that's not the real issue in this dispute (it's a straw man to cover for your behavior). I suspect Knowledge favors growing "newbie" membership (and content) over protecting a "vested" group. Once a class of

1058:

view in ArbCom that carriers very little if any weight. Public and civil organizations, that are open to all, generally don't allow such exclusive rights. Knowledge could lose it's non-profit status. I'll save the details for if the arguments proceed; however, I want to provide advanced notice for

770:

We have very occasionally appointed a small committee of administrators to deal with a specific issue arising from a decision; I believe the Ireland naming case was one such instance, and if I check the list of precedents I might come up with a couple of others. I don't know whether that's something

720:

ambitious enough to want the even greater glory of ArbCom membership or some other elective post. I have no idea why this is satisfying to some people, but apparently there are people willing to do it. I don't see how vandalism patrolling or fixing spelling errors would be fun either, but apparently

629:

That's an interesting theory of mind, but as for mine, I don't think I know the answers that ArbCom is likely to give. Else I wouldn't have asked them. Especially the one about GW being so important that we ought to do things differently than normal. I honestly think we should give that idea careful

301:

Not a helpful comment. You're doing it again. I changed my questions. If you have further comment that's useful and actionable, I'm willing to hear you out, though. I suggest my talk so as not to monopolize this page. But drop the invective, please. We are all of us imperfect. Some of us realise it.

2955:

Historical evidence is necessary for establishing a pattern of behavior over a long period of time. It also plays a role in determining the root cause of these disputes, some of which have been raging for years. It would also help to disarm the argument that recent conflict is due to recent outside

2485:

We might split the page, with all content-related posts on a new page and the more usual, traditional behavior-oriented posts on this page. I think that reflects a deep, wide chasm in the subject matter, and behavior-oriented comments and sections are unlikely to reference the content-oriented ones

1717:

Arbcom has never been good with deadlines, which is due to it being made up of volunteers and not paid workers. No one is getting fired for being late around here. My interpretation is that Arbcom puts up 'deadlines' to spur people into action rather than as a 'gotcha' for being late. If you put

699:

This has come up a couple of times, e.g. in JohnWBarber's question. Is this remotely possible? It's not as if we have the problem of a large set of uninvolved admins standing ready to be appointed - on the contrary, we have a small and somewhat inbred group with various degrees of (un-)involvement.

647:

I am pretty sure, also, how I would like ArbCom to handle this case and to what findings they make; and I am almost as sure that my wishes will not be fulfilled in every event, and even aware that I may see the reverse of what I want. Of course I know the answers I would prefer, since if I consider

437:

One thing that always seems to happen with cases like this, and I probably share some blame for this also, is that the parties start trying to campaign for their side on the case talk pages. I believe the Committee members are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions in the case, and don't

2675:

Weakopedia, as a Clerk I serve and aid the Committee, plain and simple. If Carcharoth wants something done, it might be a nicety to have me do it instead, but at times a bureaucratic nicety. Moreover, as an arbitrator Carcharoth is in a better position to say when things go off-topic. I already

2393:

I will probably walk away from adminning the area, following the conclusion of this case, regardless if there is a version of Enforcement request retained or not. I was volunteered into it, took it on, and will carry on working the enforcement pages until the case concludes. I am quite proud of my

1341:

Well, let's get real then ... Can someone help me understand what special considerations the proposed qualified SPOV "experts" are seeking? How would their credentials be fairly assessed ... verified and validated and rights maintained? Would they like to sustain an edit after a revert war? Would

502:

It is perhaps the most obvious of the leading questions, yes. However, there are issues in almost all of the presented questioners. You may wish to review my most recent edit to my questions to see what I'm talking about. In fact, I have not seen a single presentation of questions that was not, at

3376:

Arbitrators will be preparing a draft decision in the near future. However, some of the arbitrators will have little or no availability for the next few days because of the holiday weekend in the United States. Because of this, and because at least one editor appears to have held off on posting

2655:

I thought the clerk told you that if there was any collapsing needed they would do it. And I thought your past behaviour had put you on some kind of restriction about messing with other peoples posts, which is a second reason not to let you specifically collapse things. If Carcharoth wants to not

2056:

So he doesn't like being called William, Will, Bill, or Connolley? He insists upon being addressed as "Doctor Connolley," "WMC" or "William Connolley?" Well, in that case, since I have no plans on calling lawyers or those with PhD's in underwater basketweaving by that title then I'll use the term

1806:

A reminder to all editors - the Workshop proposals and discussion are not the place to rehash content discussions over and over again. There have been thousands of bytes added over the past day or so, and while a lot of it has been constructive there has also been a tendency to devolve back into

1221:

I disagree with you on that point. I believe at least two editors have stated fairly clearly that they don't believe that the civility policy applies to them when it comes to defending the content of the global warming articles from "morons" and "scientific illiterates." Those two editors have,

1132:

I strongly suggest that people not respond to this further. There is about a zero percent chance that any action taken on any of these articles will impact the WMF's non-profit status. If anyone had a serious concern about this, as opposed to raising it on the talk page of a workshop page, they'd

662:

Prefering one answer is very different than asking a question designed to get only one answer. My preferred answer to "How do we deal with SciBaby?" is "Ban every SPA who shows up at global warming. If they complain, topic ban them from all Global warming for 6 months. If they survive 6 months of

404:

LHVU 5, Cla68 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Lar 2, 3, 6, Polargeo 1, ATren 1, 2, 3, 4, as they all assume the conclusion, and do not lead to a helpful basis for discussion - they are all either implicitly limiting, or merely polemic questions - asked to get a "yes, obviously," to structure that individual as

341:

The questions are what you would like to be seen answered in the Committee's decision final decision. It would necessarily behoove you to present evidence directed toward answering your questions, and any that others posted that you feel should be dealt with, as well as eventually give proposals

3205:

The science is well established and, according to prominent scientists who have been consulted, well represented on Knowledge. Whatever happens in this case, it will continue to represent the science accurately, else Knowledge would have dropped the ball for the first time since its inception.

3118:

Judging from the tight deadlines, I suspect that the Committee, or at least one or two of its members, already have an idea of the remedy that they're going to suggest to close this case. They can correct me if I'm wrong. Until they do so, I would suggest that everyone can keep adding relevant

2840:

C (and I cannot recall how to spell the name, also) was not so well inclined to my proposal which you note under the BUT heading, the point being that neither of our proposals in regard to the reporting of the denialist viewpoint is sufficient in the opinion of that admin. Perhaps that one Arb's

2481:

It's at 337K now, and we've barely begun. I can't believe it won't top 1 million within the next seven days, and it won't stop growing then. It will become difficult, then next to impossible to download or figure out where new comments are. Asking editors to keep down the size of their posts and

2306:

do is address editors who fail to use sources properly, who fail to work productively with others, who disrupt article editing, and who disrupt attempts by admins to carry out administrative actions, and ArbCom can also address admins who misuse their administrative tools, or take a wrong-headed

2184:

I demur that this is too long for the arbitrators to read and consider. Many of the pages are, in fact, the index and the blank boilerplates for other editors. Nor is this anywhere near the record length for such a page. Dividing pages up tends to make individual parts almost invisible, alas.

1962:

Oh and my only "ongoing violation" was that I responded to Bozmo on a user talk page - I respected that "ban" that 2over0 unilaterally imposed by diff mining/misrepresenting by not posting at any global warming related articles. I get a 3 month ban for a damn user talk post while 2over0 couldn't

880:

I trust this means that arbitrators will read the term broadly in the context of this case as used by JWB—it hasn't been decided that the term "sanction" now henceforth defined as any remedy adopted by the committee. In particular, a user receiving a caution can answer "no" if asked (at RfA, for

810:

In various places I have seen things like "X is to be done within Y days after posting of the case." For the sake of clarity, could these instances be annotated with a specific date and time? For example, "All (evidence, questions, comments, whatever) must be entered by 28 June at 16:47 UTC" or

3372:

It will not be possible for us to determine which of the issues identified by various editors can be addressed in the final decision, until we have reviewed the evidence submitted. Therefore, editors should continue to address those issues within the scope of this case that they feel should be

3319:

From this point forward, I am going to ignore comments from William M. Connolley that are obviously time-wasting posts equivalent to arguing about angels on the head of a pin and obviously not meant to be helpful. If any ArbCom member thinks it would be useful for me to answer any of William M.

2365:

I found I occasionally drift into some of that behavior, which bothers me. In reviewing some of the diffs and past discussions while hunting for diffs, I found some editors responded with much more restraint to bad behavior than others, and I found that inspiring. I take your comment about "any

2088:

Lar pointed you at a page; you could try reading it. I wrote it because I was bored explaining civility to people again and again. My recommendation is to use WMC, because it is simple enough that spelling problems rarely arise; even Lar has fallen victim to this problem above (no, don't bother

3209:

Obviously the Committee already realises how important it is that we continuue to represent science accurately on Knowledge, but I still think it's worth saying here this time and a couple of times more. The Committee knows how to deal with behavioral issues, where those issues are beyond the

3030:

I assumed you were hoping to examine hundreds of thousands of diffs dating back 5+ years. I apologise for my misunderstanding, looking at your comment now I still can't quite see how I managed to misunderstand you. However, the essential point remains: it is too late to complain *now*: you had

2611:

The sub-issues section could be usefully split off to a subpage and the talk page of that subpage used to discuss which sub-issues are relevant or will be considered by ArbCom. I don't want to tread too much on the toes of the clerks (though I did collapse one bit of clearly off-topic workshop

2301:

The primary problem here seems to me to be one of sources and the competence and collegiality of editors when discussing and interpreting sources and writing articles based on those sources. This problem was then magnified when administrators started disagreeing over what to do to try and help

2276:

Well, the person is question has been in surgery since 11 this morning (some sort of infection in/around the heart) and they've had to replace two valves so far. I've been a bit busy helping out with various logistical details and if he suddenly dies then I expect my time here will be severely

1287:

That is certainly the story that would like to be presented, but it doesn't really sync up with reality. I'm honestly not sure if I should provide evidence to show how badly the encyclopedia articles have suffered since it'd be such a monumental task and I already have too much crap to compile

735:

I do think this would be a good idea if it could be pulled off. If the admins were appointed by Arbcom then presumably everyone would have in mind that Arbcom was watching, which would help keep admins on the straight and narrow while at the same time giving them more implied authority to act.

2970:

If there is not enough recent evidence then it is not a current problem. Also in many instances such as BLP, sourcing etc. wikipedia was playing by different rules 3 years ago. It is just not helpful to examine old diffs in most of the circuimstances I can see in this case. With the length of

2145:

Shortly before the deadline, I added a question about Short Brigade Harvester Boris' behavior in my subissues list. I looked into the matter a bit further and didn't find reason to bring this up here. When I put the question up, I had one problematic edit that bothered me a lot and was sure I

1909:

due to ongoing violations). While it seems reasonable to allow you latitude to participate in this case, that latitude isn't intended as a way for you to sidestep your ban and continue to flog your personal viewpoint on climate change. I don't really care whether the discussion in question is

1151:

ZP5's point is provocative. If a Knowledge editor claims special privilege and exemption from WP's policies based on professional or declared expertise in a given subject, and then goes and adds arguably damaging or threatening information to a BLP, does that create a legal problem for the

463:

I can't speak for other arbitrators, but I plan to use the questions as a universe of issues that could be addressed in the final decision. I would then expect to group some of the questions or topics together (in my mind, anyway), and then ask myself which of the questions are suitable for

2612:

discussion, and will collapse more as I find it) so maybe someone could point the case clerk towards what I've said here? In general, issues of keeping the pages under control is something for the clerks to deal with, so please do ask them to weigh in here and help keep things manageable.

2034:

for more) "Connolley", bare, is not a preferred appellation of WMC. It is common courtesy not to do that. "Dr. Connolley" is acceptable. Please extend others the courtesy you expect them to extend to you. You should consider changing the section heading to conform to this request. Thanks.

254:

Lar, do you see how some of your wordings could be viewed as merely polemic questions designed to get the reader to say "yes, that's right," as opposed to a neutral question that imparts the view of both sides? You state " Is the "Scibaby threat" so dire that normal standards of evidence,

1088:

Of course, It would depend on how "experts" are allowed to harm others by Knowledge. Any organization that allows it's members to harm others is suspect to civil, if not criminal charges. Best not to define harm, until someone feels harmed. Even better to uphold civility above all else.

1746:

It is longstanding ArbCom practice to deduct 7.5 points from the final score for each editor who submits past the deadline. Scotty and WavePart, I'd be very careful not to get in evidence past the deadline, becasue 15 points deducted will just kill your arguments in the final rounds. --

269:

Please stop hectoring me, Hipocrite. I have made some modifications, because as I said I would, I took your input on board. My questions were 'answerable' before I started, actually. Do you take input on board as readily? You are not exactly a stranger to writing polemics, you know.

850:

I assume an ArbCom remedy that "advises" or "cautions" an editor without providing any other remedy is still considered a "sanction". When I use the word "sanction" in my list of subissues, that's what I mean -- essentially "should some ArbCom remedy apply to editor X for this?" --

3464:

One of the things that strikes me is how nebulous this whole process is. A general topic is advanced, "climate change," and editors are given no guidance as to what the committee is focusing on. At some point the committee should say, "we'd like to hear on subjects X, Y and Z."

1700:

I'm curious to know which two are obviously going to be considered and the which one isn't. As for the deadline, it's not not clear to me whether this is a "hard" deadline as you find in court, or not. Personally I don't see why it is such a big deal, but I speak as a violator.

951:

Thank you for your advice, which contained several misconceptions, but I would prefer not to overload ArbCom with useless evidence if I don't have to. The section was titled the way it was for a reason. Please let individual arbitrators or arbitration clerks answer my question.

716:

list or has reason to believe that there are enough admins to do this. We've had quite a few admins step up to do this thankless task already in the past five months. I assume that being appointed by ArbCom to do this difficult task would be a feather in the cap of any admin

2345:

over-the-line comments to appropriate noticeboards, and stop responding when it becomes clear I'm just being baited. Further, I'm not going to even acknowledge the existence of the scores sockpuppets - instead, I'll leave articles till the sockpuppetry problem is fixed.

2146:

remembered other problematic edits, but when I looked, I found I was mistaken. It was a question, not an accusation, but it has almost the effect of an accusation, so it shouldn't remain on the page once I've decided I won't be taking it any further. It's now withdrawn.

2811:

Which is to say, asserting that the coverage of all aspects, both consensus, non-consensus, and not being affected by either, is well covered. I personally think this is true; you might disagree; that is all right. However, notice the odd asymmetry of response from C:

191:

Well as to Scibaby, I didn't think your question is a substitute, or I wouldn't have asked mine. As to 2, I think the evidence likely to be introduced will do fine at showing that it happened... that's not the point. As I've said before, I do sometimes think that AGW

2590:

It's not likely that splitting a 1 MB page into two 500 kB or four 250 kB pages will make things any easier. It might even make things worse, by having the material more fragmented. The problem is not the length of any individual page but the total mass of verbiage.

2940:

Not that I disagree about the lack of time, but, given the "preventative, not punitive" approach, what good would 3 year old evidence be? If there is no current problem, no action is needed. If there is a current problem, there should be plenty of current evidence.

2253:

I'm sorry to hear that. If I do have any questions for you directly, I'll leave those until later, though I'm going to comment on the workshop now and may comment on some of what you and others have said there, but that is not something that needs direct responses.

2660:

should go tell the clerk. Is Carcharoth an admin or a mouse? If he believes the clerk isn't doing their job he should discuss that with them, not just take over their job, revert their actions, not discuss anything and avoid direct contact by the use of proxies.

1133:

contact legal. If ArbCom wants to hear more about how these actions might impact the tax status of the foundation, of course, they could communicate with the plebians, who could then present it - but currently, the effects on the tax status are not in the

1906: 177:

found in my presentation of questions - "How are new, single-purpose accounts to be dealt-with in the area?" I additionally take issue This with your questions 2, which assumes that such has happened, and question 3, which assumes that such has happened.

197:

suggested alternate wordings, but the wording needs to address the points I am trying to bring out as needing answering (for example, your sock question is not a substitute for mine as it doesn't address the specific points I think need answering) ++

2802:

So LHVU's POV (which, it is now clear, he has been using his "uninvolved" admin position to push through the probation) is that while the consensus view is well represented the non-consensus position isn't. I disagree with him, and hence wrote:

383:

I don't follow that there is necessarily a need to introduce evidence because a particular question is raised. If the questions I ask admitted easily of evidence, I'd probably just introduce the evidence and then introduce findings in workshop.

2168:

I think the workshop page is now about 130 pages long on my browser window. By moving every set of proposed final decisions of each editor to a separate page, things become better readable. Also, one can then use the talk pages of these pages.

3064:

WMC is right - this case will be happening regardless, and that makes this a fruitless discussion. ATren, the Committee will be soliciting opinions after the case about the procedures, so that would be a good time/place to bring this up. ~

534:

Your questions remain full of accusations - perhaps more than the now revised Polargeo question, which used to be "the most obvious of the leading questions." Unlike you, however, when presented with deficiencies in my questions, I fix them.

3206:

That's all I care about. I don't care who does the editing as long as the science is correctly represented in accordance with Knowledge's policies. I would not give a fig for an encyclopedia that failed to represent the science correctly.

1011:

Some of the comments above are not helpful. In answer to the original question, both types of evidence would be useful to the arbitrators, although there is no prejudgment at this stage as to what form the final decision will take. Regards,

663:

doing something else, apologize." I did not ask "SciBaby is a growing and dangerous threat who has created 600 socks and has inserted purile vandalism into hundreds of articles. Should strong measures be taken to quell this ongoing threat?"

1934:

of global warming as some sort of defense for your behavior and if that is the case then people should know what the science really consists of and that WMC is here just to promote the views of some of his rather controversial friends.

3220:

I just became aware of the deadline issue myself. I don't know to what extent, if at all, I would contribute evidence etc., but myself and am sure quite a few other editors have been away, this being the July 4th holiday in the U.S.

82: 158:

Conversely I'd rather not imply answers. If anyone thinks any of my questions do that I want to know about it, and I will try my best to revise them (or take suggestions on board from others on wording). Please let me know.

3241:

JWB's "analysis" in the abovenamed section is an abuse of the "analysis of evidence" section; it merely introduces more evidence, apparently in an attempt to evade the evidence limits. I request that it be removed

1963:

stand to have WMC blocked for even a single hour. Odd how he did that to several people, not even bringing it to the enforcement page, but never to any non-skeptics whose behavior has been demonstrably much worse.

2158: 2855:

There is a simpler explanation, which is that WMC has picked up on an inconsistency in what I said (and I thank him for that). I've looked over what I've said so far on the workshop page, and it seems that the

2906:

I respect the reasons for trying to limit the size of this case, but I think the evidence time limit was too tight, and as a result, much will not be presented and will have to be dealt with in another case.

1053:

Folks, if you look into the ArcCom documentation, you will see that the SPOV argument and similar arguments that their nominated "experts" are allowed special privileged are doomed to fail. In short, it is a

1985:

Heavily involved editors should not be collapsing sections of text. If the arbs have a problem with I will remove/rehat text, but what's there is there and it's not for parties to make personal calls on.

33: 1611:

Within five days from the opening of the case (i.e. by 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)), participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's

1599: 2816:

Seems a bit pointless. This sort of accolade should be attained through Knowledge's review processes, not through ArbCom. It doesn't matter whether the articles are in a good state or not... (etc etc)

144:

Furhter, what is to be done about questions which imply the answer? I thought questions were to be neutrally worded. I can certainly change my questions to imply obvious answer, if that was the goal.

2462:

Thanks to those who have posted above so far. I will try and post some general questions today or tomorrow, in the actual question section of the workshop page (answers get a bit lost on this page).

1685:@NYB: that was more of an evasion than an answer, and ignores the proposals by WavePart, which don't fit your characterisation. Let me be specific: have those proposlas missed the deadline or not? 3426:

Other than lots on WMC and a little on Polargeo, there's little evidence on the personal conduct of editors who regularly edit this area. If we find other areas worth mentioning here, we will.

1666:(i.e. a "long time" before the evidence deadline) to guide presentation of evidence? I assumed that was why was there a separate deadline for the issues issue (pun accidental, really ;-). -- 2486:

and vice versa, so this would likely be the least disruptive way to split the monster. The longer we wait, the harder it will be; a week from now, I think we'll all be glad we'd done it. --

866:

That's actually a slight ambiguity in the wordings we use, but for purposes of your own proposals, you know what you meant, and since you've told us we will read them accordingly. Regards,

3373:

discussed in the committee's findings and remedies. Also note, some key issues brought up in the three RFARs that resulted in this case have had little on no evidence thus far presented.

3369:

The arbitrators thank the editors who have posted issues for consideration, evidence, and workshop proposals in this case. We are carefully reviewing everything that has been submitted.

1236:

That may be - I haven't followed the entirety of discussion, so without specific diffs I can't comment on what people might have said. Certainly no one should be exempt from following

29: 2879:

You've now removed the inconsistency, which is good, thanks. I still disagree with your argument, though: you can indeed tell something useful from the fact that the pages are good

1059:

contributors to read the Arbcom documentation before proceeding. I would like folks to have a fair hearing; however, there may be less frustration if they look at the precedents.

517:

Two of your four points are not even questions, so I'm not sure what you're driving at. Polargeo's "question" prior to revision was full of accusation. And thus full of fail. ++

503:

first edit, a list of answers to be questions as opposed to questions to be answered, which is why I'm hopeful that arbcom will state which of the questions are to be adressed.

2302:

produce a productive editing environment. I don't think ArbCom should rule on the fundamental competence of editors (though some way of addressing that is needed). What ArbCom

1761:

That can be made up in the lightning round. Everyone knows the final rounds points are worth triple the previous rounds points, essentially making the first two rounds moot.

1184:

Cla68, legal problems occur when someone complains to the court. I would not like to be the lawyer, or member of an organization that allows defamation. Best to prevent it.

2031: 3210:

community's ability to handle them, and the Committee may also be able to provide some clarification of Knowledge's policies that will make things better going forward. --

3157:

I'm concerned about the 15-day deadline too, which I didn't realize was in place until it was almost over. I was hoping to put up evidence of inappropriate BLP editing.

1288:

dealing with the various behavioral issues. Perhaps I'll add a bit on that, but it certainly won't be my focus unless the Arbs decide that it should be the main issue.

937:

think is relevant and let ArbCom decide for itself whether that is the case. If they want an involved party to gather evidence on a specific thing they'll probably ask.

1406:

Thanks (except, if you meant to PA me?) ... should I assume this SPOV stuff folks are concerned about, is a moot and non-actionable point, as far as you are concerned?

3450:

There is indeed a great deal of mud, far too much to respond to in any detail. If you could note some of the diffs which you consider credible, I'll deal with those

2798:

2) The coverage of viewpoints not according to the scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is patchy, inconsistent, marginalised, frequently exorcised, deprecated

3517: 3008:

WMC: I didn't say that there wasn't enough evidence. Quite the opposite, there's too much sift through. Even going through a very recent article such as the

2307:

approach to administrating in such an area. Beyond that, what is needed is a mixture of editors of varying levels of competency and skills who are prepared to

972:

Nothing in my comment prevents anyone else from commenting, so if you want a private conversation the best place is not on the talkpage of an ongoing case!

342:

toward those same ends. Posting pointed questions, however tempting, is a foolish idea - the procedures state very clearly that each question should be "

2922:

Furthermore, they asked us to provide evidence but didn't tell us what issues they were looking to address. I agree, this problem has been going on for

3483:

I have provided some evidence on other editors in addition to WMC. If the Committee needs more, the evidence deadline would need to be extended again.

3523:

Probably accidental. Here was my response: "FWIW, I do not edit in science articles. Indeed, the overwhelming number of my edits are related to the

3009: 2860:

comment I made is the only inconsistent bit, so I will retract that and replace it with something that is more consistent with what I said elsewhere.

2790:

1) The scientific consensus in respect of AGW/CC is clearly, fairly and consistently applied throughout Knowledge, being well sourced and referenced.

3524: 220:"Does the definititon of uninvolved used at CCRE appropriate? If so, does it reflect practice elsewhere? If not, should other practices be changed?" 25: 237:

I will take your suggestions on board but I don't think these rewords get at what I'm actually asking. I'm not sure you've an open enough mind. ++

3546: 3513: 3138: 2596: 1783: 816: 741: 428: 2030:

Thank you. Side note to Thegoodlocust, you really ought to refer to folk by the name or appellations they prefer. If I am not much mistaken (see

3568: 3550: 3536: 3492: 3474: 3459: 3445: 3421: 3406: 3350: 3336: 3314: 3280: 3266: 3251: 3230: 3214: 3184: 3165: 3142: 3128: 3113: 3094: 3054: 3040: 3021: 3002: 2980: 2965: 2950: 2935: 2916: 2888: 2869: 2850: 2832: 2773: 2731: 2713: 2670: 2642: 2621: 2600: 2585: 2545: 2531: 2510: 2495: 2471: 2440: 2419: 2403: 2385: 2354: 2337: 2321: 2286: 2263: 2244: 2229: 2208: 2194: 2178: 2128: 2098: 2083: 2066: 2047: 2024: 1972: 1943: 1916: 1896: 1877: 1859: 1836: 1787: 1770: 1756: 1741: 1727: 1710: 1694: 1675: 1653: 1638: 1623: 1577: 1534: 1515: 1491: 1466: 1432: 1415: 1401: 1383: 1369: 1351: 1331: 1297: 1246: 1231: 1216: 1193: 1161: 1146: 1119: 1098: 1083: 1042: 1021: 999: 981: 967: 946: 927: 894: 875: 860: 835: 820: 799: 780: 760: 745: 730: 709: 689: 672: 657: 642: 623: 599: 561: 544: 529: 512: 496: 473: 447: 432: 414: 396: 378: 314: 296: 282: 264: 249: 232: 209: 186: 171: 153: 139: 124: 1614:

However, this deadline has been broken. I asked the clerk if the deadline mean anything, but he declined to comment. Maybe someone here knows

1762: 1719: 3202:

So far I seem to be hitting .400. It's good to be able to contribute to this subject without upsetting people. That's all I ever wanted.

1222:

among several others, in my opinion, also abused BLP subjects and I think the evidence which should be forthcoming soon will back that up.

908:

climate change editors. If, however, ArbCom wishes to address the more fundamental issues that make this area so turbulent, as they did in

1902: 826:

It would be useful for a Clerk to calculate the specific dates and put them in the instructions. Times of day are not necessary. Regards,

2807:

1) The science in respect of AGW/CC is clearly, fairly and consistently reported throughout Knowledge, being well sourced and referenced.

3271:

This is the correct place to put requests to the arbs / clerks. That is what I've done. If you have nothing to say, please don't say it

21: 2453:

This is a posting of stuff I wrote for a section in the workshop that was a bit off-topic and generalised, so posting it here instead.

3542: 3509: 3305: 3134: 3085: 2764: 2704: 2592: 2015: 1827: 1779: 1568: 812: 737: 590: 424: 369: 115: 438:

need everything that everyone says interpreted for them. Hipocrite and SBHB, just present your evidence and let's get through this.

3045:

WMC: This is my first ArbCom case I've been involved in. I have no experience in these proceedings and don't know what to expect.

3532: 3050: 3017: 2931: 1732:

That sounds fair: if you're late, you may be ignored. Hard-and-fast deadlines don't seem appropriate for something like this.

1198:

I don't think that anyone is claiming an exemption from policy. It's more about how we apply policy in nuanced situations. If

3455: 3346: 3276: 3247: 3180: 3036: 2998: 2884: 2828: 2638: 2541: 2506: 2204: 2094: 1873: 1690: 1619: 1428: 1397: 1392:. OK, let me try again. You are asking what special privs people are asking for? The answer is "none". Is that clear enough? 1365: 1079: 995: 1887:

it you or Bozmo who edit warred to delete comments in a similar situation? Was that the intended outcome this time as well?

217:"Is the editing environment at Global Warming appropriate? If not, is any inapropriatenss mitigated by quality articles?" 2971:

evidence consideration this stuff is at best clutter but more likely it will smoke screen what is really happening now.

2580: 2501:

Perhaps look at the beam in your own eye and consider if some of your rather long comments could be condensed or hatted

2410:

I am not actually involved in Climate Change as a topic, as I was dragged in by the Lar RFC/U. So - no changes here.

2684:, which is why I unhatted it. Carcharoth is entirely in the right here, and intimation otherwise is not helpful. ~ 771:

we would choose to do here, but anyone in favor of such an approach can workshop it and garner comments pro and con.

2057:"WMC." It goes against my beliefs and respect for the medical profession to start calling mathematicians "Doctors." 680:

See my comment on the preceding thread. Objecting to the wording of one another's questions is unnecessary. Thanks.

3528: 3046: 3013: 2927: 63: 54: 17: 3451: 3342: 3272: 3243: 3176: 3032: 2994: 2899:

there wasn't enough time. For a case of this magnitude, involving more than a dozen parties and covering several

2880: 2824: 2634: 2537: 2502: 2200: 2090: 2080: 2044: 1869: 1766: 1723: 1686: 1615: 1531: 1424: 1393: 1361: 1075: 991: 639: 558: 526: 493: 393: 311: 279: 246: 206: 168: 3133:

Agreed. Jimbo told us what the decision was going to be three months ago; we're just going through the motions.

933:

You are an involved party, and your conduct is likely to be discussed. Why don't you just add any evidence that

3417: 2946: 2926:. Who has that much free time on their hands to examine hundreds of thousands of diffs dating back 5+ years? 2846: 2399: 1671: 1511: 1035: 960: 920: 705: 653: 1482:

General observation: Please refrain from unnecessary bickering on this page. Oh, and also, on any other page.

2333: 2282: 2240: 2124: 2062: 1968: 1939: 1892: 1855: 1595: 1462: 1358:

Can someone help me understand what special considerations the proposed qualified SPOV "experts" are seeking?

1293: 3341:

That makes your bad faith and battleground mentality perfectly plain, so I can thank you for that, at least

2482:

avoid unnecessary comments is ... a fine aspiration unlikely to be realized here. (I'll try to do my part.)

423:. Whether and how Arbcom handles this stuff will telegraph much about their intentions regarding the case. 3299: 3211: 3079: 3028:

Who has that much free time on their hands to examine hundreds of thousands of diffs dating back 5+ years?

2758: 2698: 2009: 1821: 1562: 584: 363: 109: 2522:, do you? (I don't think hatting will solve the enormity problem. Condensation? I'll think about it.) -- 3332: 2527: 2491: 2381: 2371: 2329: 2278: 2236: 2174: 2154: 2120: 2058: 1988:

This is about proposals, not the same, boring content disputes that got everyone here. Don't be boring.

1964: 1935: 1888: 1851: 1752: 1649: 1591: 1487: 1458: 1327: 1289: 1017: 871: 856: 831: 795: 776: 756: 726: 685: 469: 130:

Do you know if the arbitors are going to create a finalized list of questions before evidence begins?

3564: 3470: 3257:

That is not in our hands to decide, but solely up to the committee to decide how to weigh evidence.

3226: 2865: 2727: 2666: 2617: 2467: 2317: 2259: 2225: 1865:

Please see the request in the section just above by the clerk, and indeed the note on your talk page

1737: 1706: 1634: 977: 942: 912:, then I would have to tailor my evidence accordingly. Which issue should I focus on in my evidence? 888: 568:

Quit it. Both of you are unnecessarily trying to antagonizing each other and taking the others' bait.

2744:

This was a good idea - I've done it since there's really no need for anyone to be posting there. ~

3413: 2942: 2842: 2518:

But, hey, thanks for the helpful comment. You really don't seem to believe you have a problem with

2436: 2395: 2350: 1667: 1507: 1411: 1379: 1347: 1189: 1142: 1115: 1094: 1064: 1028: 953: 913: 701: 668: 649: 540: 508: 410: 292: 260: 228: 182: 149: 135: 1629:

I'd have no objection to my questions being deleted, if there is a problem with their being late.

2976: 2235:

I doubt you'll have any questions for me, but I may be busy with a funeral/funeral preparations.

2115:

Thank you, I suppose I could "try reading it" and we are all lucky that wikipedia benefits from

619: 1420:

If the above exchange makes no sense, that is because ZP5 has silently amended his comment. See

2993:

the probation, then that should tell you that the problems you're worried about have gone away

2633:

and which the clerk decided was better left uncollapsed. Hopefully he will respect your action

3293: 3262: 3073: 2752: 2692: 2415: 2190: 2003: 1815: 1556: 1207: 578: 357: 103: 2823:

Can you see the consistency failure there? Guess which is a response to LHVU and which to me

1658:

Given that there was an early deadline, is the committee to make use of the assembled points

1522:

Also unnecessary wisecracks. However, not to worry, that one was needful, IMHO. YMMV. HTH. ++

3438: 3399: 3328: 2575: 2523: 2519: 2487: 2377: 2367: 2362: 2170: 2150: 1868:. However, if the clerk is unhappy with my collapse I'm entirely happy for him to revert it 1748: 1645: 1483: 1323: 1055: 1013: 909: 867: 852: 827: 791: 772: 752: 722: 681: 465: 420: 3560: 3488: 3466: 3222: 3158: 3124: 3109: 2961: 2912: 2861: 2723: 2662: 2613: 2463: 2313: 2255: 2221: 1733: 1702: 1630: 1227: 1203: 1157: 973: 938: 883: 443: 1644:

being posted after the deadline or not. Everyone, focus primarily on the merits, please.

2071:

As long as you come up with a term that works for you and meets requirements. Thanks. ++

2432: 2346: 1407: 1375: 1343: 1185: 1138: 1111: 1090: 1060: 787: 664: 536: 504: 406: 288: 256: 224: 178: 145: 131: 2972: 2076: 2040: 1912: 1527: 1242: 1237: 1212: 635: 615: 554: 522: 489: 389: 307: 275: 242: 202: 164: 3258: 2411: 2186: 1199: 2841:

viewpoint is somewhere in the middle, or favouring one or other - we cannot know.

2572:

Remedy E follows Principle Q leads to Enforcement H and is supported by /Evidence.

2140: 3429: 3390: 3324: 2786:

It looks like people have missed my point. So I'd better expand it. LHVU wrote:

62:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3484: 3237:

Request removal of "Evidence about Hipocrite and a WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere"

3120: 3105: 3100:

OK, then. I will take this case off my watchlist, and start preparing for the

2957: 2908: 1423:. That is a violation of the commonly accepted standards of talk page conduct 1223: 1153: 439: 95:

Please place any questions about the specific procedures here. Thank you. ~

2894:

This case will likely resolve nothing, because the deadlines were too tight.

2718:

In that case, I agree with you both - he was right to say that you should "

3173:. Or, you could read the clarification noting that you have until the 7th 790:

is an example, although it's not necessarily one I'm comfortable with. --

419:

I'd make a slightly different list but agree with your larger point about

2072: 2036: 1910:

collapsed or not, but maybe one or both of you could take the high road?

1523: 631: 550: 518: 485: 401:

I'd ask that you carefully review the following questions, Amorymeltzer:

385: 303: 271: 238: 198: 160: 3412:

party with a view to that issue addressing them over the next few days.

990:- this isn't a private conversation, its just one you're not invited to 3198:

highly relevant edits, and must therefore easily be able to find them.

1991:

Thegoodlocust, there is no need to respond so caustically to MastCell.

1582: 2858:

Needs rewording, but something like this could introduce the decision

2819:

Needs rewording, but something like this could introduce the decision

2141:

I'm withdrawing my subissue question on Short Brigade Harvester Boris

1775: 700:

ArbCom can only appoint people who volunteer in the first place... --

1152:

Foundation? Are there any lawyers here who could comment on this?

3170:

Well, you could try reading the messages that people post to you

2682:

eavily involved editors should not be collapsing sections of text

2199:

It would be helpful to collapse irrelevant discussion. See above

570:

Going after each other isn't productive and does nobody good. ~

405:"right," without actually presenting an issue for contemplation. 2164:

Move proposed final decisions of each editor to a separate page?

1842:

Note: WMC has violated the terms one of his probations yet again

3527:

which at best is only tangentially related to actual science."

3380:

This is being posted on the evidence and workshop talk pages.

881:

example) if they have been the subject of an ArbCom sanction.--

549:

Fail. But that makes me think of another question, actually. ++

1498:

Am I to assume from the above comment that you recognise that

1360:- none. You have completely failed to understand the argument 41: 2515:

Don't worry, William M. Connolley, I got them beams covered.

1587:

Due to his claim that he no longer engages in such behavior.

1457:

Thanks for highlighting that WMC - should be enlightening.

3541:

Um ...??? Click the diff. Your comments weren't involved.

2630:

Amusingly, that is exactly the section I collapsed before

2570:, though that might create difficulties with referring to 1583:

i've struck out questions about Hipocrite and sockpuppetry

986:

You seem to have failed to understand the fairly explicit

1137:

list of issues to be resolved, let alone the final list.

3012:

has 34 pages of archives. And that's just one article.

3556: 3506: 3321: 3174: 3171: 2631: 2516: 2429: 2147: 2116: 1866: 1847: 1588: 1421: 1389: 287:

Sure, Lar, whatever. Pure as the driven snow, you are.

3508:

was accidental and leave it for the clerks to handle.

2903:

of conflict, a deadline of 15 days is much too short.

614:

a pretty good idea of the answer they'd like to see.

2309:

recognise their limitations and the skills of others

2032:

User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats

1374:You are welcome to help, with out focusing on me. 842:Does "sanction" in the Workshop guidelines mean 3119:evidence until told to stop by an Arbitrator. 2574:That page is a bit on the long side, though. - 3285:I think it's fine. Not perfect, but fine. ~ 2720:weigh in here and help keep things manageable 8: 1901:Speaking of sanctions, you were banned from 988:individual arbitrators or arbitration clerks 214:"Is SciBaby being dealt with appropriately?" 2376:rewrote a sentence to make it readable. -- 2089:correct it). And no, I don't have a Ph. D. 1337:What SPOV "Expert" rights are being sought? 1072:Knowledge could lose it's non-profit status 3387:For the committee's drafting arbitrators, 1544:Sub-issues questions due in under 20 hours 1074:- this is pushing nonsense to new heights 421:position statements disguised as questions 3010:Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy 1903:all discussions related to climate change 1850:comments he doesn't want people to read. 3525:Climatic Research Unit email controversy 2477:The Gargantuan size of the Workshop page 3555:Yeah, but the original query has been 2722:", and it's a shame that you haven't. 846:ArbCom action, including "cautioning"? 60:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2277:limited. Hoping for the best though. 7: 1548:If you've got 'em, put 'em down! ~ 3031:plently of notice of the deadlines 3501:Deleting others' evidence/comments 40: 3365:Statement by drafting arbitrators 3104:CC case, which seems inevitable. 484:see him disenfranchised early. ++ 3500: 2149:I'm sorry I did that, Boris. -- 1049:SPOV and other similar arguments 566:To quote myself mere hours ago, 45: 2794:but followed it up with a BUT: 2117:your fine teachings on civility 903:Question for Arbitrators/Clerks 223:IE - stop assuming the answer. 1802:Discuss proposals, not content 1: 3543:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 3510:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 3135:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 2593:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1780:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 813:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 738:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 425:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 695:Appointing administrators... 2374:) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 2215:Advance notice of questions 1995:Let's leave it at that. ~ 1388:I don't think anyone could 3589: 2428:Are you sure that's true? 91:Questions about procedures 18:Knowledge talk:Arbitration 2386:14:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 2355:01:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 2338:01:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 2322:01:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 2287:01:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 2264:00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 2245:23:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 2230:02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 2209:17:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 2195:17:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 2179:16:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 2159:14:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 2129:17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 2099:22:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 2084:22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 2067:22:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 2048:13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 2025:03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 1973:01:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 1944:00:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 1917:00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 1897:22:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1878:22:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1860:22:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1837:19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1788:14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1771:14:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1757:20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 1742:15:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 1728:15:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 1711:14:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 1695:08:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 1676:00:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 1654:23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) 1639:22:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC) 1624:21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC) 1600:18:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1578:05:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1535:13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1516:12:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 1492:23:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1467:08:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1433:07:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1416:23:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1402:21:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1384:20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1370:18:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1352:17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1332:23:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1298:16:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1247:16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1232:04:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1217:03:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1202:gets into a dispute with 1194:00:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1162:23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1147:16:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1120:16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1099:16:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1084:15:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 1043:14:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC) 1027:Thank you for answering. 1022:23:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 1000:23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 982:08:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 968:08:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 947:07:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 928:07:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 895:14:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 876:23:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 861:03:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 836:23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 821:00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 800:20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC) 781:23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 761:00:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 746:04:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 731:02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 710:21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 690:23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 673:21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 658:21:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 643:21:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 624:21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 600:20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 562:19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 545:19:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 530:18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 513:17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 497:15:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 474:23:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 448:23:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 433:14:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 415:18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 397:18:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 379:18:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 315:19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 297:19:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 283:19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 265:19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 250:19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 233:18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 210:18:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 187:17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 172:15:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 154:13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 140:13:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 125:00:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 3569:06:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 3551:04:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 3537:04:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 3518:04:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 3493:04:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC) 3475:19:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 3460:16:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC) 3446:16:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) 3422:22:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3407:19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3351:22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3337:21:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3315:17:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3281:17:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3267:16:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3252:15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3231:17:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC) 3215:22:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 3185:23:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 3166:22:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 3143:21:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 3129:19:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3114:18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3095:17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3055:18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3041:17:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3022:17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3003:16:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2981:16:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2966:15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2951:15:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2936:15:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2917:15:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2889:21:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 2870:00:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 2851:22:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2833:08:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2774:17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2732:07:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 2714:17:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2671:09:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2643:09:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2622:00:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2601:00:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2586:22:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC) 2546:08:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2532:23:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC) 2511:20:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC) 2496:18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC) 2472:11:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 2441:18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 2420:15:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 2404:13:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 2558:We could also split by 2460: 1907:later reset to October 479:Questions vs. Evidence 3529:A Quest For Knowledge 3383:Proceed accordingly. 3323:There, now I'm done. 3047:A Quest For Knowledge 3026:Sorry, when you said 3014:A Quest For Knowledge 2928:A Quest For Knowledge 2455: 1905:through August 2010 ( 1807:content disputes. ~ 1605:Meaningless deadlines 58:of past discussions. 3505:I assume (hope) this 3452:William M. Connolley 3343:William M. Connolley 3273:William M. Connolley 3244:William M. Connolley 3177:William M. Connolley 3033:William M. Connolley 2995:William M. Connolley 2881:William M. Connolley 2825:William M. Connolley 2635:William M. Connolley 2538:William M. Connolley 2503:William M. Connolley 2201:William M. Connolley 2091:William M. Connolley 1870:William M. Connolley 1687:William M. Connolley 1616:William M. Connolley 1425:William M. Connolley 1394:William M. Connolley 1362:William M. Connolley 1076:William M. Connolley 992:William M. Connolley 3559:. Thread finished. 2361:Yes. In reviewing 1776:Except on Tuesdays 3312: 3164: 3092: 2782:Missing the point 2771: 2711: 2678:on this very page 2584: 2388: 2022: 1834: 1575: 1537: 1518: 1208:Peloponnesian War 811:similar wording. 630:consideration. ++ 597: 376: 122: 88: 87: 70: 69: 64:current talk page 3580: 3444: 3441: 3405: 3402: 3313: 3308: 3302: 3296: 3290: 3288: 3163: 3161: 3093: 3088: 3082: 3076: 3070: 3068: 2772: 2767: 2761: 2755: 2749: 2747: 2712: 2707: 2701: 2695: 2689: 2687: 2578: 2449:Typical remedies 2375: 2297:General thoughts 2023: 2018: 2012: 2006: 2000: 1998: 1835: 1830: 1824: 1818: 1812: 1810: 1576: 1571: 1565: 1559: 1553: 1551: 1521: 1497: 1204:Randy from Boise 1038: 963: 923: 893: 891: 886: 806:Request to Clerk 598: 593: 587: 581: 575: 573: 377: 372: 366: 360: 354: 352: 347:neutrally worded 123: 118: 112: 106: 100: 98: 79: 72: 71: 49: 48: 42: 3588: 3587: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3503: 3439: 3427: 3400: 3388: 3367: 3306: 3300: 3294: 3289: 3286: 3239: 3159: 3086: 3080: 3074: 3069: 3066: 2896: 2784: 2765: 2759: 2753: 2748: 2745: 2705: 2699: 2693: 2688: 2685: 2479: 2451: 2299: 2217: 2166: 2143: 2016: 2010: 2004: 1999: 1996: 1844: 1828: 1822: 1816: 1811: 1808: 1804: 1763:198.161.174.222 1720:198.161.174.222 1607: 1585: 1569: 1563: 1557: 1552: 1549: 1546: 1339: 1051: 1036: 961: 921: 905: 889: 884: 882: 848: 808: 697: 591: 585: 579: 574: 571: 481: 370: 364: 358: 353: 350: 116: 110: 104: 99: 96: 93: 75: 46: 38: 37: 36: 12: 11: 5: 3586: 3584: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3502: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3414:LessHeard vanU 3409: 3366: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3238: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3196: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2943:Stephan Schulz 2895: 2892: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2843:LessHeard vanU 2821: 2820: 2817: 2809: 2808: 2800: 2799: 2792: 2791: 2783: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2625: 2624: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2478: 2475: 2450: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2423: 2422: 2407: 2406: 2396:LessHeard vanU 2390: 2389: 2358: 2357: 2341: 2340: 2298: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2248: 2247: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2197: 2165: 2162: 2142: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2086: 2051: 2050: 1993: 1992: 1989: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1881: 1880: 1843: 1840: 1803: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1714: 1713: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1668:Stephan Schulz 1609:The page says 1606: 1603: 1584: 1581: 1545: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1508:LessHeard vanU 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1338: 1335: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1050: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 904: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 847: 840: 839: 838: 807: 804: 803: 802: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 702:Stephan Schulz 696: 693: 678: 677: 676: 675: 650:LessHeard vanU 645: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 480: 477: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 399: 344:one-sentence, 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 221: 218: 215: 142: 92: 89: 86: 85: 80: 68: 67: 50: 39: 30:Climate change 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3585: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3476: 3472: 3468: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3442: 3436: 3435: 3433: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3410: 3408: 3403: 3397: 3396: 3394: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3381: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3364: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3311: 3309: 3303: 3297: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3213: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3175: 3172: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3162: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3091: 3089: 3083: 3077: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3029: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2904: 2902: 2893: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2818: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2781: 2775: 2770: 2768: 2762: 2756: 2743: 2742: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2710: 2708: 2702: 2696: 2683: 2679: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2659: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2610: 2609: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2582: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2536:Another beam 2535: 2534: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2483: 2476: 2474: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2459: 2454: 2448: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2392: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2373: 2369: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2343: 2342: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2330:TheGoodLocust 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2310: 2305: 2296: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2279:TheGoodLocust 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2237:TheGoodLocust 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2163: 2161: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2121:TheGoodLocust 2118: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2087: 2085: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2059:TheGoodLocust 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2049: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2021: 2019: 2013: 2007: 1990: 1987: 1984: 1983: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1965:TheGoodLocust 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1936:TheGoodLocust 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1918: 1915: 1914: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1889:TheGoodLocust 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1852:TheGoodLocust 1849: 1841: 1839: 1838: 1833: 1831: 1825: 1819: 1801: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1716: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1604: 1602: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1592:TheGoodLocust 1589: 1580: 1579: 1574: 1572: 1566: 1560: 1543: 1536: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1520: 1519: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1459:TheGoodLocust 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1408:Zulu Papa 5 * 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1376:Zulu Papa 5 * 1373: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1344:Zulu Papa 5 * 1336: 1334: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1290:TheGoodLocust 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1215: 1214: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1186:Zulu Papa 5 * 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112:Zulu Papa 5 * 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1091:Zulu Papa 5 * 1087: 1086: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1066: 1062: 1061:Zulu Papa 5 * 1057: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1039: 1032: 1031: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 984: 983: 979: 975: 971: 970: 969: 966: 964: 957: 956: 950: 949: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 931: 930: 929: 926: 924: 917: 916: 911: 902: 896: 892: 887: 879: 878: 877: 873: 869: 865: 864: 863: 862: 858: 854: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 824: 823: 822: 818: 814: 805: 801: 797: 793: 789: 785: 784: 783: 782: 778: 774: 762: 758: 754: 749: 748: 747: 743: 739: 734: 733: 732: 728: 724: 719: 714: 713: 712: 711: 707: 703: 694: 692: 691: 687: 683: 674: 670: 666: 661: 660: 659: 655: 651: 646: 644: 641: 637: 633: 628: 627: 626: 625: 621: 617: 601: 596: 594: 588: 582: 569: 565: 564: 563: 560: 556: 552: 548: 547: 546: 542: 538: 533: 532: 531: 528: 524: 520: 516: 515: 514: 510: 506: 501: 500: 499: 498: 495: 491: 487: 478: 476: 475: 471: 467: 449: 445: 441: 436: 435: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 417: 416: 412: 408: 403: 402: 400: 398: 395: 391: 387: 382: 381: 380: 375: 373: 367: 361: 348: 345: 340: 339: 338: 337: 316: 313: 309: 305: 300: 299: 298: 294: 290: 286: 285: 284: 281: 277: 273: 268: 267: 266: 262: 258: 253: 252: 251: 248: 244: 240: 236: 235: 234: 230: 226: 222: 219: 216: 213: 212: 211: 208: 204: 200: 195: 190: 189: 188: 184: 180: 175: 174: 173: 170: 166: 162: 157: 156: 155: 151: 147: 143: 141: 137: 133: 129: 128: 127: 126: 121: 119: 113: 107: 90: 84: 81: 78: 74: 73: 65: 61: 57: 56: 51: 44: 43: 35: 31: 27: 23: 19: 3504: 3431: 3430: 3392: 3391: 3382: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3368: 3291: 3240: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3195: 3101: 3071: 3063: 3027: 2991: 2956:influences. 2923: 2905: 2900: 2897: 2878: 2857: 2822: 2810: 2801: 2793: 2785: 2750: 2719: 2690: 2681: 2677: 2676:established 2657: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2484: 2480: 2461: 2456: 2452: 2308: 2303: 2300: 2218: 2167: 2144: 2001: 1994: 1911: 1845: 1813: 1805: 1684: 1663: 1659: 1610: 1608: 1586: 1554: 1547: 1503: 1499: 1481: 1357: 1340: 1320: 1241: 1211: 1200:Donald Kagan 1134: 1071: 1052: 1033: 1029: 1010: 987: 958: 954: 934: 918: 914: 906: 849: 843: 809: 769: 717: 698: 679: 612: 576: 567: 482: 462: 355: 346: 343: 193: 101: 94: 76: 59: 53: 3329:JohnWBarber 3325:Cold turkey 2568:/Enforcemet 2560:/Principles 2524:JohnWBarber 2488:JohnWBarber 2378:JohnWBarber 2368:JohnWBarber 2171:Count Iblis 2151:JohnWBarber 1749:JohnWBarber 1646:Newyorkbrad 1506:necessary? 1484:Newyorkbrad 1324:Newyorkbrad 1014:Newyorkbrad 868:Newyorkbrad 853:JohnWBarber 828:Newyorkbrad 792:JohnWBarber 773:Newyorkbrad 753:JohnWBarber 723:JohnWBarber 682:Newyorkbrad 466:Newyorkbrad 52:This is an 3561:Carcharoth 3557:dealt with 3467:ScottyBerg 3223:ScottyBerg 3160:SlimVirgin 2862:Carcharoth 2724:Weakopedia 2663:Weakopedia 2614:Carcharoth 2464:Carcharoth 2314:Carcharoth 2256:Carcharoth 2222:Carcharoth 1848:collapsing 1734:ScottyBerg 1703:ScottyBerg 1631:ScottyBerg 1502:bickering 1206:about the 974:Weakopedia 939:Weakopedia 885:SPhilbrick 2564:/Remedies 2520:WP:BATTLE 2433:Hipocrite 2363:WP:BATTLE 2347:Hipocrite 1612:decision. 1390:focus you 1139:Hipocrite 1056:WP:FRINGE 910:WP:ARBPIA 665:Hipocrite 537:Hipocrite 505:Hipocrite 407:Hipocrite 289:Hipocrite 257:Hipocrite 225:Hipocrite 179:Hipocrite 146:Hipocrite 132:Hipocrite 83:Archive 2 77:Archive 1 2973:Polargeo 1913:MastCell 1590:Cheers. 1243:MastCell 1213:MastCell 1135:proposed 786:I think 616:Ronnotel 34:Workshop 32:‎ | 28:‎ | 24:‎ | 22:Requests 20:‎ | 3259:Collect 2412:Collect 2187:Collect 788:WP:AUSC 55:archive 2566:, and 1238:WP:BLP 3485:Cla68 3434:levse 3395:levse 3327:. -- 3287:Amory 3121:Cla68 3106:ATren 3067:Amory 2958:ATren 2924:years 2909:ATren 2901:years 2746:Amory 2686:Amory 2680:that 2581:cont. 1997:Amory 1809:Amory 1550:Amory 1224:Cla68 1154:Cla68 572:Amory 440:Cla68 351:Amory 97:Amory 16:< 3565:talk 3547:talk 3533:talk 3514:talk 3489:talk 3471:talk 3456:talk 3440:Talk 3418:talk 3401:Talk 3347:talk 3333:talk 3277:talk 3263:talk 3248:talk 3227:talk 3181:talk 3139:talk 3125:talk 3110:talk 3102:next 3051:talk 3037:talk 3018:talk 2999:talk 2977:talk 2962:talk 2947:talk 2932:talk 2913:talk 2885:talk 2866:talk 2847:talk 2829:talk 2728:talk 2667:talk 2658:they 2639:talk 2618:talk 2597:talk 2542:talk 2528:talk 2507:talk 2492:talk 2468:talk 2437:talk 2416:talk 2400:talk 2382:talk 2372:talk 2351:talk 2334:talk 2318:talk 2283:talk 2260:talk 2241:talk 2226:talk 2205:talk 2191:talk 2175:talk 2155:talk 2125:talk 2095:talk 2063:talk 1969:talk 1940:talk 1893:talk 1874:talk 1856:talk 1784:talk 1767:talk 1753:talk 1738:talk 1724:talk 1707:talk 1691:talk 1672:talk 1664:soon 1650:talk 1635:talk 1620:talk 1596:talk 1512:talk 1500:some 1488:talk 1463:talk 1429:talk 1412:talk 1398:talk 1380:talk 1366:talk 1348:talk 1328:talk 1294:talk 1228:talk 1190:talk 1158:talk 1143:talk 1116:talk 1095:talk 1080:talk 1065:talk 1037:Talk 1018:talk 996:talk 978:talk 962:Talk 943:talk 922:Talk 872:talk 857:talk 832:talk 817:talk 796:talk 777:talk 757:talk 742:talk 727:talk 718:dumb 706:talk 686:talk 669:talk 654:talk 620:talk 541:talk 509:talk 470:talk 444:talk 429:talk 411:talk 293:talk 261:talk 229:talk 183:talk 150:talk 136:talk 26:Case 2576:2/0 2304:can 2073:Lar 2037:Lar 1846:By 1662:or 1660:now 1524:Lar 935:you 844:any 632:Lar 551:Lar 519:Lar 486:Lar 386:Lar 304:Lar 272:Lar 239:Lar 199:Lar 161:Lar 3567:) 3549:) 3535:) 3516:) 3491:) 3473:) 3458:) 3443:• 3437:• 3428:— 3420:) 3404:• 3398:• 3389:— 3349:) 3335:) 3304:• 3298:• 3279:) 3265:) 3250:) 3229:) 3212:TS 3183:) 3141:) 3127:) 3112:) 3084:• 3078:• 3053:) 3039:) 3020:) 3001:) 2979:) 2964:) 2949:) 2941:-- 2934:) 2915:) 2887:) 2868:) 2849:) 2831:) 2763:• 2757:• 2730:) 2703:• 2697:• 2669:) 2641:) 2620:) 2599:) 2562:, 2544:) 2530:) 2509:) 2494:) 2470:) 2439:) 2431:. 2418:) 2402:) 2384:) 2353:) 2336:) 2320:) 2285:) 2262:) 2243:) 2228:) 2207:) 2193:) 2177:) 2157:) 2127:) 2119:. 2097:) 2075:: 2065:) 2039:: 2035:++ 2014:• 2008:• 1971:) 1942:) 1895:) 1876:) 1858:) 1826:• 1820:• 1786:) 1778:. 1769:) 1755:) 1740:) 1726:) 1709:) 1693:) 1674:) 1652:) 1637:) 1622:) 1598:) 1567:• 1561:• 1526:: 1514:) 1504:is 1490:) 1465:) 1431:) 1414:) 1400:) 1382:) 1368:) 1350:) 1330:) 1296:) 1230:) 1192:) 1160:) 1145:) 1118:) 1097:) 1082:) 1067:) 1030:NW 1020:) 998:) 980:) 955:NW 945:) 915:NW 874:) 859:) 834:) 819:) 798:) 779:) 759:) 744:) 729:) 708:) 688:) 671:) 656:) 634:: 622:) 589:• 583:• 553:: 543:) 521:: 511:) 488:: 472:) 446:) 431:) 413:) 388:: 384:++ 368:• 362:• 306:: 302:++ 295:) 274:: 270:++ 263:) 241:: 231:) 201:: 194:is 185:) 163:: 159:++ 152:) 138:) 114:• 108:• 3563:( 3545:( 3531:( 3512:( 3487:( 3469:( 3454:( 3432:R 3416:( 3393:R 3345:( 3331:( 3310:) 3307:c 3301:t 3295:u 3292:( 3275:( 3261:( 3246:( 3225:( 3179:( 3137:( 3123:( 3108:( 3090:) 3087:c 3081:t 3075:u 3072:( 3049:( 3035:( 3016:( 2997:( 2975:( 2960:( 2945:( 2930:( 2911:( 2883:( 2864:( 2845:( 2827:( 2769:) 2766:c 2760:t 2754:u 2751:( 2726:( 2709:) 2706:c 2700:t 2694:u 2691:( 2665:( 2637:( 2616:( 2595:( 2583:) 2579:( 2540:( 2526:( 2505:( 2490:( 2466:( 2435:( 2414:( 2398:( 2380:( 2370:( 2349:( 2332:( 2316:( 2281:( 2258:( 2239:( 2224:( 2203:( 2189:( 2173:( 2153:( 2123:( 2093:( 2081:c 2079:/ 2077:t 2061:( 2045:c 2043:/ 2041:t 2020:) 2017:c 2011:t 2005:u 2002:( 1967:( 1938:( 1891:( 1872:( 1854:( 1832:) 1829:c 1823:t 1817:u 1814:( 1782:( 1765:( 1751:( 1736:( 1722:( 1705:( 1689:( 1670:( 1648:( 1633:( 1618:( 1594:( 1573:) 1570:c 1564:t 1558:u 1555:( 1532:c 1530:/ 1528:t 1510:( 1486:( 1461:( 1427:( 1410:( 1396:( 1378:( 1364:( 1346:( 1326:( 1292:( 1226:( 1188:( 1156:( 1141:( 1114:( 1093:( 1078:( 1063:( 1040:) 1034:( 1016:( 994:( 976:( 965:) 959:( 941:( 925:) 919:( 890:T 870:( 855:( 830:( 815:( 794:( 775:( 755:( 740:( 725:( 704:( 684:( 667:( 652:( 640:c 638:/ 636:t 618:( 595:) 592:c 586:t 580:u 577:( 559:c 557:/ 555:t 539:( 527:c 525:/ 523:t 507:( 494:c 492:/ 490:t 468:( 442:( 427:( 409:( 394:c 392:/ 390:t 374:) 371:c 365:t 359:u 356:( 312:c 310:/ 308:t 291:( 280:c 278:/ 276:t 259:( 247:c 245:/ 243:t 227:( 207:c 205:/ 203:t 181:( 169:c 167:/ 165:t 148:( 134:( 120:) 117:c 111:t 105:u 102:( 66:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop/Archive 1 - Knowledge

Index